From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 07:15:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 10:15:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <5593124A.2040905@sero.name> References: <20150630.152626.19374.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> <5593124A.2040905@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150701141526.GB24797@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 06:03:54PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/30/2015 03:26 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : >>From what I've seen, it is NOT said even if a minyan says Birkas Hamazon, : : Why would it? When a minyan says Birkhas haMazon, the zimun changes, it creates a minyan one may not break (by benching on their own or with a normal zimun), but no Qaddish. When a minyan says Pesuqei deZimra, nothing changes, there is no specific issur on leaving in the middle, and yet it is closed with Qaddish (even if you lose the minyan during PdZ). I think RAM's question why is quite fair. It would be nice to think the minhag follows some well-defined rule. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 05:35:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:35:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bio of RSRH Message-ID: <20150701123548.93E2D182CC3@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/p5h866u From this URL. When Rav Yisroel Salanter read a copy of The Nineteen Letters in 1873, he said that it should be translated into Russian and Hebrew. He also remarked, "Is there a Gan Eden big enough for Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch?" See the above URL for more. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 14:33:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:33:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakarat Hatov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 03:56:25PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Does Hakarat Hatov engender a measurable "liability" (e.g. require a : marginally greater action) between the recipient and the provider of the : "Tov", or is saying "Thank you, I appreciate it" the only requirement? Moshe isn't the trigger for the first makkos because he "owed" the Ye'or and the sand for saving him in the past. As Chazal put it (BQ 92b) WRT "velo sesaeiv Mitzri ki ger hayisa ve'artzo", it justified the common saying "bira deshasis mineih, lo tashdi beih kala" (into a well from which you once drank, don't throw clods of dirt). That said, I don't think reducing gratitude to *nothing more than* a favor-economics is healthy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness, micha at aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom. http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 14:37:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:37:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakarat Hatov In-Reply-To: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> References: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150701213753.GA24874@aishdas.org> PS: I started with the aggadic story and didn't say why I opened with a medrash rather than a gemara. The Nile and the sand wasn't actors. Moshe didn't really owe them anything. It's like "not embarassing" the challah by covering it. Apparently the notion of repaying a favor is so important, HQBH expects us to practice it for a middah exercise even when the other side isn't a real 2nd party. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 12:08:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 15:08:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish with mixed seating Message-ID: Following up upon my earlier post about the permissibility of saying the *kaddish *of a *siyyum* at a dinner with mixed seating. I spoke to RIETS RY last week and he said that we only require *mechitzah* in a *Shul*, based upon the *Gemara* in *Succos*, which requires separate seating at a *shul*. This is clear from the original textual source of mechitzah, the Gemara in the fifth perek of Succos, that the basis of *mechitzah* is the *Bais ha-Mikdash*. As our Synagogues are modeled after the Bais ha-Mikdash, we apply the principals underlying the *Gemara* in Succos to our Shuls. (Similarly, *Tosfos* justifies the practice of bringing children to Shul using the model of *Hakhel*.) As the Kaddish for a Siyyum has nothing do to with a Shul there is no need for separate seating. I also spoke to one of the Dayanim in our community he did not even think that saying *kaddish* with mixed seating was an issue as he thought that mixed seating was only an issue in a *Shul*. Others told me the same (i.e. that only a *shul* requires separation) in the name of Rav Schachter *shlit?a* . However, I saw Rav Herschel Schachter *shlit?a* at shacharis this week so I asked him my question. He responded that it would be better if they would have the *siyyum* before the dinner. I asked why and he responded ?*Davar She?bekedushah*?. I asked him so why do people recite *Kedushah* after a *siyyum* with mixed seating. And he responded, ?Nu, Nu?. (Which is a common response from Rav Schachter to questions of that sort.) Interestingly enough the Gemara in Succos brings a ?proof? for separation of men and women from a non-?*Davar She?bekedushah*? the funeral in *Zecharyah*. Of course we are not discussing whether a particular practice is good or bad or even ?best practices?, but rather whether it is required or not. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 08:32:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 11:32:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] From Succot to Moshiach Message-ID: Ma tovu ohalecha: ?Tents? are temporary and refer to olam hazeh ?.mishk?nosecha: ?Dwelling places? refers to olam haba. In other words, we are first in the antechamber, the temporary abode, which tents symbolize; then, once we leave our temporary homes, we hopefully ascend to our permanent ?dwelling place.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 14:44:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 17:44:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Historical Bil'am Message-ID: <20150703214448.GA32213@aishdas.org> H/T RYGB, see http://www.livius.org/source-content/deir-alla-inscription He asks on his blog: Why isn't this more widely known? The full article includes an image of the instription and a complete translation. This is just the opening. :-)BBii! -Micha Livius.org Articles on ancient history Deir 'Alla Inscription Deir 'Alla Inscription: inscription, found in the Iron Age town of Deir 'Alla, mentioning the Biblical prophet Balaam. Deir 'Alla is situated in western Jordan, about eight kilometers east of the river Jordan, and about a kilometer north of the Jabbok. The excavators found a very large Bronze Age sanctuary that had suffered in the period of wide-spread destruction in the thirteenth/twelfth centuries. Unlike other settlements, which were abandoned, Deir 'Alla remained in use well into the fifth century BCE. That is remarkable. Even more remarkable, however, was the discovery of a painted text that contained a prophecy by Balaam... (The site of Deir 'Alla is, technically, on the [11]Ammonite side of the river Jabbok.) The text refers to divine visions and signs of future destruction, in a language that is close to that of the Bible. For example, we read about the "Shaddai gods", an expression that is close to the Biblical El Shaddai, "God Almighty". On the other hand, the setting is not monotheistic: we read, for instance, about a gathering of a group of gods. The word elohim, which in the Bible (although plural) refers to one God, refers to more than one god in the Deir 'Alla text. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 15:16:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 18:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> In a recent blog post, R' Aryeh Klapper (Cc-ed) writes http://moderntoraleadership.wordpress.com/2015/07/03/chok-mishpat-and-obergefell Imagine pre-snake Adam and Eve walking into the Jewish camp. They would not praise the Jews for their modesty, and they would have no idea why the tents' openings did not face each other. For Bilaam to praise the Jews' virtue, even in the context of his deep and unremitting hatred, he had to be capable of understanding that modesty was a relevant evaluative category. What would it take for Bilaam to have this capacity? Unlike the prelapsarian original couple, he would have to be conscious of his own sexuality, and experientially aware that sexuality could be associated with shame. He might nonetheless choose exhibitionism for himself, and for his culture. He might decide that sexual shame is the root of neurosis and dedicate himself to its cultural eradication. But he would understand what he was eradicating. Perhaps there would even be moments when he regretted his victory. My tentative suggestion is that the Torah teaches us here that there is a value in making our moral premises intelligible even to our enemies; this is part of our mission to be the light of the nations. I want to be clear that this value is not pragmatic, and that we are not safer, or less likely to be hated, if we are understood. Like Bilaam, the world may use its understanding of our virtue to learn how best to undermine us. It is simply part of our job to enable as much as we can of humanity to make informed moral choices. I suggest further that perhaps we can understand the Seven Noachide Commandments as intended not to provide a formal code of behavior, but rather to identify a set of moral premises. Perhaps our mission is particularly to make those premises universally intelligible. Making premises intelligible is not accomplished through rational argumentation. Rational arguments depend on mutually intelligible premises. ... One core premise: let us identify it with the Noachide commandment against forbidden sexual relationships, or arayot -- that is no longer intelligible to many Americans is that sexuality can be evaluated in nonutilitarian terms, that a sexual act can be wrong even if no one gets hurt. We have replaced sexual morality with sexual ethics. Conversations on topics such as chastity, masturbation, and adultery are wholly changed from what they were even two decades ago, and tracts from back then can seem less contemporary than prehistoric cave art. There are many reasons that traditional rationales in the area of sexuality have moved rapidly from self-evident to unintelligible. Here are two: (1) Effective birth control and in vitro fertilization have broken the connection between intercourse and procreation. It is no longer self-evident to speak of intercourse as potential recreation, or as inevitably associated with the risk of pregnancy. (2) Many human beings with homosexual orientations have told compelling personal stories of pain and alienation. In the secular world, the natural reaction to a premise's social unintelligibility is the repeal of any laws that depend on it. In the Orthodox world, where immediate repeal is rarely a viable option, one reasonable reaction is what I call "chokification," or the declaration that laws that once depended on the now-unintelligible premise should be regarded as either beyond human comprehension or else as arbitrary rules intended to train us to obedience. Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. I utilized the following "Lonely Man of Faith" based idea to open "The Talk" with my sons.I wanted them to understand the sanctity of sex, so before getting into the mechanics of it, I tried to open by setting a religious context. As far as I can tell, the Torah gives two purposes for marriage: 1- In Genesis 1, the goal is to procreate and raise children. This is Adam I's drive "to fill the earth and conqure it", his place at the end of a sequence of creation -- above the animals, but more quatitatively than qualitatively. 2- In Genesis 2, the goal is to reunite the two halves, Adam and Eve, who were originally created as a single unit. Adam II seeks redemption through community. In this case, romantic love. Sex in its role of making a bond between people. And therefore a problem of premarital sex is that one thereby learns to minimize the bond thereby created. It weakens that function of sex, so it won't be as effective once you are married. Either alone -- procreation or the romantic reunification of the two halves of the original Adam (which again, I mean psychologically, not mystically) would be sufficient reason to justify sexual intimacy. But without either, it's the pursuit of our mamalian drives for insufficient reason. The objectification (or at least animalization) of the self. In order to buy into #2, one needs to believe that gender (as opposed to biological sex) is an innate set of existential and psychological differences, and not just a role imposed by convention. And therefore Adam and Eve are distinct and different halves of a whole. That this is an existential and deep-psychological truth, which will hold no matter how much society attempts to change those roles and bury gender differences. Notice that despite the social trends that brought the Supreme Court to conclude last week that traditional sexual morality (in contrast to sexual ethics) is irrational and thus prejudicial bias, the above implies that the Torah's ban on homosexuality can be explained in mishpat terms. On a different note, the shift from morality to ethics is typical for postmodernism. When all narratives are equally valid there is no way to insist there is an absolute moral code. Never mind determine what it contains. Therefore, one encourages a freedom to act as an end itself, rather than as a means to greatness. (Which is a logical progression from the American legal system, the concept of rights-based law taken to its extreme. It's notable that a society that values a "maavir al midosav" would not laud taking rights as far as all that. As a legal philosphy, though, it is the best we've come up with to avoid "ish es rei'eihu chaim bal'o", which is the central role of a secular gov't, no?) However, the lack of establishment of a common moral code is itself damaging to society. No one private violation of moral code, whatever the society holds it to be, will necessarily harm others. But living in a society that doesn't promote morality, that doesn't work toward aiming that autonomy toward some higher end, is harmful. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 15:20:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:20:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> References: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is the purpose to make things even worse? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 16:28:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 19:28:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> References: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150705232816.GA29598@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:20:08PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. : Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a : moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is : the purpose to make things even worse? As I quoted from RAK, because they classically were not considered chuqim. Until our contemporaries took the issue from sexual morality to sexual ethics, these truths were considered self-evident. It's the choqification of dinei arayos that's inauthentic. In any case, since one doesn't pasqen from taamei hamitzvos, the din is the same either way. Nothhing in such exploration can "make things even worse". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 15:57:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:57:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon Message-ID: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> In Pirkei Avot, Hillel HaZaken says: "Be among the talmidim of Aharon, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them close to the Torah." I don't get it. I honestly don't. If we see a bunch of Jews who don't know anything about Judaism, shouldn't we try and get them to keep the mitzvot? If you know that they're more likely to violate the mitzvot if they don't know, it's it our responsibility to teach them what God wants of them? The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this subject. I look at gay people and I see them overwhelmingly part of the nihilism of the left, but I don't think being gay automatically makes people like that. But what else are Jews supposed to do when they're being pushed away from the Torah? Jews have neshamas that were at Sinai. A Jew who was raised without Torah has an empty space inside that's just *begging* to be filled with Torah. But because of the wrongheaded idea that gay people have to either pretend they aren't gay, or they must be ostracized from the Torah community, they wind up filling that empty space with the even emptier slogans of the left. Because of the belief held by so many frum Jews that gay people who acknowledge themselves to be gay are simply *incapable* or unwilling to keep mitzvot, we, as a community *deliberately* withhold the Torah from them. It makes no sense to me. I mean, worst case, you tell someone gay, "There are things you aren't allowed to do according to Jewish law. Are you willing to abide by that?" But we aren't even doing that. We're assuming that the answer is going to be no, and by so assuming, we're *making that happen*. At 120, when you're standing before the Kisei HaKavod and you're asked why you pushed so many Jews away from His Torah, I wonder what you'll answer. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 17:34:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 20:34:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon In-Reply-To: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> References: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150706003423.GB14365@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:57:04PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: : In Pirkei Avot, Hillel HaZaken says: "Be among the talmidim of Aharon, : loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them close : to the Torah." : : I don't get it. I honestly don't. If we see a bunch of Jews who don't : know anything about Judaism, shouldn't we try and get them to keep the : mitzvot?... First, a minor correction. Hillel says "berios", or as in the tradition "loving people and bringing them..." IOW, not only kiruv, but bringing non-Jews to NNoachidism. : The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since : the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of : the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't : get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so : many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this : subject. I'm not so sure. The SCOTUS ruled in favor of a right that is based on the idea that believing the Torah's position about homosexuality is bigotry. But in any case, it's like any other rule of tochachah... You need to tell them what they're doing is wrong n a way that gets constructive change. The usual rule for when you should shut up is "mutav sheyihyu shogegim", but here nearly everyone involved know what we pasqen it's assur. So, you're not turning anyone into meizidim. : It makes no sense to me. I mean, worst case, you tell someone gay, : "There are things you aren't allowed to do according to Jewish law. : Are you willing to abide by that?" But we aren't even doing that. : We're assuming that the answer is going to be no, and by so assuming, : we're *making that happen*. But the US law in question is itself to permit something you aren't allowed to do in Jewish law, and in the Minchas Chinukh's opinion -- nor in Noachide law. The general problem of people hating the sinner rather than the sin isn't limited to this one. Perhaps here things are more extreme because the accusers do not attempt to separate an instinctive loathing from actual halachic concerns. Either we should be getting similar bile when discussing business cheats, or we should be getting quiet on both fronts. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 18:46:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 01:46:19 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Alternate texts for the Prayer for the Government Message-ID: <20150705.214619.1506.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> R' Mordechai Harris wrote: > Here's the one I shard last time from the De Sola Pool Siddur. > www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/deSolaPoolPrayerForGovernment.pdf R' Simon Montagu asked: > Can you also share the publication details and/or title page of > this siddur? What I know as the De Sola Pool Siddur is not the > same as in this link. I have ... RMH's link was for "The Traditional Prayer Book for Sabbath and Festivals", the official siddur of the RCA, published in 1960. A very different, longer version appears in many other siddurim, with rather minor differences: The Hirsch Siddur, published by Feldheim The Authorized Daily Prayer Book by Chief Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz The Daily Prayer Book by Philip Birnbaum The Koren Siddur by Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks and in the new Nehalel beShabbat by Michael Haruni (website and free sample at nehalel.com) I was going to remark that I have found this prayer only in siddurim that have an English translation, but is not correct. First, it would seem to appear in whichever siddur the Hirsch was adapted from. But moreover, this same tefila also appears in my copy of "Siddur Eishei Yisrael al pi daas Maran HaGra." (I know there are many siddurim with similar names; all I can tell about this is that the title page lists no publisher, only "Yerushalayim 5735".) The Nehalel siddur is worth noting for this thread. I have not seen this siddur to be too widespread or popular (yet - it's only from 2013), but I'd like to point out that it has TWO versions of this prayer. The version which is very similar to the others is on a page marked "In the United States of America:". But the following page is marked "In the United Kingdom and Commonwealth:", and is markedly different -- but not nearly as different as the De Sola Pool version. This makes me stop, and wonder, and consider the fact that although my Hertz siddur and my Sacks siddur are both of British authorship, they both used American publishers (Bloch and OU Press respectively), and were possibly designed for an American audience. Which leads me to ask those of the chevra who currently reside in the Commonwealth: What version (if any) is said in your shuls? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5599de50e59b55e504270st04vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 06:29:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:29:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VBM-SICHOT75 - 41: The Philosophical Principles of Inheritance Message-ID: <20150706132902.GB31051@aishdas.org> Just because taamei hamitzvos is supposed to be one of the core topics of this email group's host organization.... BTW, my grandfather a"h was named Pinechas after this week's sedra, his bar mitzvah parashah. When it was time to name my oldest, I checked with my uncle how his name appeared on their kesuvah, as their mesader qiddushin was a key rav in my grandfather's life. (R/Dr Mirsky zt"l met two teenage boys coming off the boat and took them under his wing. My grandfather and great-uncle then earned enough to bribe the rest of the family's way out of Litta before the Nazis came to power.) Anyway, it seems R/Dr Mirsky held my grandfather's name was Pinechas, pei-yud-nun-ches-samekh, as it is spelled in the chumash (ignoring the size of the yud as usually written in the beginning of the parashah). And thus the sheva is na, Pinechas - not Pinchas. If you want to make a derashah out of a Mitzri name, it's Pi Nachas, not Pen Chas. Reason for this tangent... I would have expected "Gushies" to get the sheva in the parashah name right. After all, they have the patach under the reish in Parashat. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov VBM-SICHOT75 - 41: Parashat Pinchas Sicha of HaRav Mosheh Lichtenstein Adapted by Motti Guttman Translated by David Strauss Yeshivat Har Etzion "In Place of Your Fathers Shall Be Your Children": The Philosophical Principles of Inheritance The concept of inheritance arises in a number of contexts in the Torah, most prominently in Parashat Pinchas. It is also the central topic of the eighth chapter of Massekhet Bava Batra, Yesh Nochalin. Naturally, the discussion of the laws of inheritance focuses largely on the financial matters at issue among the heirs, leading to the discussion and clarification of a number of fundamental questions regarding monetary law. For that reason, chapter Yesh Nochalin has an important place in the world of Choshen Mishpat. However, the issue of inheritance is not merely monetary. The yerusha (inheritance) is not simply money that we have to decide what to do with. Of course, it is preferable to award the estate of the deceased to his surviving relatives, and not to the state or the income tax authorities; the gemara itself notes, "Should the town collector be the heir?" (Bava Batra 110b). This, however, is not the essence of the laws of inheritance. Inheritance -- Breaching the Boundaries of the Present At the heart of the concept of inheritance lies a significant principle: that of permanence and continuity. When Avraham Avinu entered the Land, he was forced to pitch his tent in different places and live the life of a wanderer. In contrast, the idea of inheritance establishes that a person should not live a life of impermanence. Moshe expresses the desire for a state of permanence in his words to Israel at the plains of Moav: "For you are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance" (Devarim 12:9). This verse was also expounded as referring to the Temple. The idea of inheritance, in this context, creates existential permanence, which is reflected in Halakha. From the time that Jerusalem was selected, it became the permanent site of the Temple, and from that point on, offering sacrifices on bamot was forbidden due to the damage that this would cause to the idea of the Temple as the chosen inheritance. Inheritance constitutes permanence and it creates continuity because it allows the individual to breach the boundaries of the present. From the time of creation, reality dictates that "One generation passes away and another generation comes, but the earth abides forever" (Kohelet 1:4). Man's days are numbered, and sooner or later he will disappear from the world. By his very definition, he is temporary -- like the flower that fades, the shadow that passes, the dust that floats, and the dream that flies away. He is here today and in the grave tomorrow. In contrast, his inheritance remains and affords him continuity. From parent to child and from child to grandchild and great-grandchild, the chain continues and death does not sever it. To a certain extent, this allows one to overcome death and oblivion. Ownership of property and land in itself does not preventing transience or create continuity; it is the identification of inheritance with the family and its heritage in the past and the present that creates the permanence and continuity. A central concept in Jewish law is the concept of the "house," which denotes a family that constitutes a unit of common heritage -- "After their families, by the house of their fathers." We are familiar with this concept from various realms of Halakha. For example, a man whose brother died without children marries the widow through yibum, levirate marriage, in order to continue the family, and he is thereby able to perpetuate the name of the deceased, since they belong to a common "house." Because of the great importance that the Torah attributes to perpetuating the name of the deceased and continuing his legacy, it established the mechanism of levirate marriage despite the personal, familial and halakhic difficulties entailed in marriage to one's brother's wife. Indeed, the mitzva of yibum takes precedence over the mitzva of chalitza because of the mission of perpetuating the brother's name.[1] The language of the text itself creates a connection between yibum and inheritance, as the purpose of the mitzva is defined as "to perpetuate the name of the deceased on his inheritance." The principle of continuity and its importance in a person's life is further reflected in the statement of Chazal (Nedarim 64b) that includes one who does not have any children among those who are considered as if they were dead. While continuity expresses itself on the concrete level through the transmission of property, much more important, of course, is ensuring continuity on the level of values, goals, and existential aspirations, which constitute the true heritage that a person leaves behind. The prophet Yeshaya emphasized how a person's eternal heritage endures: For thus says the Lord to the eunuchs who keep My Sabbath, and choose the things that please Me, and take hold of My covenant. And to them will I give in My house and within My walls a memorial better that sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. (Yeshaya 56:4-5) Indeed, there is more than one plane on which a person achieves inheritance and continuity. Inheritance is part of the system that turns the transition between generations into something permanent and stable, allowing family identity to be transmitted across the generations. In this light, we can understand Chazal's critique of a person who leaves no inheritance. As we read in a mishna in Yesh Nochalin (Bava Batra 133b): If a person gives his estate in writing to strangers and leaves out his children, his arrangements are legally valid, but the spirit of the Sages finds no delight in him. The reference here is not to a person who did not leave an inheritance due to poverty or distress, but rather to a person who decided to give away his estate for other purposes, as positive as they may be,[2] or based on the perception that his children should fend for themselves. The idea behind this mishna is the need to leave a legacy for future generations. The principle of passing down to the next generation is of central importance. Know From Whence You Come! This perception of inheritance is rooted in a general and comprehensive idea that pervades all of Jewish life -- namely, that we do not live only in the present. Judaism rejects a horizontal perspective on man, according to which man is connected only to his current environment. Our relationship is not only with this generation. Rather, our sights are at all times directed at "the one who stands here with us this day before the Lord our God, and also with the one who is not here with us this day" (Devarim 29:14). The hope is to establish a relationship of shared destiny with the past, on both the national and the personal level. This is why we mourn to this day various historical events that happened to our ancestors. We do not say, "What happened, happened." The sense of pain and tragedy that Jewish law demands of a person indicates that it expects one to experience these things in unmediated fashion, as if they occurred to people he knows, and not only that he relate to them as events of the distant past for the purpose of learning a lesson from history. "In every generation one must see himself as if he went out from Egypt." Just as a Jew is expected to feel the pain of his Jewish brothers injured in terrorist attacks in Argentina, Turkey, Paris, or Afula, regardless of the geographical distance between them, because all of Israel are responsible for and close to one another, he is similarly expected to feel pain over events that took place a long time ago. The ability to draw from our heritage and know what happened to our ancestors is important in itself. The actions of our forefathers interest us, regardless of the spiritual insights that can be derived from them, because of the feeling of existential partnership between us and our ancestors. Avraham and Sara, Yitzchak and Rivka, Yaakov, Rachel and Leah, are not only the nation's patriarchs and matriarchs, but also our forefathers. They are not only lofty figures, but also Grandpa and Grandma -- and for this reason the Torah shared their lives with us. Just as a grandson is interested in hearing from his grandfather or his grandmother about life in Eastern Europe or North Africa a century ago, we want to know what happened in Mesopotamia during the time of Avraham and Sara. A person's life in the present is intertwined with the history of his forefathers in the past. One is intricately connected to his past; one does not grow up in a vacuum. Models of Inheritance The first mishna in Yesh Nochalin presents us with a number of possible models for those who inherit and those who transmit inheritance: Some [relatives] inherit [from] and transmit [to each other]; some inherit but do not transmit; some transmit but do not inherit; some neither inherit nor transmit. Clearly, the ideal is that a person should inherit and transmit inheritance, that he should be numbered among those who are "nochalin u-manchilin." As stated above, the inheritance is not simply property for the heir, but rather constitutes a familial plot filled with existential significance. He inherits -- deciding to connect himself to his past and to his heritage. And he is interested in transmitting inheritance -- adding his contribution to the heritage, the personal layer that he adds to the inheritance and passes down to the next generation. In contrast, there are those who inherit but do not transmit, "nochalin ve-lo manchilin" -- who draw from the past and connect to it, but are not capable of passing their heritage on. Perhaps this is because they do not consider this stage important, or perhaps they lack the capacity to give their heritage over to others and to connect to the next generation. Such a person does not know how to take from the past and interpret it for his children in the future. He is familiar with the world of the past, but he lacks the tools to apply the past and its heritage to the challenges of the present and the future. The reverse case also exists -- "yesh manchilin ve-einam nochalin," there are those who transmit but who do not inherit. They wish to pass on their personal legacy, but they are cut off from the past, or so they imagine. In their eyes, everything began in their generation. Previous generations erred or were weak; there is no need to receive their inheritance, laden with the outdated baggage of Diaspora life. This heir is not prepared to connect to the past or to recognize that he is dependent upon it. Blinded by his present achievements, he is alienated from the past and the weight of tradition. The most tragic group neither inherits nor transmits inheritance, "lo nochalin ve-lo manchilin." They are cut off from every bit of the past. They live only in the present and are utterly devoid of worry about the future -- "After me, the deluge." The concept of inheritance serves as a bridge between the past and the future. In this context, the individual is merely another link in a chain. If we consider the chain of tradition recorded by the Rambam in his introduction to the Mishneh Torah, more important than any particular Sage is the very chain of tradition itself. The value of each link lies in the fact that it allows the chain to continue. This is the connection and bridge between all the generations, from Avraham Avinu until the Mashiach. Spiritual Heritage through Physical Means As noted above, the transmission takes place through tangible means as well. It is obvious to us that it is values and ideas, Torah and mitzvot, that constitute the heritage that passes from one generation to the next. It is easy to understand the statement: "Moshe commanded us the Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov" (Devarim 33:4). It is more difficult to grasp that the Torah also attaches great importance to tangible inheritance, to the transmission of physical property. Chazal teach us that "monuments are not built for the righteous; their words are their memorials" (Bereishit Rabba 82). We do not set up statues or tombstones for the righteous, for it is their spiritual legacy that serves as their memorial. Nevertheless, the ability to touch the past by way of some object bestows additional meaning on that heritage. Touching the physical possession of a deceased relative gives a person the sense of an unmediated encounter with the past. One generation passes away and another generation comes, but an object that remains provides a connection to the earlier period. Man is a physical creature, and contact with material objects is meaningful to him as a reminder of and bridge to the past. Not only is it meaningful to transmit the life story of the deceased to future generations and to talk about his values, but it is also important to be able to connect with him on the most basic level. When a person comes across an object that belonged to his relative, it is important to him even if it lacks monetary value or is in no way unique. The tangible item turns the past into something immediate on a level that cannot be achieved by any other means. A number of years ago, a Torah scroll that belonged to the Ran and a seal that was reportedly that of the Ramban were displayed in an exhibition devoted to Spanish Jewry before the expulsion. It is difficult to describe the thrill that I felt when I understood that this seal was once held by the Ramban himself and that the Ran had once used this Torah scroll. I also remember the feeling of immediacy that I felt when someone showed me an etrog box that had once belonged to R. Akiva Eiger. We are physical beings who come from the dust, and physical things therefore speak to us. Paradoxically, it is precisely material objects, which are essentially transient, that maintain their permanence for centuries, creating a bridge between the past and the future. The need for connection through objects, which is natural and self-evident given that we are humans of flesh and blood, also underlies the Torah and the practical mitzvot. Judaism is not built exclusively on vague and abstract values. In response to the human need for concreteness, a system of practical commandments was created in order to express a system of ideas. The performance of mitzvot creates a channel for religious experience and opens the way for a connection between man and God. The experience associated with taking a lulav or eating matza reflects how much an object plays a role in the human religious experience. In a person's private life, intimate family connections are not based exclusively on profound conversations about noble values, but are rather manifest in shared day-to-day experiences, including the trivial problems that engage an ordinary family in everyday conduct, such as who will wash the dishes or fold the laundry. Similarly, this component of activity that is ongoing but not uplifting plays a role in our observance of the mitzvot. Just as a family lives closely together and creates connections even through banal activities, the mitzvot create a common religious experience with God among all those observing them. Thus, objects can provide existential meaning, but this depends upon the eye of the beholder. A person who relates to an inheritance merely as a set of objects and not as a means to continue the past will not see any unique significance in those objects. The Uniqueness of the Firstborn Thus far, we have discussed the idea of heirs and inheritance in general, the concept of personal and national heritage in the sense of "You are the children of the Lord your God" (Devarim 14:1). We have not discussed any unique status of any of the heirs. This indeed follows the model of the first half of Yesh Nochalin. At this point, we must move on to the second half of the chapter and to the concept of the birthright, the special privileges bestowed upon a firstborn. In addition to the passage dealing with inheritance in Sefer Bamidbar, a passage in Sefer Devarim assigns special status to a firstborn son. The concept of the bechora, primogeniture, is not merely factual but rather value-laden. This is reflected in the gemara's emphasis on the idea of "recognizing" the firstborn (based on the word "yakir" in the verse). The birthright expresses an interpersonal relationship unique to the parent and firstborn; it assumes a certain connection between them. Therefore, a firstborn only inherits a double portion if he was alive during his father's lifetime (Bava Batra 142b) and the father recognizes him as his firstborn son (127a).[3] For this reason, we also maintain that "the Torah calls it [the firstborn's double portion] a gift." In Halakha, a gift is not merely a certain type of acquisition, but rather an expression of intimacy. The firstborn inherits as one who receives a gift, directly from the father and not through the house or family. All of a person's strengths are reflected first and foremost in his firstborn. A father is supposed to feel a partnership with his sons, and the firstborn is the first child with whom this closeness is created. The Concept of Birthright in the Bible The birthright is referred to prominently in three contexts in the Bible: the struggle over the birthright between Yaakov and Esav; the story of Yaakov's two firstborn sons, Reuven and Yosef; and the description of Israel as "My son, My firstborn" (Shemot 4:22). These models point to the importance attached to the firstborn, as well as to the dangers that this status creates. Concerning the opportunity and the danger posed by the birthright, it is appropriate to cite two midrashim from Avot De-Rabbi Natan: Israel were called "sons," as it is stated: "You are the sons of the Lord your God" (Devarim 14:1), and the ministering angels are called "sons," as it is stated: "The sons of God came" (Iyov 1:6), and you do not know which are more loved. When it says: "Israel is My son, My firstborn," [it makes clear that] you are more precious to me than the ministering angels. (44a) The firstborn is perceived here as a clear expression of endearment and special closeness. Another midrash in Avot De-Rabbi Natan speaks in a different tone, recognizing that not every firstborn is dearly loved: Israel is precious, for in His time of anger they are called "sons." In His time of anger they are called sons, and even at a time when the verse says: "Not His is the corruption, but the blemish of His sons" (Devarim 32:5) -- sons in whom I have no trust, corrupt sons. Therefore, the Sages taught that they are called sons of God... But not every firstborn is precious and dear. There is a firstborn who is precious and dear, and there is also a firstborn who is not precious and dear. (8a) This midrash points to the problematic nature of the firstborn. It is simple to speak of the beauty and loftiness of the idea of Israel being "My son, My firstborn." But this does not necessarily reflect reality, as we find in the stories dealing with the birthright in the book of Bereishit. Yaakov vs. Esav -- Values vs. Money Esav views inheritance as a way to acquire property: "Behold, I am at the point of death, and what profit shall this birthright be to me?" (Bereishit 25:32). Ostensibly, the opposite is actually true! It is precisely at the point of death that the birthright acquires greater importance, for through it Esav could be counted as part of the line of the house of Avraham and as a link that transmits the heritage of the past to the coming generations. In this way, his memory would be preserved for generations, even after he dies. But Esav understands that he will derive no monetary gain from the inheritance, as he is about to die, and he is therefore prepared to sell his birthright for a pot of lentils. The commentators discuss the manner in which Yaakov took the birthright from Esav, and the Rishonim deal with the legal question of how Yaakov could acquire the birthright even though it was something that had not yet come into existence ("davar she-lo ba le-olam"). Many explanations have been offered, but it is possible to suggest one very simple answer. Esav did not sell the birthright to Yaakov; he lost it because his actions proved that he was not worthy of it. His very readiness to sell his birthright for a pot of lentils attested to his attitude toward the birthright and to his alienation from the world of Yitzchak. Anyone who scorns the birthright demonstrates that he does not understand its significance, and thus forfeits it. Sometimes, a child relates to his parents as an infinite source of rights. He wishes only to receive benefits and service from his parents; he is not prepared to accept the burden of transferring the legacy of previous generations. It is not for naught that the midrash (Bereishit Rabba 67:8; 75:9) describes Esav as ready to arrange for the murder of Yaakov and Yishmael in order to inherit the entire inheritance of Avraham. When the birthright is perceived not as a responsibility and sacred mission, but as an opportunity to profit at the expense of others, when the attitude toward inheritance is like that toward any monetary matter, it is not surprising to find that a violent man would be prepared to kill the other heirs and to employ a variety of schemes in order to inherit more assets. Yaakov, in contrast, views the birthright not only as a right, but as a mission. He wants to perpetuate Avraham's blessing in the world, and he sees the birthright as a destiny that will confer that mission upon him. It is not by chance that Chazal saw the pot of lentils as a dish denoting mourning over Avraham's passing, for it is around this event that the debate focuses. The test is whether to view this as an opportunity for profit -- on the tangible level, through the eating of the beans, and on the symbolic level, through benefit from the property of the deceased -- or as a call to assume responsibility and accept the authority of the firstborn. Reuven vs. Yosef -- Competition vs. Continuity Another pair of brothers who compete over the birthright presents us with a different model that is problematic for a different reason. On the one hand, "Reuven, you are my firstborn, my might and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity and the excellency of power" (Bereishit 49:3). It is upon Reuven that Yaakov pins his entire future and all of his hopes. On the other hand, "Unstable as water, you shall not excel; because you went up to your father's bed; then you did defile it: he went up to my couch" (ibid. 49:4), and in Divrei Ha-Yamim: "Now the sons of Reuven the firstborn of Israel -- for he was the firstborn, but since he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Yosef the son of Yisrael" (I Divrei Ha-Yamim 5:1). Because he defiled his father's bed, the birthright was taken away from Reuven. Esav was indifferent to the birthright and to the past; he sought in his inheritance only monetary gain. Reuven suffers from the opposite problem -- he sees himself as competing with his father and contending against him. No matter how we understand the specifics of Reuven's sin when he defiled his father's bed, the implication is the same -- it was an attempt to push his father aside and take his place during his lifetime. Reuven challenged his father's standing as head of the family. He rejected Yaakov's authority, and by doing so he impaired his own standing. The way of the world is that at some stage in a person's life, there is a reversal of roles. The strong parent, the firm rock, turns into a frail old man, at which point the sons must help the parent. Sometimes, they are even compelled to make decisions for the parent. Indeed, at the end of Yaakov's life, when he arrived in Egypt a broken and ill man, Yosef made various decisions for him. All this is possible and appropriate when the father is old and weak, when there is no other way, but not when the father is at the height of his strength and is fit to stand on his own two feet. The firstborn is meant to be the continuation of his father, but not his replacement who is in competition with him. The father bestows the birthright -- "The Torah calls it a gift." A son may not take the birthright by force. The similarity between Reuven and Yaakov could have prepared Reuven to be his father's successor. However, when that similarity is interpreted as competition, the firstborn's reward is cancelled out by his loss. Yosef was also similar to Yaakov, but he knew how to actualize that similarity at the proper time and not to replace him while he was still alive. The birthright was thus taken from Reuven, as from Esav, because he was unsuited for it. The transfer of property from an unfit son is the subject of a dispute between the Sages and R. Shimon ben Gamliel (133b), and we rule that property should not be transferred even from a wicked son to a good son. But in such a case, we are not dealing with an impairment in the firstborn's functioning as a firstborn, but rather with a general problem, and we therefore do not want to cancel the birthright. However, when the son sets himself in competition with his father, when he defiles his father's bed, the birthright is removed from him. The Actions of the Fathers are a Sign for the Sons The relationship between God and Israel should be examined in a similar manner. As stated to Moshe, Israel is "My son, My firstborn" (Shemot 22:4). What this means is that on a certain level, all the nations are God's children; the birthright does not negate the standing of the other brothers, but rather bestows a certain advantage on the firstborn while recognizing the others as sons.[4] But how are we to understand our relationship to God as His firstborn? Are we more precious to God than the ministering angels, as is stated in the first midrash cited above? Or are we perhaps like the firstborn who is not cherished and dear, as he appears in the second midrash? Will we be alienated from God? Will we be like a firstborn who is first among his brothers, but aware of his place? Or perhaps, God forbid, we will view ourselves in competition with God? Of course, the desired model is a permanent and meaningful relationship in which the individual feels the presence of the Shekhina, one in which he does not view the relationship between man and God as an interesting idea but nothing more. A child feels the presence of his parent and maintains a strong relationship with him, despite the differences in standing between them; this is also true of the relationship between Israel and their Father in Heaven. This is the challenge with which we are faced. A person who feels the responsibility of being a fitting firstborn to God justifies his birthright, but also assumes responsibility. The greater and deeper the responsibility and purpose, the greater the spiritual achievement. However, the spiritual danger is also greater. The same things that create obstacles in the relationship between a son and his parents are liable to ruin the relationship between man and his Maker. One can encounter a problem in the form of what we saw regarding Esav; a person recognizes the existence of God, but views the connection between him and his Father in Heaven as a means of satisfying his own pleasures and fulfilling his needs. In such a case, his heritage interests him only for the purpose of generating profits, and nothing more. He does not see his heritage as an obligation or mission, but rather as "a spade for digging," a source of personal gain. Alternatively, there is the situation of Reuven, which is reflected in the feeling that God is "strangling" him, leaving him with insufficient leeway due to the Shekhina's presence in the world. Just like a child rebels when he feels constrained by a parent or when he senses that the parent with his power and status overshadows him and his capabilities, a person's feelings about God may be similar. The proper situation, both with respect to the parent-child relationship and with respect to the relationship between man and God, is that man should find his place within a framework of existing laws and recognize that there are factors above him. Within these boundaries, he will be able to find his uniqueness and express his personal development. A firstborn like Reuven, who feels that he cannot exercise his strengths together with the strengths of God, is a firstborn who lacks the appropriate "recognition." Let us move from the People of Israel to the Land of Israel. The Land was also given to us as an inheritance and a heritage. Here, too, the aim is to see it as God's inheritance and to reach the realization of "You shall bring them in and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance" (Shemot 15:17), with the physical land serving as an expression of the spiritual connection and relationship between God and His people. Here, too, however, there is the danger of being caught up in the perspective of profitability and materialism, which views the Land exclusively as a place of leisure and profits. As opposed to "the mountain of Your inheritance," Datan and Aviram view the Land as "an inheritance of fields and vineyards" (Bamidbar 16:14), and nothing more. The children of Reuven and Gad preferred to receive their inheritance on the east bank of the Jordan, as that was advantageous for their animals and business. They did not ask themselves about the effect that their step would have on their inheritance as a sacred place or as the land of their forefathers. In opposition to "an inheritance of fields and vineyards" stands "the mountain of Your inheritance." Furthermore, since the inheritance is not land but rather a heritage, it exists, under certain condition, even without land. Not only is there the mountain of Your inheritance, but God is also the inheritance of the priests and Levites, substituting for the inheritance of land. We not only have God's intention "to give it to you for a heritage" (Shemot 6:8), but also "Moshe commanded us the Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov" (Devarim 33:4). Needless to say, the fitting situation for the ordinary person is the realization of the two inheritances, both of the Land and of the Torah. At times, however, it is one heritage that sustains us, while the other is missing. This was the case throughout the long years of exile, when the heritage of the Torah allowed Israel to survive in the lands of their dispersion. Similarly, in recent generations, the secular Zionist movement adopted for itself the heritage of the Land without a Torah heritage. Indeed, the core challenge facing secular Zionism and the State of Israel in this regard is viewing the country's heritage as an ancestral heritage and an expression of Jewish identity that is connected to the people of Israel throughout the generations, and not only as an inheritance of fields and vineyards. "A Ladder Set upon the Earth, and the Top of it Reached to Heaven" The chapter of Yesh Nochalin presents a sublime model of a system of inheritance that depends on the values that we have discussed. Very often, however, reality slaps us in the face. Inheritance disputes are a common and painful phenomenon. Unfortunately, these struggles are widespread and they destroy families. Values and ideals of great importance are shattered against the rocks of family disputes; instead of attaining achievements, they engage in conflict. Instead of the past serving as an inspiration and guide for the future, a person can destroy his future and fill it with conflicts from the past. Instead of the "house" inheriting the deceased and passing the family heritage down to the other members of the house, the house is split and destroyed in the storms of dispute. One should not make the mistake of thinking that such disputes are driven solely by profits. Often, the conflicts are grounded in what appears to be holiness. Struggles arise around the question of who will be a better successor, who will more faithfully represent the heritage and values of the deceased. Each side is convinced that he alone can express the family truth, while the other side will betray it. He therefore enters into battle against his brothers and sisters, without realizing that he is thereby destroying the family and defying the wishes of the deceased. These "holy fights" create the antithesis of the concept of inheritance. The challenge of inheritance and creating a heritage is indeed great, and it therefore often leads to tension. Nevertheless, Yesh Nochalin presents us with a meaningful model on the existential level, both with respect to the family and the past and with respect to our lives with God. May we merit to meet these challenges. (This sicha was delivered in summer 5767 [2007]. The original Hebrew adaptation was reviewed by Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein.) -- [1] This is true on the fundamental level, as is stated in the mishna in Bekhorot. In this context, we will not consider the dispute between Abba Shaul and the Sages. [2] Most authorities are uncomfortable even with one who donates all of his property to charity. [3] As a result, someone whose status is in doubt is excluded from the law of the birthright: "A son and not a tumtum [a person of undetermined gender]; a firstborn, and not a doubtful firstborn." This is also the basis for the law of "recognition," which according to many authorities is not based on credibility, but on the creation of a connection between father and son, credibility being the byproduct. [4] See the commentators ad loc., especially Ibn Ezra and Seforno. Rashi apparently understood differently and deliberately chose to deviate from the plain meaning of the birthright. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 13:31:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:31:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Defining Tzeis Message-ID: <20150706203135.GA12889@aishdas.org> I wrote the following to FB. If anyone can add or make corrections before the thread there dies, I would appreciate it. I think I summed up the highlights of the sugya as I understood it from previous conversations here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha [Someone asked what the sources in question were, so I replied:] Shabbos 34b-35a, 35b; Pesachim 94a. As Tosafos on Pesachim note, in Shabbos (34b) R' Yehudah is quoted as saying bein hashemashot (sunset to the stars coming out) is 3/4 mil (or 2/3 mil, depending on which amora's version of R' Yehudah you're using, but we hold 3/4), but in Pesachim he says a person can walk 4 mil after sunset before the stars emerge. Rabbeinu Tam notes a slight difference in language. It takes 4 mil "misheqi'as hachamah," in Pesachim, but 3/4 mil from "mishetishqeh hachamah." RT therefore resolves the two gemaros by saying sunset takes 3-1/4 mil. So, 4 mil from the beginning of sunset will take you to 3/4 mil after sunset, which is R' Yehudah's tzeis. The Vilna Gaon's resolution of the confliciting gemaros (OC 235 and 261) is not to split sunset into a beginning an end, but to split tzeis. The halachic tzeis is 3/4 mil after sunset. The gemara in Pesachim is using the term colloquially, not halachically, and simply refers to "all the stars" rather the standard 3. The Re'eim (R' Eliezer of Metz, Seifer Yerei'im, written in the 1170s) splits both -- the two gemaras are discussing different sunsets AND different tzeis. To him, the gemara in Shabbos is saying sheqi'ah (which we usually translate "sunset") is 3/4 mil BEFORE the sun hits the horizon, and tzeis is when the sun is at the horizon. Whereas the gemara in Pesachim then measures how much after the sun is below the horizon that the sky is fully dark. Note that both the Vilna Gaon and the Re'eim assume the gemara in Pesachim is using at least one of the idioms differently than the gemara in Shabbos, and therefore it has no bearing on halakhah. ... [Material in response to what someone else wrote, ellided.] BUT... The Vilna Gaon understands the defining feature to be the emergence of stars, not the fixed time R' Yehudah gives. And therefore inflates the 3/4 mil to adjust from Usha (R' Yehudah's home town) to Vilna. Which brings us to the third topic, on the other side of the page on Shabbos (35b). Again it's R' Yehudah, quoting Shemu'el's prescription of which stars to watch for: [If you see] 1 star, it is day; 2 -- bein hashemashos; 3 -- night. Rabbi Yosi said, "Not large stars that are visible in the day, nor small stars that are only visible at night, but medium stars..." 35b cannot describe 3/4 mil after sunset. Even in Usha or Nehardaa (Shemuel's home town, today's Anbar, central Iraq, on the Euphrates), you will not see 3 middle sized stars 18 min after sunset. R Michl Tukaczinsky and R' Dovid Spitzer did the observations in Jerusalem, and found it takes 31-43 min or 28-40 min, respectively. (Use the smaller end of the range for rabbinic fasts, like the OP, and the larger for Torah laws like Shabbos. Jerusalem is closer to the equator than either city, not that I think it's by enough to matter much.) Rav Moshe Feinstein similarly gave 50 min for Shabbos, 31 for rabbinic fasts -- but then, NY's days vary more in length, so a "never later than" will be more minutes after sunset. With a computer, we could translate all these numbers into degrees below the horizon, as that would tell us how dark it would be outside, and therefore how many stars could be seen, if we weren't bathed in artificial lighting. And even then you get into questions about which stars. The western horizon (the side with the glow of sunset) will show stars well after the east. Three stars seen at once (near each-other) or total when scanning the whole sky? Etc... Rather than decide whether we follow Shabbos 34a or 35a, even those who do not use Pesachim to shed light on 34a pad the 3/4 mil to plausibly allow for people to see three medium sized stars. Given the fact that it's this measure which actually gives the landmark on our clock its name, assuming it is less definitional than a fixed time delay is difficult. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 13:39:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:39:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dan leKaf Zekhus Message-ID: <20150706203931.GB12889@aishdas.org> When I got on the subway this morning, there was a pregnant woman already standing holding on to the poll nearest the door I just came in through. So, feeling all heroic, I asked her quite loudly and pointedly, "Do you need me to embarass someone into getting up for you?" She replied, "No, thank you. A number of people offered when I just got on, but I was more comfortable standing than on the train's benches." I blushed, and sheepishly muttered apologies to those around us. As I said: Dan lekaf zekhus. Not just the law, a good idea. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 14:45:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 17:45:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah and Poverty In-Reply-To: <20150706202632.A741518370D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150706202632.A741518370D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150706214552.GE12889@aishdas.org> On 7/3/2015 3:16 AM, RnTK wrote to Areivim: : But our mishna does describe this as the "way of the Torah." : True Torah scholars will live contentedly under conditions of : denial and poverty. The beraisa (Avos "6":4) says that darkah shel Torah is not to quit learning even if you have to live off bread, salt and water you have to ration, sleep on the ground and otherwise suffer. Not that this is their normal condition, or even one they should desire. There is still the take on the chatas of someone ending nezirus (Rabbeinu Bachya, in contrast to the Ramban) that it's for forgoing permissable pleasure while a nazir. And the Y-mi (Qiddushin 4:12, vilna 48b, the end of the mesechta) in which Rav is quoted as saying "A person will have to give a din vecheshbon on anything his eye saw but he didn't eat. R' Leizer [Elazar? Eliezer?] was chosheish for this, and would use Shabbos to enjoy one such pleasure. This is on the mishnah where R' Nera'i promises to only teach his son Torah, to the exclusion of a profession. But the Y-mi understands this to mean that keeping the Torah (not learning in particular) will provide wealth. Whereas a profession leaves you stuck in your old age, or if one otherwise become unable to work. But it's "vekhein atah motzei be'avinu Avraham *sheshimer* es haTorah" and was wealthy. However, the Bavli famously reports that this was tried experimentally and it generally doesn't work. Okay for a R' Shimon bar Yochai, but not R' Yishmael and the like. (Which could be a difference in kind or quantitative.) No one today would qualify as either a Rashbi or a R' Yishmael, so I don't think the Y-mi's promise should be counted on. And neither gemara lauds poverty. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 17:12:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 20:12:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon Message-ID: From: Lisa Liel via Avodah The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this subject. Lisa >>>> I have seen none of that "vitriol" or "viciousness," either in the past few days or in the last few years, or ever. On the contrary, all I see is an almost desperate attempt to be conciliatory, a desperate if hopeless wish not to be the *victims* of liberal, anti-religious vitriol. See for example "A Letter by Reb Ahron Feldman to a Gay Baal Teshuva" https://guardyoureyes.com/resources/ssa/item/a-letter-by-reb-ahron-feldman-to-a-gay-baal-teshuva Also see Agudath Israel's statement on the recent Supreme Court gay-marriage decision http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2015/06/28/agudath-israel-statement-o n-supreme-court-marriage-ruling/ It reads, in part, "we are deeply concerned that, as a result of today?s ruling, and as the dissenting Justices have pointed out, members and institutions of traditional communities like the Orthodox Jewish community we represent may incur moral opprobrium and risk tangible negative consequence if they refuse to transgress their beliefs, and even if they simply teach and express their religious views publicly." I might add that Lisa's post, being an emotional cri de coeur, really belongs on Areivim. However, since she has posted it to Avodah, I will add my own comments previously posted on Cross-Currents: Here, for the record, is what our ancient Torah heritage has to say about homosexual marriage: The nations are allowed to continue in existence only because they keep a minimum of three mitzvos. These are: not writing marriage documents for the union of two males, not selling human flesh in the market place, and giving honor to the Torah?which in practice means, not persecuting the people of the Torah, the Jewish people. In one of his prophetic visions, the Navi (prophet) Zechariah took thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the Temple treasury in Jerusalem (Zechariah 11:13). The Rabbis of the Talmud had varying interpretations of what this vision symbolized. According to Rabbi Ulla (Talmud Chullin 92B), the thirty pieces of silver symbolized the thirty mitzvos that the Bnei Noach accepted upon themselves. These thirty mitzvos include not worshipping idols, not consulting witchcraft and sorcery, refraining from illicit sexual relationships, and so on. (Bnei Noach are the Sons of Noah, also called Noahides? i.e., the nations of the world.) Rabbi Ulla says that the world continues to exist because the nations accepted these thirty mitzvos. However, he adds, the nations do not keep all the mitzvos they accepted. They keep only three, and one of the three is: ? They do not write a marriage contract for males.? Rashi comments that the nations do engage in forbidden homosexual relations, but they at least acknowledge that such relations are illicit by not formalizing those relations in legal documents. The other two commandments that they keep are that they do not sell human flesh in the market place, and that they give honor to the Torah (Talmud Chullin 92B). Elsewhere the Rabbis of old stated that the final decree of destruction, the Great Flood, was sealed against the generation of Noach because they wrote marriage documents for males. ?Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Yosef, ?The generation of the Flood was not wiped out until they wrote marriage documents for the union of a man to a male or to an animal ? ? (Genesis Rabbah 26:5; Leviticus Rabbah 23:9). Implicit is the assumption that if the nations do not abide by at least the aforementioned three mitzvos, they may forfeit the very right to exist. Hence, these three?not writing marriage documents for males, not selling human flesh in the marketplace, and honoring the Torah?may be considered the Three Conditions for the continued existence of mankind. So you see, the idea of gay marriage is not new, not a fresh idea that represents the ultimate development, enlightenment and evolution of mankind. No, the formal marriage of two men is a very ancient idea that represents the degradation of mankind. http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2011/07/28/4524/ I will add a further point to what I wrote in 2011: The reason the gay pride movement adopted rainbow colors as their symbol is that the rainbow is the sign of Hashem?s promise not to wipe out the entire world again in one big flood. They wave the rainbow flag in defiance of Him, as if to say, ?Ha ha, You can?t touch us!? The message of the rainbow flag is, ?We are major sinners, like the generation of the Flood.? But they are whistling in the dark if they think there won?t be consequences. May Hashem protect His people, those who are chassidei umos ha?olam as well as us, Klal Yisrael. Read more: http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2015/06/29/scotus-on-same-gender-what-it-means-what-it-doesnt/#ixzz3f9x0mazM --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 18:14:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 01:14:59 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> I noted about Kaddish Yasom > From what I've seen, it is NOT said even if a minyan says Birkas > Hamazon, R' Zev Sero asked: > Why would it? Well, I guess my original post should have had a longer introduction. I know that Kaddish Tiskabel has a very clear rule, namely that it follows every Amidah, and the only exception is that it also follows Selichos. Kaddish D'rabanan always follows group learning (though I've never figured out exactly what learning counts and what doesn't). And now I'm trying to figure out the rule for Kaddish Yasom. It SEEMS to be a sort of "congregational prayer", where "prayer" is something *other* than the Amidah, but I can't define it any more precisely than that. For a long time I thought it was connected to Tehillim, but when I noticed it after the megilos on Yom Tov, someone suggested that it's not specifically Sefer Tehillim, but *any* part of Kesuvim, not that we had any idea why Kesuvim would get this distinction over Neviim or Torah. I wrote: > but it IS said when a minyan says Kiddush Levana. RZS suggested: > Probably because people are used to saying it after Alenu. Maybe, and maybe not. I have a suspicion that Alenu was added *because of* the Kaddish, and not the other way around. Here are some data points: The Hirsch siddur has Tehillim 67 as the last paragraph of Kiddush Levana, with nothing at all after it. My Minchas Yerushalayim, and Birnbaum too, end with Tehillim 67 which is then followed by Kaddish Yasom, without Alenu. Is it possible that Alenu is a recent addition to the Kiddush Levana? I wrote: > It is NOT said when a minyan says Tehillim even as an organized > group, RZS asked: > Where have you seen it not being said then? I'm surprised that > this is your experience. In my current community, and also from my memories of yeshiva. When there was some sort of tzara that we said Tehillim for -- whether for a choleh, or some military or political problem -- we would say the Tehillim deemed appropriate by the leaders, and this would be followed by tefillos such as Acheinu and/or Mi Sheberach(s). I don't recall Kaddish ever being part of this. I have to admit that a big part of my asking this question is a pet peeve that I've been nursing, regarding Kiddush Levana in particular. It seems to me that Kiddush Levana -- the way it is done in just about every situation I've ever seen -- cannot be called a Tefilas Tzibur in any sense. It is a group of yechidim who happen to be saying the same thing, but in a totally disorganized fashion. The first one out of shul begins as soon as he finds a good location, and the last one out of shul also begins when he finds a good location. No attempt whatsoever is made to get this group to be on the same page, let alone in the same paragraph. There is no leader (like we have in Hallel and Pesukei Dzimra and everywhere else) who lets everyone know what the group is up to, so that they might end in unison. Rather, one person ends Alenu out loud, and that's when the yesomim say kaddish, regardless of whether they are only halfway though, or already finished before. So that's one of the reasons why I'm wondering why Kiddush Levana gets a kaddish. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/559b2834173228336fdfst03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 23:16:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 02:16:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kiddush levana In-Reply-To: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <559B6EB4.3010400@sero.name> On 07/06/2015 09:14 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: > So that's one of the reasons why I'm wondering why Kiddush Levana gets a kaddish. Well, I found what may be the source for this kaddish. The Shelah says "There is a nice minhag in the kingdom of EY and its surroundings, to say various pesukim and maamarim after kiddush levana, and then say kaddish derabanan [...] and the meaning of this kaddish is that [the Name] should be magnified and sanctified, a Great Name, a full Name, and then the moon's light will be as the sun's light". http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=45685&pgnum=287 > I have a suspicion that Alenu was added > *because of* the Kaddish, and not the other way around. Here are > some data points: The Hirsch siddur has Tehillim 67 as the last > paragraph of Kiddush Levana, with nothing at all after it. My Minchas > Yerushalayim, and Birnbaum too, end with Tehillim 67 which is then > followed by Kaddish Yasom, without Alenu. Is it possible that Alenu > is a recent addition to the Kiddush Levana? Taamei Haminhagim gives a reason for saying Alenu, because it was written by Yehoshua, whose face is compared to the moon (Bava Basra 75a). According to this reason there would seem to be no reason to say it after birkas hachama. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=216 But the footnote to Kuntres Acharon on the next page gives a different reason: Because kiddush levana looks like a pagan ritual, we say Alenu to declare that we worship only Hashem, and this is the same reason that after Hoshanos, which also seems a bit pagan, we declare "Lema'an daas kol amei ha'aretz ki Hashem hu haElokim, ein od". This reason applies equally to birkas hachama. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=217 I remember hearing that the same reason is why we say Alenu after a bris, but I can't find a source for this. Taamei Haminhagim cites Yaavetz that the reason is to include the baby among the "us" who are declaring our loyalty to Hashem. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=404 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 03:41:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 13:41:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Pinechas vs Pinchas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> R' Micha points out that his grandfather's name was Pinechas. He proves it first by the yud after the pei which, by the rules of dikduk, makes the following sheva a na'. In addition, the name is an Egyptian one, Pi-nechas, pi being a common prefix in Egyptian names. In case you haven't been convinced yet, there is a meteg in the pei which, by the rules, makes the chirik malei and the sheva na' There is, however, one small point that makes me wonder. R' Aharon ben Asher who, for the last thousand years, has been called the accepted decision maker on correct spelling in Tana"kh seems to disagree. In perek 11 of his book Dikdukei Hat'amim he describes the sh'vaim before the otyot g'roniot inside a word, when they are na' and when nach. Included in his list of words where they are nach are laqkhu, barchu, Pinchas, zar'u, etc. IIRC, not all manuscripts have all the words and Pinchas might be omitted in some. It is possible that copiers of the words lists added or omitted. On the Mesorah sub-list it is known that I am anti-dikduk because it opens the way to change the fine points on Torah pronunciation to match its rules. Among these "improvements" was the changing of many internal sh'vaim in words from nach to na'. What enabled this to happen was the brilliant invention by R' Yosef Kimchi of the ten vowel, five pairs of malei and chaseir. This led to the rule that after malei the sh'va is na' and after chaseir it is nach. Ben Asher, in perek 10 notes that there are seven vowels in Hebrew. All of the masoretes also state this. If there aren't pairs of malei and chaseir, we've just lost the rule about the following sh'vaim. All this is not something new. Heidenheim in his comments on the Ein Hakorei of RYHB"Y (Shemini, just before sh'lishi) states that in the times of the kadmonim many sh'vaim that are now na'im were then nachim. He quotes (from Ibn Ezra?) that kol sh'va b'ot rafah shekadam lo echad mishiv'at ham'lakhim hu nach ki halashon ha-ivrit kasha la r'difat shalosh t'nu'ot...except for double letters and some words with groniot. So how should I lein on Shabbos? Oh, no problem, I'm not the bal-koire. bivrakha, David From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 05:21:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:21:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kesher Message-ID: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little farfetched 1) knot 2) connection 3) conspiracy -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 06:18:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 09:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> In various places in dovening, kaddish etc we find the loshon - ..v'imru amen. Simply understood this is something only said by a sh'ztibur, as an announcement by the sh'ztibur that the congregation sh answer amen. In some cases, a yachid says it (ie Kiddush hachodesh, etc) probably bc we are saying something that originally was said by the sh'ztibur. What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? Who are we saying v'imru amen to? And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). Because the silent SE is not a carbon copy of the sh'ztibur version (for instance - no elokai netzor, SE of fast days are diff, etc) Mordechai Cohen mcohen at touchlogic.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:09:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 10:09:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper : connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little : farfetched : 1) knot : 2) connection : 3) conspiracy Interestingly, the noun doesn't show in chumash. As an adjective, we have hamuqsharos/im, to describe which of the tzon Yaaqov received (30:41-42). Rashi quotes the Targum, "habechiros" and cites two pesuqim in Shemuel II pereq 15. To round out the list: About Yaaqov (again) and Yoseif, "venafsho qesurah benafsho." Also the string tied on Zarach's hand, and tefillin (x2). Those are all the occurances of the shoresh. BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. Conspiracy comes up in #2, "league together, conspire". It would seem they conjecture the word comes from the collaboration, and less so what they're connecting to eachother to plan against something. They also cite "vatiqasheir kol-hachimah" in Nechemiah 3:35, where one would not readily picture "tying together" parts as a metaphor. I understand why Rashi thought the translation in Bereishis 30 is unique enough to require comment, but not how it fits altogether. (Rashi says it does, not how.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:08:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 14:08:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Pinechas vs Pinchas In-Reply-To: <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> References: , <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1436278092269.69769@ou.org> It should be noted that how Pinechas was read according to the Masorah is not really relevant to the way it was pronounced as a name. Pinchas is a Yiddish name (to be sure, with its roots in Hebrew), and is pronounced without a het and without a sh'wa. Its pronunciation in Hebrew is no more relevant than is the proper pronunciation of the word gannav (theif) in the T'NaKh to the pronunciation of the Yiddish word ganef. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union 11 Broadway, New York, NY 10004 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:22:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 17:22:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> References: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper >: connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little >: farfetched >: 1) knot >: 2) connection >: 3) conspiracy ... > BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary > meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. and what is the connection to a knot (the origin of the question was a dvar torah on the knots of tsizit) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 09:03:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:03:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: References: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150707160302.GA10745@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 05:22:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :>: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings... : ... :> BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary :> meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. : and what is the connection to a knot : (the origin of the question was a dvar torah on the knots of tsizit) Well, tzitzis knots less so, but knots generally bind two strings or two ends of a string together, no? Tzitzis knots are somewhat more like the example from Nechemiah. If qesher includes "batiqashar kol-hachomah", perhaps it also it includes binding pesilim into a gedil. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 14:44:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 17:44:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam, Moreh Nevuchim (2:29), A Strange Passage about Miracles Message-ID: <559C4830.9030705@gmail.com> In Moreh Nevuchim, 2:29, the Rambam seems to disparage a talmudical position about miracles that he had endorsed in his prior works (Commentary on Avos 5:6 and Shmoneh Perakim chapter 8). This, despite the fact that in the Moreh, he refers the reader to these former works to understand his position about miracles. And to further confuse matters, in the Moreh itself, within just a few sentences, he goes on to laud the proponent of that very positionfor maintaining it! The position is that already during the Creation week, G-d instilled, in objects and forces of nature, the potential for the aberrant behaviors that He would unleash when appropriate. (I.e. the aberrant behaviors were not changes G-d first decided upon, created and imposed upon things at the time the miracles were witnessed.) The Moreh Nevuchim introduces the concept with the words: "Our Sages said things zarrim m'od as regards miracles." "zarrim m'od" is Ibn Tibbon's Hebrew translation. Narboni and Schwartz use the similar "muzarrim, and likewise, Friedlander and Pines, in their English translations, translate, "very strange." KPCH translates, "temuhim" (astonishing). They all seem to indicate that the Rambam shunned the idea. Yet, as I noted, just a few sentences later, the Rambam lauds the Tanna who expressed the thought: [T]his text...demonstrates the [high] level of the speaker, and its being very difficult in his eyes that Nature could change after Creation, or that G-d's Will would change after it had been established. He therefore reasons, for example, that G-d instilled, in the nature of Water, the [property of] sticking together and always flowing in a downward direction, except for that time in which the Egyptians would drown in them; those specific waters would split. I have already enlightened you as to the main idea of the [talmudic] statement [KPCH in a footnote sees this as a reference to the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah and Shemoneh Perakim], and that it is all meant to flee from [the idea that, after Creation, G-d would bring about] the new creation of anything. It says there: R. Yonathan said, G-d placed stipulations on the sea, that it should divide before the Israelites. Thus it says, "And the sea returned, when the morning appeared, l'ay-sa-no [to its strength, or to its stipulated nature]"(Sh'mos 14:27). R. Yiremiyah ben Elazar said: Not only with the sea did the Holy One, blessed be He, place stipulations, but with all that has been created in the six days of Creation. "My hands stretched out the heavens, and all their hosts I commanded" (Yishayahu 45:12): I commanded the sea that it will divide, the fire that it should not harm Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, and the lions that they should not harm Daniel, and the fish that it should spit out Jonah." The same is to be applied to all the other miracles. The surprising solution to this problem is really quite simple. I noticed that in Moreh 1:70 (p. 106 in the classic version, line 2), Pines translates a certain phrase as "strange but true."But both Ibn Tibbon and Schwartz translate it, "ha-inyanim ha-mufla-os ha-n'chonos, ("matters wondrous but true/correct"). Hmmm. One Arabic scholar translates a word as "strange," while others translate it as "wondrous." I began to sense how the same word could be used both ways, and I suspected it might also be the same word as in our passage in 2:29. Without mentioning my problem about the Rambam's self-contradiction (to keep the issue unbiased), I asked R. Yakov Wincelberg, translator of Avraham ben HaRambam's Sefer HaMaspik from Arabic to English, what the actual Arabic word there is, and if it's the same word in our passage in 2:29. Here is his reply: In both cases, the word griva is used. It doesn't mean specifically "weird," but something that stands out. It could be: extraordinary, wondrous, amazing, rare, peculiar, uncommon, obscure, etc. It even is used for emigrating from one's country, as one is separating from the people. In other words, the word means "outstanding." So, true, one tends to understand the translation "zar" or "strange" to be meant in the sense of "weird," or "foreign," indicating that in the Moreh the Rambam considered the "front-loaded" miracle an idea to be shunned--contra the Gemora, his Avos commentary, and his Shemoneh Perakim. But the simpler truth is that the Rambam consistently endorsed this view, and considered it to be an outstanding one. One need only realize that Ibn Tibbon titles his dictionary of unfamiliar philosophical terms,appended to his Moreh Nevuchim translation, "Payrush Me'Hamillot Zarot," The word Zar indicates something unfamiliar, but not necessarily "strange" in the sense of "weird." And it can also mean something that is wondrous and true. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 17:01:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 20:01:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher Message-ID: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little farfetched 1) knot 2) connection 3) conspiracy -- Eli Turkel >>>> The deeper connection is -- connection! All the words formed from this shoresh are words that have "connecting" as their basic meaning. In Edward Horowitz's fascinating and entertaining book, "How the Hebrew Language Grew," he has a chapter on how sounds made in the same part of the mouth sometimes interchange to form words with similar or closely related meanings. One example he gives is the word kesher, and the related word gesher -- a bridge, which connects two places, two sides of a river, two sides of a road and so on. Keshes, a rainbow, is something like a bridge connecting two parts of the sky. Another example of these interconnected words (this one I've also seen in the Hirsch commentary on Chumash) is the word "tsachak" to laugh, to which a number of other words are related in a phonetic way: Change the ches to an ayin and you get "tsa'ak." Both tsachak and tsa'ak involve emitting loud sounds -- sounds of mirth or of alarm or distress. (Ches and ayin are both formed in the back of the throat.) Change the tsadi to a sin and instead of "tsachak" to laugh you get "sachak" to be happy, to rejoice. (Tsadi and sin are both sibilants.) Going back to the word tsa'ak, if you now change the tsadi to a zayin you again get a closely related word, "za'ak." And if you take the word "tsa'ir" (young) and change the tsadi to a zayin you get "za'ir" small. Change the sin of saraf to a tsadi and instead of burning (saraf) you get refining (tsaraf) gold or silver -- which is done through heat. Change the zayin of "zahav" to a tsadi and instead of gold you get "tzahov," the color yellow. Horowitz points out that these kinds of phonetic relationships can also be found in English, Latin and other languages, but nevertheless I find it especially fascinating to trace these connections in Lashon Hakodesh. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 02:42:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 09:42:27 GMT Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen Message-ID: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. > Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? > Who are we saying v'imru amen to? > > And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the > same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end of Birkas Hamazon. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett???s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren???t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/559cf0b42988970b45addst03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 02:09:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 02:09:57 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:18 AM, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: > In various places in dovening, kaddish etc we find the loshon - ..v'imru > amen. .. > What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. > Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? > Who are we saying v'imru amen to? I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish. SE took on the whole paragraph "Oseh Shalom ... ve'imru amen" from the end of Kaddish, and Kaddish took on the three steps backwards from the end of SE (which makes sense for the STz's Kaddish Titkabbal at the end of the repetition, but not so much in all other kaddishim) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 06:30:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 09:30:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <559D2610.8060803@sero.name> On 07/08/2015 05:42 AM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > >> What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. >> Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? >> Who are we saying v'imru amen to? >> >> And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the >> same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). > > The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end of Birkas Hamazon. Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even when there's a zimun. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 08:04:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:04:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> References: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150708150424.GA8908@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 08:01:24PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : In Edward Horowitz's fascinating and entertaining book, "How the Hebrew : Language Grew," he has a chapter on how sounds made in the same part of the : mouth sometimes interchange to form words with similar or closely related : meanings... Also in RSRH's fascinating and entertaining commentary on the Pentateuch and a couple of places in CW and elsewhere. : Another example of these interconnected words (this one I've also seen in : the Hirsch commentary on Chumash)... See https://books.google.com/books?id=eVAAfn6Itb4C (The real one; the google preview skips all of your examples.) Etymological Dictionary of Biblcal Hebrew: Based on the Commentaries of Samson Raphael Hirsch by Matityahu Clark This is a central part of RSRH's exegesis. I once went through much of Bereishis and Shemos documenting which letters RSRH considers related enough to qualify as likely to be part of the same phonetic meta-root. I ended up with the following chart (readable only in fixed-width-font, eg Courier): geroniot velar dental dento-lingual labial h,ch q | s,sh tes | alef k | tz tav | b ayin g | z d | p n ------------- m r --------------------------------- l y ------------------------------------- v Letters in the same column are phonetically related (eg hei and aleg) Vertical lines separate into pairs (eg zayin and dalet, but not dalet and pei nor tzadi and dalet [paired coumns, different rows]). The pairs are lingual/velar (use tongue) vs not. Horizontal lines connect the nasals (mem and nun), the approximants (lamd and reish) and the semivowels (yud and vav). The unvoiced letters are all in the top two rows. Notice how hei-ches and shin/sin-samech fall into parallel positions, and bege"d kefe"t into the same two rows. I stopped my analysis when I had gone dozens of peraqim without needing to change the chart any. Lost interest. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 08:12:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:12:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> Message-ID: <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:09:57AM -0700, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, : but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence : between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish... You might have seen it on-list in Apr or Dec 2006, offered by RPMinden. RSBA offered a different explanation: > Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, Likutei Maharich, RS Schwab, Boruch She'omar all > say that we are whispering to the Malochim - that accompany a person all > the time. [Maybe 'oseh sholom BIMEROMOV' indicates this?] The earliest > source seems to be Mateh Moshe - which some cite. > The OH also brings a nusach - IIRC - Machzor [or Siddur] Roma - that > indeed does not include the 'Ve'imru Omein' at the end of SE. RPM believes it was a post-facto explanation, giving meaning to a pratice that really originated in error. See the subject line at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=T#TO%20WHOM%20ARE%20WE%20WHISPERING%20 and the 3 starting with http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=V#VIMRU%20AMEN in the archive index. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 11:33:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 14:33:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: In Avodah V33n96, RAM referred repeatedly to "Kaddish Yasom" -- I think at least some of his questions might be answered once we understand that (a) what he called "Kaddish Yasom" is actually the Qaddish (Shaleim, but without the "tisqaba[i]l" phrase) said by the SHaTZ at the end of davening, at some point in our history given over to children (eventually/or to *y'somim*) who could not be SHaTZ (see http://www.beureihatefila.com/files/Introduction_to_Mourners_Kaddish.pdf); and that (b) Qaddish is said after the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim or other K'suvim. As for Kiddush L'vana (KL), indeed Minhag Ashk'naz did not include "Aleinu" -- as was noted, the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim at the end of KL (similar to doing so after Shacharis and after [Mincha/]Ma'ariv, and similar to when a *seifer* from K'suvim was read) was followed by Qaddish (in the Roedelheim, those chapters are 121, 150, and 67, not just 67) -- and KL not being a *t'filas tzibbur* does not impact upon the saying of Qaddish (although obviously, a *minyan* is required for any *davar shebiq'dusha*). HTH :). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 02:40:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 02:40:50 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:09:57AM -0700, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > : I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, > : but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence > : between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish... > > You might have seen it on-list in Apr or Dec 2006, offered by RPMinden. > My memory was correct as to the attribution, though I garbled the content a bit. It's on page 48 of the Birnbaum siddur, in the notes to the Kaddish deRabbanan after Korbanot: "/Oseh Shalom/, which repeats in Hebrew the thought expressed in the preceding Aramaic paragraph, seems to have been added from the meditation recited at the end of the /Shemoneh Esreh/. The same sentence is also added at the end of the grace recited after meals. The three steps backwards, which formed the respectful manner of retiring from a superior, were likewise transferred from the concluding sentence of the /Shemoneh Esreh/. On the other hand, the phrase "and say Amen", added at the end of the silent meditation after the /Shemoneh Esreh/, must have been borrowed from the Kaddish which is always recited in the hearing of no fewer than ten men." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 08:53:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:53:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reciting a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time Message-ID: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> http://tinyurl.com/o6rxcdf according to those that say you do NOT recite a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time (ie bar mitzvah), why is it different than all the places where we DO recite a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah not done in a long time? (ie lulav, shofar, megila, etc) Thanks, mc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 13:27:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 20:27:55 GMT Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen Message-ID: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> I wrote: > The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end > of Birkas Hamazon. R' Zev Sero responded: > Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, > with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively > recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even > when there's a zimun. But we've *always* benched as individuals when there *isn't* a zimun. But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that originally, Oseh Shalom was part of benching only when a zimun was present, and then for some reason came to be said even by individuals. If that is indeed what happened, I can't help but speculate that there was an even earlier time, when benching with a zimun would include Oseh Shalom at that point, but benching with a *minyan* would include Kaddish at that point! Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55a02add2581a2add0f3dst01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 16:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <55A05668.1080404@sero.name> On 07/10/2015 04:27 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: >> >Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, >> >with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively >> >recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even >> >when there's a zimun. > But we've*always* benched as individuals when there*isn't* a zimun. Benching is designed for a zimun. It's normal to eat in a group. But even when there were only two eating, or when a family ate together, I think the usual thing was for one person to bench and the other person (or the wife and children) to listen and say amen. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 08:42:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush L'vana (was "Kaddish Yasom") Message-ID: In Avodah v33n97, I wrote: > As for Kiddush L'vana (KL), indeed Minhag Ashk'naz did not include "Aleinu" -- as was noted, the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim at the end of KL...was followed by Qaddish...-- and KL not being a *t'filas tzibbur* does not impact upon the saying of Qaddish.... < Just wanted to add that (a) For the record, I don't recall Qaddish being said at the end of KL at KAJ/"Breuer's" (and the MMA Siddur Tefilas Yeshurun instructs not to say either "Aleinu" or Qaddish at the end of Bircas haL'vana), even when there was evidently more than a quorum of men (gathered to be *m'qabeil p'nei haShchina b'rov-am*) on the front steps or sidewalk of the Shul -- whether or not Qaddish should be said (and what the precise parameters are) in that circumstance (not a *t'filas tzibbur*; not in a *maqom t'fila*) was not central to the overall points I was trying to make; and (b) for consistency, it's QL, not KL :). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 11:30:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:30:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pinchas Message-ID: > > > BTW, my grandfather a"h was named Pinechas after this week's sedra, > his bar mitzvah parashah. When it was time to name my oldest, I checked > with my uncle how his name appeared on their kesuvah, as their mesader > qiddushin was a key rav in my grandfather's life. (R/Dr Mirsky zt"l met > two teenage boys coming off the boat and took them under his wing. My > grandfather and great-uncle then earned enough to bribe the rest of the > family's way out of Litta before the Nazis came to power.) > > Anyway, it seems R/Dr Mirsky held my grandfather's name was Pinechas, > pei-yud-nun-ches-samekh, as it is spelled in the chumash (ignoring the > size of the yud as usually written in the beginning of the parashah). > And thus the sheva is na, Pinechas - not Pinchas. > > If you want to make a derashah out of a Mitzri name, it's Pi Nachas, > not Pen Chas. > > Reason for this tangent... I would have expected "Gushies" to get the > sheva in the parashah name right. After all, they have the patach under > the reish in Parashat. > > Way behind in reading. However, Aharon Ben Asher, in Dikduke Hate'amim, specifically lists the sheva in Pinchas (with a yud) as being a sheva nach, so the "Gushies" have on whom to rely.. Meir Shinnar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 11:39:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:39:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: > On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:20:08PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: > : On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. > > : Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a > : moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is > : the purpose to make things even worse? > > As I quoted from RAK, because they classically were not considered > chuqim. Until our contemporaries took the issue from sexual morality > to sexual ethics, these truths were considered self-evident. It's the > choqification of dinei arayos that's inauthentic. > > In any case, since one doesn't pasqen from taamei hamitzvos, the din > is the same either way. Nothhing in such exploration can "make things > even worse". > > In Shmona prakim, the rambam seems to take the opposite view - trying to reconcile the view that having a desire to sin is a sign of moral failing, and that the overcoming of desire is a sign o f greatness - he argues that to desire to sin is problematic in hamefursamot - but NOT in those forbidden only for religious reasons - and he specifically applies that to arayot - and needs to apply it to arayot, because the sugyot that deal with kol hagadol mechavero yitzro gadol mimenu - specifically apply to arayot. One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT self evident or even mefursamot Meir Shinnar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 11:10:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 20:10:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out Message-ID: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> In SA OH 272:1 the Mechabeir writes that one shouldn't use wine left out for kiddush (or any type of mitzvah adds the Aruch HaShulchan). The problem isn't gi'loi'im but the pasuk in Malachi 1:8 which teaches us not to use Grade B products for mitzvot. The assumption is that wine left out goes bad (or gets worse) and therefore it can't be used for qiddush. My question is what does one do if you thinking allowing wine to breath for hours improves the taste? That's been my experience for years. If I open a bottle Friday evening, the wine definitely tastes better Saturday morning. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 12:14:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 15:14:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> On 07/13/2015 02:10 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > In SA OH 272:1 the Mechabeir writes that one shouldn't use wine left out for kiddush (or any type of mitzvah adds the Aruch HaShulchan). The problem isn't gi'loi'im but the pasuk in Malachi 1:8 which teaches us not to use Grade B products for mitzvot. The assumption is that wine left out goes bad (or gets worse) and therefore it can't be used for qiddush. > > My question is what does one do if you thinking allowing wine to breath for hours improves the taste? That's been my experience for years. If I open a bottle Friday evening, the wine definitely tastes better Saturday morning. It depends what kind of wine. Some wines definitely improve with a few hours' breathing. The criterion is "hakriveihu no lefechasecho"; *would* you serve this to an honoured guest who is used to drinking quality wine? If it's a wine that needs the time to aerate then you certainly would, and in fact you wouldn't think of serving it to him *without* that time. OTOH this would preclude making kiddush at all on Manishewitz, no matter how "fresh" it is. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 20:18:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 05:18:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> Message-ID: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? Did they not know that allowing wine to breath improves the taste, at least for a decent red wine (which is the type of wine they think we should be drinking)? Ben On 7/13/2015 9:14 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > It depends what kind of wine. Some wines definitely improve with a > few hours' breathing. The criterion is "hakriveihu no lefechasecho"; > *would* you serve this to an honoured guest who is used to drinking > quality wine? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 19:34:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 22:34:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20150714023419.GA18963@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 05:18:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and : others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? Because Shapiro's wine is "So thick you could cut it with a knife" as that billboard we'd pass driving to Boro Park used to advertise. Whereas you're talkng about a finer wine as vitners and frenchmen measure. Different products with totally different definitions of what is "good". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 21:48:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:48:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55A4949B.8090308@sero.name> On 07/13/2015 11:18 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and > others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? > Did they not know that allowing wine to breath improves the taste, at > least for a decent red wine (which is the type of wine they think we > should be drinking)? First of all, most good wines shouldn't breathe for very long. Second, their wine was generally pretty awful by our standards; bad enough that it needed watering to make it palatable. They used wild yeast, they had no pasteurization, and it was all they could do to stop it all turning into vinegar. I wonder how much damage could exposure possibly do to wine that bad, but I seriously doubt it could improve it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 14:11:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 17:11:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Timely Notes for the Summer Message-ID: <20150714211025.9203118356A@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from an article by Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer, ZT"L, that appeared in the Mitteilungen, Vol. 2, June 1941 Timely Notes for the Summer Can the heat of summer be termed ?oppressive?? That is surely something that is individual. If we think of the terribly oppressive times a large number of our brethren are going through, we will gladly tolerate the discomforts of summer and rather bless our good fortune to be spared such pain. Many of our newly immigrated brothers and sisters are struggling with heavy economic burdens, and only the few can afford the much desired relaxing rest. We are pleased for those who can afford a vacation and expect that they will carefully select, as far as the trustworthiness of its kashrus, the place where they plan to spend their vacation. Obviously, they will not want to take a vacation from the ?yoke of the Law.? They want to return home, hale and hearty, and not with a feeling of unease for having risked their moral values in exchange for physical wellbeing. The heat of summer calls for changes in clothing and appearance. The conscientious Jew will carefully keep to certain limits, which he will not overstep. Our Divine Law cautions us to have a sense of shame, and that applies to summer as well. The Jewish custom ?according to the Talmud ?requires men and boys to cover their heads outdoors. God gave the first garment to man when he forfeited his special standing by disregarding the Will of God.Modest covering of his body is to be a steady reminder of the higher calling of man. Jewish men were given the adornment of tzitzis to admonish them to wear their clothes as proper Jews. Even in the summer heat, our requirements for covering can easily be heeded with lighter clothing. Comfort will not cause us to shirk our duty. A soldier?s helmet is uncomfortably heavy, but he wears it because it is required; God?s requirement should not be heeded? As for the Jewish woman, Jewish law requires her to cover her hair. The true Jewish woman will proudly do so, for it is a sign of her willingness to adhere to God?s Will as the guide in her life. A woman unworthy of this sign will have it removed forcibly by the priest (Bemidbar 5:18). Covering one?s hair is merely a sign if a woman does not conduct herself otherwise in the properly Jewish manner. Similarly, there are Jewish men who bear the Milah-sign on their bodies but sully their bodies in other ways. Not covering one?s hair is probably ? we are sorry to say ? a matter of ignorance, and perhaps such a Jewish woman was not brought up to understand the importance of covering her hair. Many women may carefully observe their Jewish duties in other areas, and we would so much like to adorn them with this special crown also. For the fact remains: covering of the hair for the Jewish woman is a must. The proud Jewish woman will conduct herself Jewishly in her clothing and in covering her hair. The word Tznius is a Jewish concept that is hard to translate exactly. It does not only denote a ?quietly humble way of living? (Michah 6:8), but everything else that our people has so valued and esteemed in their Jewish women at all times. ?quietly humble way of living? (Michah 6:8), but everything else that our people has so valued and esteemed in their Jewish women at all times. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 02:01:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 05:01:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Star-K on the Heter Mechira Message-ID: <20150715090047.2F7EB1824C9@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-shmitta-5775.htm Who Owns The Land? There is a difference of opinion among the poskim as to whether produce grown on land owned by a non-Jew living in the Land of Israel is considered produce of sheviis. The custom in Yerushalayim is not to consider it produce of sheviis, while the custom in Bnei Brak is to consider it produce of sheviis. Selling The Land: The Heter Mechira was formulated and instituted by many very prominent rabbanim (including the Gadol Hador, Harav Yitzchok Elchanan Spector) in the year 1887. There was a great deal of controversy among other prominent rabbanim surrounding the heter, the foremost of whom was the Netziv (Harav Naftoli Zvi Yehuda Berlin) of Volozin. Most of the controversy centered around the problem regarding the Torah prohibition of selling any part of the Land of Israel to non-Jews. Those who proposed the heter claimed that the situation in the Land of Israel was so precarious that not working the land for an entire year would put the entire Jewish settlement in danger, thus warranting this drastic measure. Others claimed that the prohibition of selling the land was worse than the prohibition of working the land. Since then, every Shmitta there have been rabbanim who have sold the land. Harav Avraham Yitzchok Kook institutionalized the sale (although he, too, agreed it was to be done only under grave duress). Since it's inception, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel has sold the land every Shmitta. However, there are presently many rabbanim who question whether the current situation in Israel warrants this type of sale. Furthermore, there is another more serious problem the consumer faces. The produce that is sold in the regular stores during the year of Shmitta predominantly comes from non-religious kibbutzim and moshavim, who would never agree to sell their land. This is compounded by the fact that the non-religious kibbutzim do not observe those prohibitions which Harav Kook instituted, and Harav Kook never permitted their current practices. Certainly, a tourist who is not knowledgeable concerning the dinim of Shmitta should buy produce only from stores that do not rely upon the heter mechira. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 03:18:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 06:18:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. Whether MZ is well known or not aside, even "kemaaseh Eretz Mitzrayim" (at least the male half of it) is described in the gemara as pretty well known -- it's on Ulla's list of 3 dinim of the 30 mitzvos Benei Noach (which rishonim map to subcategories of the usual 7) that Benei Noach generally observe -- "she'in kosevin kesuvah lezekharim". In any case, I will leave the Rambam as a tzarikh iyun that only affects the lives of those who agree with him that understanding theology and/or metaphysics is the perfection we strive for in life, above perfection of virtue. (Moreh, conclusion, worthy of its own thread.) For that matter, most of us also diagree with the Rambam on whether a person is judged by the level reached or by the distance covered. Without agreeing on either of those two points, it's likely one wouldn't agree with the Rambam's pesaq here. His view of the role of of bringing one's desire in line with a mitzvah will necessarily come from a different place. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 03:32:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 06:32:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Herzl In-Reply-To: <17e71f.7a1031b7.42d6e65d@aol.com> References: <17e71f.7a1031b7.42d6e65d@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150715103208.GD4654@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 06:25:33PM -0400, RnTK wrote on Areivim: : My comment was facetious -- a little dig at those MO who apparently do : believe that Herzl, Golda Meir and Ben Gurion were gedolim. R' AE Kaplan wrote very highly of Theodore Herzl. RAEK predeceased the accompilshments of the other two. To quote RYGB's translation (from BeIqvos haYir'ah pg 85): He [Herzl] did not teach us Torah... because he was never taught Torah... He taught us, rather, to say two words [four words in English] on occasions that until he came we had neither dared nor been able to utter: "I am a Jew [Ivri]!" We were always able to recite these words in the Beis Medrash next to our shtenders, we were even capable of reading and writing them... We could declare ourselves a nation in any place we wanted, except in that one place where the nations of the world were... to be found - in the international political arena. There we were seen as wandering sheep, like one Telzer (Yehuda Leib Gordon [22]) once put it: "Not a nation, not a congregation, rather a flock." Not like sheep that are petted and fed, but like those that are shorn or slaughtered. When a European ruler asked a Jew: "Who are you?" Would he respond simply: "I am a Jew" - without any qualifications or explanations? He would answer: I am a Jew - but also German, also French, also English, etc. Along came Herzl, the first from among us to reach that international political arena that serves as a world court, and responded, openly, freely, effortlessly and guilelessly: "I am a Jew." Moreover: "I was stolen from the land of the Jews [Eretz HaIvrim], and here I have done nothing, for they placed me in the pit" [Bereishis 40:15]. The Jewish nation is a nation unto itself, like all other nations, indeed, it is special, and it possesses a unique life force that sustains it... Do you not sense the hidden workings of divine providence? I know that just as the rejuvenation of Jewish national spirit had to come, so will finally come, in the unseen future, the rejuvenation of our Torah spirit... We do not see the paths, we do not see the footsteps, but I know... that I must strive toward this. And G-d who returns to Tziyon [Zion] will return us also to Torah MiTziyon... [23] [22] The most prominent Hebrew poet of the nineteenth century and a notorious Maskil, Gordon was generally known by his acronym, YaLaG, that, in a play on words, would be pronounced by Orthodox Jews as "yil'ag," the Hebrew word for "scoffer." [23] Besides his essays on Hashkafa, Reb Avraham Elya also left many "Reshimos," short notes on topics in Mussar, Machashava, and Avodas Hashem, some of which are beautiful vignettes of life lived in a Torah true and Mussar suffused way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 02:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 05:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Secular Studies: Are They for Everyone? Message-ID: <20150715092755.A05BB1824E7@nexus.stevens.edu> From the article by Rabbi Mordechai Willig at http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/%2FTU1_Willig.pdf Are secular studies permissible for everyone when they are necessary to provide for a livelihood? The answer is: for almost everyone. To summarize, then, for purpose of parnasah, secular studies are allowed for almost everyone. If it is not for parnasah, it is permissible, and sometimes even a mitzvah to learn various disciplines, providing that such study is considered of secondary importance, both in terms of time and value for, above all, Torah must always be the Ekir. Please see the above URL for the entire article. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 07:56:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:56:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Confronting sexual abuse in the Jewish community Message-ID: <> Can you give a place in shas or SA where the punishment of a crime accounts for the pain to the family If someone deserves the death penalty (there is no jail in halacha) as far as I know the bet din does not take into account that the family who are innocent will also be punished. If someone is sent to "ir miklat" the yeshiva goes with him, we don't remove the punishment because it affects the whole community -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:33:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian Message-ID: During a recent discussion with a friend the following two questions came up and I am curious what the fellows of Avodah think. 1) Can one count someone who denies the historicity of *matan torah* and *yetzias mitzrayim* but is other completely *shomer torah u-mitzvos* for a *minyan*? There is an halakhic category of *mumar l?hachis* who cannot count for a *minyan* according to many *poskim*. But that is on the assumption that they are violating *halakhah*. If they are not violating halakhah, can they be counted in a *minyan*? 2) Does one fulfill their shofer blowing from hearing the shofar be blown by someone denies the historicity of *matan torah* and *yetzias mitzrayim*? We assume that *mitzvos tzerichos kavvanah*. So this individual intends to fulfill the mitzvah of blowing the shofar on Rosh ha-Shanah. However, his conception of the nature of *mitzvos* and commandedness is extremely untraditional. Personally, I am inclined to include this individual in a minyan and assume that one fulfills the mitzvah of shofar with his blowing. But my conception of halakha flows from R. Dr. Walter Wurzburger?s *zy?a* belief that halakhah is a floor and not a ceiling. In other words, we do not make the bar for basic fulfillment of halakhah obligations higher if one could avoid it. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:32:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:32:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> References: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 6:18 AM Micha Berger wrote: > Lo zakhisi lehavin: > It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss > aren't mefursamot. > > Whether MZ is well known or not aside, even "kemaaseh Eretz Mitzrayim"... > In any case, I will leave the Rambam as a tzarikh iyun that only affects > the lives of those who agree with him that understanding theology and/or > metaphysics is the perfection we strive for in life, above perfection > of virtue. (Moreh, conclusion, worthy of its own thread.) ... You are assuming the shmona prakim see relevant only to those who fully accept Rambam's philosophy -- and that is a very unique position. I think shmona prakim is studied by those who would never open the moreh Rambam argues that a lust to steal or murder is a character flaw -- the should be overcome -- but a lust for hazir or arayot is not a character flaw -- although it too should be overcome. Why that is dependent on his notions of the ultimate good, effort versus achievement, or mitzvot bne noach I don't see -- nor do I think most others me that connection.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:55:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:55:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150715155517.GC31352@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 03:32:08PM +0000, Meir Shinnar wrote: : You are assuming the shmona prakim see relevant only to those who fully : accept Rambam's philosophy -- and that is a very unique position... Nah, I'm just surmising that the two may be linked. If your notion of redemption revolves around ideas and the thirst for knowledge, then developing something like like-vs-dislike is a different topic than if your notion of personal redemption is "sheyehei adir cheftzeinu leheitiv im zulaseinu... bedemus haBorei, keveyakhol." (Bonus points for the first person to identify the reference. ) So not that 8 Peraqim are only relevent to followers of the Rambam's point, just that this particular point, and perhaps a couple to a few others, may be of limited utility to the rest of us. (8 Peraqim, BTW, is one of my more heavily used resources when teaching for The Mussar Institute.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 12:49:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:49:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55A6B95E.6090302@starways.net> On 7/15/2015 10:33 AM, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: > 1)Can one count someone who denies the historicity of /matan > torah/ and /yetzias mitzrayim/ but is other completely /shomer > torah u-mitzvos/ for a /minyan/? I think there's a difference between someone who denies Matan Torah and someone who expresses doubts. The former, I'd treat no differently than someone who denies God, because for the purposes of Judaism, they're not separable. We asked our mesader kiddushin (years ago) what we should do about those family members who didn't believe in God. He said that if they'd openly denied God's existence, we could not give them sheva brachot, because we couldn't be yotzei on a bracha by someone who doesn't believe in God. He didn't say anything at all about observance. A lot of people focus on Rambam's ikkarim, and whether or not we're bound by them, but the concept of being kofer ba-ikkar predates Rambam by centuries. The existence of God and the historical fact of Matan Torah are, by any reasonable assessment, the most basic ikkarim of Judaism. Absent either of these, what's left isn't Judaism. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 19:47:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:47:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150716024705.GE13610@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:33:13AM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : 1) Can one count someone who denies the historicity of *matan torah* : and *yetzias mitzrayim* but is other completely *shomer torah u-mitzvos* : for a *minyan*? : : There is an halakhic category of *mumar l'hachis* who cannot count for a : *minyan* according to many *poskim*. But that is on the assumption that : they are violating *halakhah*. If they are not violating halakhah, can they : be counted in a *minyan*? I don't know if we hold like the Rambam, but Hil' Teshuvah ch. 3 is the only discussion of the categories of heresy I know of. A min is an atheist or polytheist, a trinitarian, etc... (3:7) An apiqoreis, the category in the title, is defined with a list of theological errors. It's someone who, like Epicurus, denies that Hashem runs the world. A Deist, someone who denies prophecy, or that He doesn't know man's actions. (3:8) Leshitaso, someone who doesn't believe in the historicity of Torah miSinai would be a kofer baTorah. (ibid) A mumar is a consistent sinner (ledavar achas, lekhol haTorah kulah), not a heretic. {3.9) Then the machti'ei rabbim (10), poreish midarkei hatzibur (11), moserim (12), and one who terrorizes the community -- not lehsim shamayim (13). That list -- 3 kinds of heretic and 5 kinds of sinners -- lose their olam haba, if they die without teshuvah (3:14). And then he says there are also smaller ones that still carry a similar price. Anyway, R' Aharon Soloveitchik held that "nebich an apiqoreis" (not using the term in the Rambam's technical sense) can be counted for a minyan. As long as his beliefs include those ideas that make tefillah meaningful. So a min couldn't, nor an apiqoreis who believes G-d doesn't know every little thing going on down here. (This was a common idea among Artistotilian, although obviosuly not among ours. Since facts change with time, and the Creator does not, how could the Creator know such facts? Would that mean His knowledge changes?) But a tinoq shenishba (by which RAL intentionally includes Jews not raised O) who doesn't believe in Sinai, but does believe that there is One G-d Who Listens to prayer and is Mashgiach, should be countable. Not because their heresy makes them heretics and thus michutz lamachaneh. But because they are incapable of prayer. RAS didn't discuss the person who isn't a tinoq shenishba, but also not a rebal. Someone who grew up in a Torah setting, but in his studies reached the wrong conclusion. The Tashbetz and the Radbaz (eearly 16th cent CE, not the Ridbaz who wrote on the Y-mi) famously hold that such people are not heetics even if they believe heresy. (As least on the list list it's famous, anyeay.) I just can't assume RAS agrees without proof. RAL also doesn't discuss a Deist who believes G-d Hears prayers, but won't act any differently. Can he make a brikhas hoda'ah, but not a baqashah? Since prayer is not al menas leqabel peras, do we even make baqashos for the sake of gettin a "yes", or just to have a moment with Him talking about what is bothering you? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 16 07:01:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:01:37 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Confronting sexual abuse in the Jewish community Message-ID: <20150716.100137.31633.0@webmail13.vgs.untd.com> I wrote on Areivim: > Of course it is important to protect future victims, but that is > not the only consideration here. What about the fallout to the > family of the victim, to the family of the perpetrator, and to > the community as a whole? (For those who have not been following on Areivim: Personally, I am all in favor of protecting the victims, but I know that my opinions might be heavily influenced by the society in which I live. My suggestion is that our chachamim are the only ones qualified to decide on any particular case, whether it might be better to whitewash an incident, so that the family and/or community are not hurt by the publicity.) R' Eli Turkel responded here on Avodah: > Can you give a place in shas or SA where the punishment of a > crime accounts for the pain to the family > If someone deserves the death penalty (there is no jail in > halacha) as far as I know the bet din does not take into > account that the family who are innocent will also be > punished. > If someone is sent to "ir miklat" the yeshiva goes with him, > we don't remove the punishment because it affects the whole > community These are excellent points. But then I must ask: Haven't there been times and situations when legitimate gedolim have paskened to hush things up because of other considerations? Would someone say that all such cases come from gedolim whose outlook is NOT Torah-based? I wish I could cite specific examples for discussion. Unfortunately, my knowledge of such things is far too limited. But surely this attitude must have come from somewhere, and did not materialize from nothingness. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett???s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren???t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55a7b984d1f883984538est04vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 18 13:49:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 22:49:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on Exercise Message-ID: <55AABBF3.2070100@zahav.net.il> Rav Kook's opinion about exercise and sport had been brought up here before. I quoted him as saying that physical activity helps the tzaddikim in their avodah. In the class I go to on Orot, we discussed the following piece by R Kook, which goes way further than that. Keep in mind that this was written before there was an IDF, so he isn't talking about any sort of physical protection. Orot, Orot Hatechiya, 34: Exercise, (which young Israel is getting involved in, in Eretz Yisrael, to strengthen their bodies in order to be vigorous for the nation), improves the spiritual strength of the greatest tzaddikim, those who involve themselves in "the unification of God's names" (my translation of a phrase which I admit I don't get), and increases the transmission of God's light in the world, because there is no revelation at all of light without all components being present. Turns out that (according to Rav Kook) not only does Talmud Torah increase the merits to the army/state/people, but just having people trying to be healthy, active, in shape, improves Talmud Torah, as long as both sides are doing this for the nation. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 18 17:09:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 03:09:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tefach Thick Soft Spongy Matza Message-ID: Many mistakenly think that we now have an accepted Halachic tradition, recorded in the Shulchan Aruch [460:5] to no longer bake Tefach thick Matza [10 - 12 cm] as in Talmudic times. This is untrue. The ShAruch records that Tefach thick Matza must not be Pesach. There is no problem whatsoever to produce such Matza Pesach and eat them during Pesach. The reason for this is quite simple; if one makes Chamets during Pesach, no matter that it was unintentional, one has transgressed the very serious violation of having Chamets - Bal YeRaEh and Bal YeMaTzeh. When making Tefach thick Matza the risk of inadvertently making Chamets because some dough in the Matza will remain unbaked, is [became] intolerable. However, baking the same thickness Matza before Pesach poses no concern. If it is Chamets, as can be discerned by tearing the Matza and checking for doughy stringy threads, then either eat it before Pesach or get rid of it. Whatever is fully baked however, is fine for Pesach. Compare the Mechabers expression, Seif 4 and 5, not to make images on the Matza; and not to make thick Matza - it is not done - ??? ?????; to his expression Seif 6, not to make dough filled with meat and veg - one ought not be lenient - ??? ????. One ought not be lenient - ??? ???? sounds more strict, as is supported by the MBerurah [18] suggesting that it is prohibited even after the fact, - whereas it is not done - ??? ????? implies it should not be done but after the fact, if it not Chamets it is Kosher and may be eaten during Pesach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 17 07:19:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 10:19:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Guten Chodesh (Though sad, still hope...) Message-ID: <0F8B8D71-82A7-4DB7-AFF4-740FDDA46D37@cox.net> The gematria for ?Rosh Chodesh" is 813. (reish:200, aleph:1, shin:300; ches:8, dalet:4, shin:300 ? Total=813) In the whole of tanach there is only one verse with the gematria of 813 which occurs in B?reishis, Chapter 1, verse 3: ?Vayomer Elohim ohr; vay?hi ohr? ?And God said: Let there be light and there was light.? May our mourning be turned into dancing (Ps.30:12) and may we live to see the light. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 00:55:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 10:55:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: heter mechira In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <> There are many inaccuracies in their statement and much is outdated. "The produce that is sold in the regular stores during the year of Shmitta predominantly comes from non-religious kibbutzim and moshavim, who would never agree to sell their land. " I have no idea what this statement means. They in fact do sell their land. The current situation in Israel is that the chief rabbinate sends people to each of these kibbutzim etc to explain to them what the heter mechira means and what are the other options. No one is forced to participate. "However, there are presently many rabbanim who question whether the current situation in Israel warrants this type of sale" The figures I have heard is that 85% of Israeli produce is exported (mainly to Europe). Without the heter mechira one would have to close down almost the entire agricultural development in Israel. In addition one is forbidden to sell produce with kedushat sheviit to nonJews. That would mean having guards at supermarkets checking that only Jews buy the produce "This is compounded by the fact that the non-religious kibbutzim do not observe those prohibitions which Harav Kook instituted, and Harav Kook never permitted their current practices." The current chief rabbinate tries to enforce whatever Rav Kook instituted. In fact most agricultural workers in Israel regardless of shemita are Arabs. -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 18:33:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:33:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish with mixed seating In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720013343.GC4548@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 03:08:58PM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : Interestingly enough the Gemara in Succos brings a "proof" for separation : of men and women from a non-"Davar She'bekedushah" the funeral in : Zecharyah. The other example is Simchas Beis haSho'eivah. Notice that one is extreme joy, and the other extreme sadness. Neither was tefillah betzibbur. Should the fact that chazal thought it was natural to apply these precedents to tefillah be taken to mean that -- "thanks to my knees for bowing at modim" aside -- Chazal found such extremes of emotion common during davening? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 18:57:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:57:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150720015718.GD4548@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 01:14:59AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : Well, I guess my original post should have had a longer introduction. I : know that Kaddish Tiskabel has a very clear rule, namely that it : follows every Amidah, and the only exception is that it also follows : Selichos. Kaddish D'rabanan always follows group learning (though I've : never figured out exactly what learning counts and what doesn't). Qaddish Tisqabel is said after zelosehon (the Amidah) uVa'us-hon (tachanun or selichos. That the request that they be accepted. : And now I'm trying to figure out the rule for Kaddish Yasom. It SEEMS : to be a sort of "congregational prayer", where "prayer" is something : *other* than the Amidah, but I can't define it any more precisely than : that. For a long time I thought it was connected to Tehillim, but when : I noticed it after the megilos on Yom Tov, someone suggested that it's : not specifically Sefer Tehillim, but *any* part of Kesuvim, not that we : had any idea why Kesuvim would get this distinction over Neviim or Torah. Accordng to R' de Sola Pool's monograph "Kaddish", Qaddish originated as being post-derashah -- the role Qaddish deRabbanan still serves. So perhaps non-concidentally, the format for sermons through the geonic era was to start with a pasuq from one of the sidrei EMa"S (Iyov, Mishlei, Tefillim) and wrap up by applying the resulting an idea to a pasuq from he sedra. ... : I have to admit that a big part of my asking this question is a pet : peeve that I've been nursing, regarding Kiddush Levana in particular. It : seems to me that Kiddush Levana -- the way it is done in just about : every situation I've ever seen -- cannot be called a Tefilas Tzibur in : any sense. It is a group of yechidim who happen to be saying the same : thing, but in a totally disorganized fashion... Perhaps that's it exactly. Like "Shalom Aleikhem", we make a cpoint of socially unifying those yechidim as part of qiddush levanah. Perhaps not in the sense of tefillah betzibbur or tefillas hatzibur, but then, neither is a shiur. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 09:45:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:45:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reciting a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time In-Reply-To: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> References: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> Message-ID: <20150720164528.GA10632@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:53:34AM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : http://tinyurl.com/o6rxcdf : according to those that say you do NOT recite a shehechiyanu when performing : a mitzvah for the first time (ie bar mitzvah), Who are they? All I know of is the Chasam Sofer (OC 55) -- well I guess I also know of the Peri To'ar, his maqor -- who says that the berakhah when putting on tefillin on one's bar mitzvah is supposed to be made with all the rest of the mitzvos in mind. The Radvaz says a ger says shehechiyanu when they emerge from the miqvah. I am less clear when a girl becoming a bas mitzvah would make her shechiyanu. The Ben Ish Chai says the girl should have in mind ol mitzvos when making shehechiyanu on her celebratory dress. Paralleling what we do by eating a new fruit on the 2nd evening of RH. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 09:51:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefach Thick Soft Spongy Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720165119.GB10632@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 03:09:13AM +0300, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Many mistakenly think that we now have an accepted Halachic tradition, : recorded in the Shulchan Aruch [460:5] to no longer bake Tefach thick Matza : [10 - 12 cm] as in Talmudic times. This is untrue... Unless we are holding like the "veyeish la'asos" in the Rama se'if 4. Neither the se'if nor the explanation "ki ein hareqiqin memaharin lehachmitz" make a distinction about when the matzah was made. -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:19:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on Exercise In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720211930.2A235182421@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:53 PM 7/20/2015, R. Ben Waxman wrote: >Orot, Orot Hatechiya, 34: > >Exercise, (which young Israel is getting involved in, in Eretz Yisrael, >to strengthen their bodies in order to be vigorous for the nation), >improves the spiritual strength of the greatest tzaddikim, those who >involve themselves in "the unification of God's names" (my translation >of a phrase which I admit I don't get), and increases the transmission >of God's light in the world, because there is no revelation at all of >light without all components being present. > >Turns out that (according to Rav Kook) not only does Talmud Torah >increase the merits to the army/state/people, but just having people >trying to be healthy, active, in shape, improves Talmud Torah, as long >as both sides are doing this for the nation. See "Exercise, Torah Learning and the Chofetz Chaim" http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/exercise_torah_cc_v2.pdf Reb Yaakov Kamenetsky was an avid swimmer all of his life. I recall when he came to Monroe to spend a Shabbos with his son Avraham. He was in his 80s I believe. Well, he put on his bathing suit, a robe and went to the pool. He then proceeded to jump into the pool and swim laps. This spread like wildfire in the 3 colonies in Monroe. People could not stop talking about it. It eventually got back to Reb Yaakov who quipped, "I wish they are as excited about my learning as they are about my swimming!" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 15:03:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> Re: Micha's questioning kadish yasom(KY) after kidush levana, the Vilna Gaon has a shortened version(doesn't he always?) that starts with the bracha and ends with siman tov. There is no Aleinu, hence no KY. He also holds that "sh'ain l'harbos b'k'dashim shelo l'tzorech, hence,there is only once KY per tefila. After the Yom by shachris and after Aleinu by mincha & maariv. Minhag Ashkenaz is not to say kadish d'rabonan during/after tefila but only after limud agada. The chasidim adopted the custom of saying it from the Seforadim and that's how it entered their ritual. I remember davening once at the Boro Park nusach HaGra k'vosikin minyan way back and was struck by the number of KYs that were said. The gabbai's answer was that it was too difficult to stop the "kadish zogers" from having their way. B"H, at our Flatbush Nusach HaGra k'vosikin minyan (Young Israel of Ave K, East 29th and K) under Rav Aryeh Ralbag guidance, we are have not had to compromise the Nusach HaGra way of davening. Shachris is 45 minutes before HaNetz every shabos and YT. -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com http://www.schnurassociates.com/joels-corner/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 15:46:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:46:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> References: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> Message-ID: <20150720224608.GB21161@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 06:03:46PM -0400, Joel Schnur via Avodah wrote: : I remember davening once at the Boro Park nusach HaGra k'vosikin : minyan way back and was struck by the number of KYs that were said. : The gabbai's answer was that it was too difficult to stop the : "kadish zogers" from having their way... REMT said something that makes me wonder... He suggested that our (non-Yekke) current practice of every avel saying qaddish is to make it condusive for aveilim to feel they're discharging their duty. Many men first started attending minyan regularly during aveileus and kept on doing so for the rest of their lives. Do you really want to discourage that with "Ah, why bother, I probably wouldn't get a turn this time anyway!"? A similar argument would change the priorities the Gra assumes about making extraneous opportunities for Qaddish. The AhS OC 55:4 gives this explanation for the creation of a 2nd opportunity for Qaddish Yasom at the end of Shacharis. He also writes that the Qadmonim only said 7 qaddeisim a day: Shacharis, after each of Yishtabach, Tachanun and UVa leTzion Minchah, after Ashrei and Tachanuun, and Arvis -- before and after Shemoneh Esrei. He quotes the Roqeiach invoking the pasuq "sheva bayom haleltikha" to explain that 7 was an intentional, significant, number. The AhS continues that three more were added when Aleinu was appended to the end of each tefillah. For the sake of yesomim who didn't get the amud. And significance was found for that, by reading Tzadi"q as an acronym, and each letter a gematria. Each day a tzadiq would say 90 times amein, (tzadi) 4 qedushos, (dalet) 10 qadeihim, and (yud) 100 berakhos (quf). (Citing the NMA.) Then he discusses leining adding one. "Veyoseir ein maqom laqadeishim", and still we added after Shir shel Yom because there were more yesomim, but more than that -- the AhS does not permit. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot RMB responded: Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. ============= My two cents: Adultery (eishis ish) is technically taking from another man that which belongs exclusively to him. So that itself puts it within the category of issurim that are mefursamos. The Rambam (MN 2:49) describes all sexuality as something that even when natural, should be limited. Homosexuality and bestiality, however, he describes as obvious deviations from the natural order that should be abhorred. I think that would place these two activities, as well, in the mefursamos category. The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely forbidden. Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: MN 3:49 As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure alone be eschewed. All illicit unions with females have one thing in common: namely, that in the majority of cases these females are constantly in the company of the male in his house, and that they are easy of access for him, and can be easily controlled by him - there being no difficulty in making them come into his presence; and no judge could blame the male I for their being with him. Consequently if the status of the women with whom union is illicit were that of any unmarried woman, I mean to say that if it were possible to marry them and that the prohibition with regard to them were only due to their not being the man's wives, most people would have constantly succumbed and fornicated with them. However, as it is absolutely forbidden to have intercourse with them, the strongest deterrents making us avoid this - I mean by this a sentence of death by order of a court of law and the threat of being cut off--so that there is no way to have intercourse with these women, men are safe from seeking to approach them and their thoughts are turned away from them. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot RMB responded: > Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate > family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. My two cents: Adultery (eishis ish) should be categorized under issurim mefursomos simply on the basis that it involves taking lves taking liberties with another man's wife, an intimacy that belongs to the husband. A form of theft! So that itself puts it within the category of issurim that are mefursamos. The Rambam (MN 2:49) describes all sexuality as something that even when natural, should be limited. Homosexuality and bestiality, however, he describes as obvious deviations from the natural order that should be abhorred. I think that would place these two activities, as well, in the mefursamos category. The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely forbidden. Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: MN 3:49 As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure alone be eschewed. All illicit unions with females have one thing in common: namely, that in the majority of cases these females are constantly in the company of the male in his house, and that they are easy of access for him, and can be easily controlled by him - there being no difficulty in making them come into his presence; and no judge could blame the male I for their being with him. Consequently if the status of the women with whom union is illicit were that of any unmarried woman, I mean to say that if it were possible to marry them and that the prohibition with regard to them were only due to their not being the man's wives, most people would have constantly succumbed and fornicated with them. However, as it is absolutely forbidden to have intercourse with them, the strongest deterrents making us avoid this - I mean by this a sentence of death by order of a court of law and the threat of being cut off--so that there is no way to have intercourse with these women, men are safe from seeking to approach them and their thoughts are turned away from them. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 16:02:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:02:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: (Sorry for approving both versions of that post! It was a quick typo in what was until-then going so smoothly! -micha) On 2015-07-20 5:34 pm, RZ Lampel wrote: > RMB responded: "Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest > within > the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot." > Adultery (eishis ish) is technically taking from another man that > which > belongs exclusively to him. So that itself puts it within the > category of > issurim that are mefursamos. > The Rambam (MN 2:49) ... Yes. But our problem is with Shemoneh Peraqim, where the Rambam distinguishes between mitzvos mefusamot, for which a person should develop a desire that is in line with the mitzvah (or a distaste in line with the issur), and other mitzvos where one should simply refrain out of submission to ol mitzvos. And among his mitzvos which are NOT mefursamos are arayos. R/Dr Meir Shinnar writes: > he specifically applies that > to > arayot - and needs to apply it to arayot, because the sugyot that > deal with > kol hagadol mechavero yitzro gadol mimenu - specifically apply to > arayot. > One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all > dine > arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not > sure > on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are > NOT > self evident or even mefursamot So regardless of how he categorizes them in the Moreh, the chiluq the Rambam makes in 8P requires our considering these issurim to not be self-evident. (Which I still don't get.) -micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 20:09:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 23:09:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah REMT said something that makes me wonder... He suggested that our (non-Yekke) current practice of every avel saying qaddish is to make it condusive for aveilim to feel they're discharging their duty. Micha Berger >>>> You are mainly talking about adults saying kaddish, but I remember one tragic year when there were seven yesomim under bar mitzva age saying kaddish, from three different families. Two families had lost their mothers, one family their father. Who was going to tell these children, who came to shul faithfully every day, sometimes getting to school late or skipping outings with their friends, "You can't say kaddish for your Ima or your Abba today, someone else has kadima"? Correct me if I am mistaken but my impression is that kaddish yasom is really mainly for genuine yesomim, i.e., those who lose their parents while they are still children. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 23:56:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:56:00 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Dr Shapiro's book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I found the most disturbing part of Dr Shapiro's book the last chapter. This is a halachid discussion of lying. My conclusion from this is that lying is perfectly permissible if there is a good reason. Basically the ends justifies the means. We are not talking about white lies as praising the bride for her beauty. In particular it is permissible to quote a psak from a gadol even though he never said it as long as you are sure that it is correct and he probably would have said it. There is no problem with making up stories about a gadol as long as the intention is to either glorify the gadol or else show why some idea is important. He claims that there are groups that actively make up stories about CI. The Chatam Sofer says that in order to prevent sins one can make the problem appear to be more serious than it really is such as turning a rabbinic prohibition into a biblical one. The problem with false attribution (besides the seemingly moral one) is that the result one cannot believe anything that is not written by the gadol himself. One never knows if the citation of the gadol was deliberately changed, However as seen in the rest of the book even the written words of the author are not always authoritative as in many cases they are tampered with to protect some "higher interest". Even the SA has been tampered with for this purpose. One can lie in order to avoid embarrassment to oneself. R Papa seems to have issued an incorrect halacha to avoid shame. A poor man can make believe he is blind or crippled in order to get more charity. One can claim that the monet is going for a poor bride when in fact it will be used for some other charity. Finally there is the heter of mental reservation or reinterpreting ones words made famous by the story of Yaakov "lying" To Isaac that he is Esav. Shapiro gives the example of Clinton making all sorts of "false" statements about Lewinsky and later justified it by saying that his words had another meaning than what people thought. Note this is sometimes permitted even in monetary cases. As stated about one can lie for educational purposes "Noble Lie" of Plato. Rav Dessler defines "truth" as the value that gives a positive result and is independent of observation and evidence. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 19:10:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 21:10:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: > Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: > MN 3:49 > As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are > directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling > disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The > reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against > intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is > natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more > should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure > alone be eschewed. So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 21:55:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:55:23 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9105E0A4-E59B-4E23-ADAA-7FCACD74F424@gmail.com> This is tangentially related only, but may be of interest in the context. I asked Rav Hershel Schachter, Shlita, what to do if someone who acts as a functionary at a Shira Chadasha (partnership) style service wants to do likewise in a mainstream Orthodox Congregation. His answer was, that such a person can be counted towards a Minyan, but no Kibbudim should be afforded to them. We have one here in Melbourne, which isn't like the one in Israel, but the strong word is that one of Rabbi Avi Weiss's Maharatos (Rabba/Rabbis) will be hired to lead that congregation. She was recently interviewed and claimed she was non denominational because she wanted to break down boundaries. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 03:08:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:08:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] thick matza Message-ID: For those interested a thorough discussion on thick matazot see the article of Ari Zivotofsky in Hakirah www.hakirah.org/Vol17Zivotofsky.pdf -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 06:54:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 06:54:49 -- 0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> Message-ID: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> On 7/20/2015 7:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > ... our problem is with Shemoneh Peraqim, where the Rambam distinguishes > between mitzvos mefusamot, for which a person should develop a desire > that is in line with the mitzvah (or a distaste in line with the issur), > and other mitzvos where one should simply refrain out of submission to > ol mitzvos. > And among his mitzvos which are NOT mefursamos are arayos....the chiluq > the Rambam makes in 8P requires our considering these issurim to not > be self-evident. And that's precisely what I addressed in my 3rd paragraph. After citing the Moreh Nevuchim's description of homosexuality and bestiality as obviously deviant practices (i.e. mefursamos), I cited its description of arayos (outside of eishis ish) as being not mefursomos, but issurim Hashem instituted as a preventative, a gedder, against unrestrained licentiousness in a situation (viz. family) where the temptation for it would otherwise be too hard to control. To repeat what I wrote: >> The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and >> commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because >> allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than >> his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would >> lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest >> intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, >> it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound >> to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely >> forbidden." Perhaps the mention of "commanded that it, too, be considered >> abhorrent" causes confusion. This would seem to put incest back into >> the category of mefursomos, along with murder and stealing, etc., about >> which a normal person is expected to harbor revulsion. So Rambam would be >> self-contradicting. But the elephant in the room is that the Torah itself >> commands us to treat eating non-kosher creatures with disgust. So how >> can Chazal tell us the right attitude is "efshi"? Evidently, Chazal and, >> naturally, Rambam, do not consider "efshi" to be at odds with "shekketz >> yih'yu lachem/teshak'tsu."My surmise is that they understand the Torah's >> command to treat with disgust the eating of non-kosher creatures and >> other acts that are not intrinsically objectionable (such as, per Rambam, >> incest, vs. murder, stealing, homosexuality and bestiality), as an imposed >> artificial behavior/attitude for these non-mefusamos issurim. Regarding >> your definition of issurim mefursamim, the Shemoneh Perakim does not >> say a tsaddik should /develop/ a revulsion, but that such revulsion is >> natural in born in all people. The tsaddik retains these feelings and >> does not allow them to be tainted. [Email #2.] On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: >> MN 3:49 >> As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are >> directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling >> disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom... On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and > should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of > Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what > possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 07:36:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:36:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Dr Shapiro's book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AE5907.7010503@optimum.net> RET: << A poor man can make believe he is blind or crippled in order to get more charity. >> How does this fit with Peah 8:9? Which book are we talking about? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 17:48:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 20:48:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> Message-ID: <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> I think one has to be careful, as I find it difficult to reconcile the position of the MN and that of the SP, and think they represent two distinct aspects (?stages) in the rambam Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions I) in hazal -- that continued desire for some forbidden actions is compatible with a high spiritual state -- issue is control of the desire -- NOT its presence II) Aristotelian ethics -- a high spiritual state does not desire for forbidden -- the desire is a sign of a flaw. SP resolves by differentiating between mefursamot -- whose desire is problematic and a flaw -- and religious law -- where desire is not a flaw -- and applies this specifically to arayot -- as examples in Talmud of Rabbanit with desire are of arayot, It is difficult for me to reconcile this position with the MN -- if our proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is " to instil disgust" -- how can desire still remaining not be a flaw???? In the MN, there is a conceptual framework to distinguish homosexuality and bestiality from regular sexuality -- but they are ALL viewed as things that should repulse us -- just some more than others. It is by no means clear that this framework and distinction can be read into the SP, and would think that One would need good evidence .hat it does not include ALL arayot... Meir Shinnar > It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah > attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress > during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan > Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a > marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. > Zvi Lampel > On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and >> should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of >> Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what >> possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? >> On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: >>> Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: >>> MN 3:49 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 08:06:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:06:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Message-ID: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why ? What changed in the afternoon? (especially since some pple fast both the 9th and 10th( Mordechai cohen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 06:18:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:18:26 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150722.091826.10442.1@webmail10.vgs.untd.com> The Moreh Nevuchim was quoted: > As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are > directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling > disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. R"n Lisa Liel wrote what I had wanted to write: > So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty > and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something > out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, > but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? R' Zvi Lampel answered: > It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah > attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt > duress during the marital process (you can find this in the > Kitzur Shulchan Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the > Rambam when it comes to a marital setting. I was taught we hold > like the Ramban. My guess is that you're referring to R' Eliezer from Nedarim 20b, referenced at the end of Kitzur 150:1. But from what I have seen, not for nothing is it called "Kitzur Shulchan Aruch", because this seems to be the attitude of all the standard poskim. The Kitzur is not a standalone machmir here; from what I can tell, he's merely quoting the Mechaber in Orach Chayim 240:8. Mishneh Brurah 240:35 (who refers us to Magen Avraham 240:21), Aruch Hashulchan 240:14, and Kaf Hachaim 240:59 all seem to advocate a strong reluctance towards intercourse, which is not quite as extreme as the Rambam's "disgust", but that might merely reflect their choice of words. For purposes of Talmud Torah, where is this Ramban who "strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting"? And for purposes of Halacha, which Acharonim hold like the Ramban, over the Mechaber, KSA, MB, and KH? (I recall hearing that the Siddur HaYaavetz might be the answer here, but there seem to be several different versions. If anyone can post a link to a specific version on SeforimOnline or HebrewBooks.org, and a page citation, I'd appreciate that very much.) Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett?s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren?t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55af9846b9a261846362est02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 07:13:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:13:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel asked: "The idea that sex is something dirty and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude?" See the Gemara in Nedarim (20a) about kafuhu shed. Also see RAL's article OF MARRIAGE: RELATIONSHIP AND RELATIONS ( http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf ) where he discusses this question and brings many of the sources. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:25:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:25:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 06:54:49AM +0000, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: :> So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and :> should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of :> Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what :> possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? : It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah : attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress : during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan : Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to : a marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. But the most famous Ramban does speak of perushim tihyu and how perishus is the key to holiness. (R' Shimon Shkop explains the Ramban as saying it is a primary means to hoiness, because "qedoshim tihyu qi Qadosh Ani" would be absurd if referring to Hashem practicing perishus. What temptations would He need to avoid?) And his first example is yema'eit bemishgal, like (Berakhos 22) "that TC not be found by their wives like roosters" and that tashmish should be limited to "kefi hatzeikh beqiyum hamitzvah mimenu". I presume, in an unXian sense, the Rambam refers to onah, not "only" piryah verivyah. Perishus and neqi'us come up a lot in lower-case-m mussar literature, even among anti-Maimonidians like Rabbeinu Yonah. To quote Mesilas Yesharim ch 13 (tr. from http://www.shechem.org/torah/mesyesh/13.htm I think it's the old Feldheim ed, by R' Shraga Simmons): There is no question as to the permissibility of cohabitation with one's wife, but still, ablutions were instituted for those who had had seminal emissions, so that Scholars should not be steadily with their wives, like roosters. Even though the act itself is permissible it implants in a person a lust for it which might draw him on to what is forbidden; as our Sages of blessed memory have said (Sukkah 526), "There is a small organ in a man which, when it is satiated, hungers and which, when it is made to hunger, is sated." And they said about R. Eleazar (Nedarim 20b) that even in the proper hour and the correct time he would expose a handbreadth and conceal two hand-breadths and imagine that a demon was compelling him, in order to cancel out the feeling of pleasure. And ch. 14: THERE ARE THREE principal divisions of Separation, involving pleasures, laws, and conduct respectively. Separation in relation to pleasures, which we spoke of in the previous chapter, consists in one's taking from the world only what is essential to him. This type of Separation encompasses anything which provides pleasure to any one of the senses, whether the pleasure be gained through food, cohabitation, clothing, strolls, conversation or similar means, exceptions obtaining only at such times when deriving pleasure through these means is a mitzvah. Separation in relation to laws ... Separation in relation to conduct ... Which also limits marital intimacy to what is necessary to fulfill piryah verivyah and onah. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:36:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:36:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55AFD49B.4070904@gmail.com> On 7/21/2015 8:48 PM, Meir Shinnar wrote: > Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions > I) in hazal - that continued desire for some forbidden actions is > compatible with a high spiritual state - issue is control of the > desire - NOT its presence > I) Aristotelian ethics - a high spiritual state does not desire for > forbidden - the desire is a sign of a flaw. > SP resolves by differentiating between mefursamot - whose desire is > problematic and a flaw - and religious law - where desire is not a > flaw - and applies this specifically to arayot - as examples in Talmud > of Rabbanit with desire are of arayot, > It is difficult for me to reconcile this position with the MN - if our > proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is " to instil > disgust" - how can desire still remaining not be a flaw???? > In the MN, there is a conceptual framework to distinguish > homosexuality and bestiality from regular sexuality - but they are ALL > viewed as things that should repulse us - just some more than others. > It is by no means clear that this framework and distinction can be > read into the SP, and would think that One would need good evidence > that it does not include ALL arayot... The Moreh Nevuchim III:35 explicitly states that his view about this matter is the same as his view in Shemoneh Perakim: The fourteenth class comprises the commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain sexual unions. They are those that we have enumerated in the Book of Women [/Sepher Nashim/] and in Laws concerning Prohibited Sexual Relations [/Hilkhoth Issurei Bi'ah/. The interbreeding of beasts belongs to this class. The purpose of this ... is to bring about a decrease of sexual intercourse and to diminish the desire for mating as far as possible, so that it should not be taken as an end, as is done by the ignorant, *according to what we have explained in the Commentary on the Tractate Aboth.* (All commentators agree this is a reference to the introduction to the commentary, the Shemoneh Perakim, just as the Moreh stated regarding the thirteenth class.) Your kushya is good: if [as per MN] our proper relationship to even permitted sexualityis "to instill disgust" - how can desire still remaining not be a flaw [as per ShP]???? But I think the solution I offered is reasonable. To wit: What do you do with the elephant in the room I mentioned? The Torah commands /t'shaktsu/ concerning the eating of non-kosher creatures (which is certainly as much in the category of non-mefursomos as bassar b'chalav and arayos); yet Chazal (and naturally, then, Rambam) say that when it comes to basar b'chalav, etc., one should have the attitude of "I have the desire to do it, but Hashem prohibited me.'' I offered one answer to both questions: When Rambam says that Hashem wants to instill in us disgust for the act, and the Torah (as per Chazal) says "t'shakstu,'' they mean that despite the fact that we should not deny or seek to eradicate the physical inclination for such pleasures, we must maintain an aversion to succumbing to it except for limited situations. (And the purpose of that is to keep us from doing it in excess, which is the real flaw.) *So although as per MN,] our proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is to instill a reluctance except for limited occasions (such as in a marriage setting), the desire still remaining is not a flaw [as per ShP] to be eradicated.* "I have the desire to do it [even outside of marriage, and I will not eradicate the sexual desire from myself,] but [live with it and constrain it outside of marriage,] because Hashem commanded me so [and this will bring me to perfection]. So, a word about the Moreh's wording. Pines translates: "As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. ... the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity." Friedlander translates: " we ought to limit sexual intercourse altogether, hold it in *contempt,* and only desire it very rarely." Ibn Tibbon translates "ha-arayos, ha-inyan b'kulam shahv l'ma-eit ha-mishgal *v'lim'os* bo, v'shello yirtseh mimennu ki im m'aht mi-za-ir...sheh-inyan ha-tiv'i *nim-ahs* l'hay-a-sos rak l'tsorech." I suspect from the context (lim'os/disgust/contempt, *except for limited occasions*) that the Rambam's original Arabic, not to mention his intention, is closer on the scale to the idea of avoidance for the sake of gaining perfection, than to disgust and contempt. Basically, it translates to what I believe is in fact our common attitude regarding these things. To put things in perspective, note that immediately before this section, the Rambam, following the same attitude of engaging in unrestrained physical pleasures being an obstacle to personal perfection, writes similarly about the activity of eating, again equating what he writes in the Moreh to what he wrote in Shemoneh Perakim: The thirteenth class comprises the commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain foods and what is connected therewith. These are the commandments that we have enumerated in the Laws concerning Forbidden Foods [/Hilkhoth Ma-akholoth Asuroth/]. The [commandments concerning] vows and the state of the Nazarites belong to this class. The purpose of all this is, *as we have explained in the Commentary on the Mishnah in the introduction to Aboth,* to put an end to the lusts and licentiousness manifested in seeking what is most pleasurable and to taking the desire for food and drink as an end. [Email #2. -micha] On 7/22/2015 1:25 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > But the most famous Ramban does speak of perushim tihyu and how perishus > is the key to holiness. ...And his first example is yema'eit > bemishgal... > I presume, in an unXian sense, the Rambam refers to onah, not "only" > piryah verivyah. > Perishus and neqi'us come up a lot in lower-case-m mussar literature, even > among anti-Maimonidians like Rabbeinu Yonah. To quote Mesilas Yesharim ch 13 > ..." And they said about > R. Eleazar (Nedarim 20b) that even in the proper hour and the correct > time he would expose a handbreadth and conceal two hand-breadths and > imagine that a demon was compelling him, in order to cancel out the > feeling of pleasure. > And ch. 14: ... > Separation in relation to pleasures, which we spoke of in the > previous chapter, consists in one's taking from the world only what > is essential to him. > Which also limits marital intimacy to what is necessary to fulfill piryah > verivyah and onah. Which, as I was contemplating to write, shows that the Ramban and Rambam (and as you have pointed out, mainstream Jewish thought) all share the same basic nuanced attitude--despite the Ramban's opposition to the Rambam's presentation. Thanks for the sources. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:00:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:00:43 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> References: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:06 AM, M Cohen via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after > chatzos on Tbav > > Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc > > Why ? > > What changed in the afternoon? (especially since some pple fast both the 9 > th and 10th( > There are two answers in the Birkhei Yosef quoting Sefer Hakavvanot of R. Haim Vital (OH 559 s"k 7) for why we say verses of consolation at minha, both based on Midrash Eicha Rabba, and perhaps the reason is the same. Firstly, that this was when the BHMK began to burn, and it was davka a time of consolation because the people realized that HKBH was pouring his anger on stone and wood, not on flesh and blood. Secondly, that this is the time when the Messiah whose name is Menahem is born. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 22:23:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 01:23:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55B07A69.5020203@gmail.com> On 7/22/2015 1:26 PM, H Lampel wrote: > When Rambam says that Hashem wants to instill in us disgust for the > act, and the Torah (as per Chazal) says ''t'shakstu,'' they mean that > despite the fact that we should not deny or seek to eradicate the > physical inclination for such pleasures, we must maintain an aversion > to succumbing to it except for limited situations. (And the purpose of > that is to keep us from doing it in excess, which is the real flaw.) I should also note that the Rambam teaches that hand-in-hand with the flaw of excessive involvement in physical pleasures, and the ultimate problem with that, is the attitude behind it, of making physical pleasure an end in itself, rather than a side benefit of a means. The Rambam applies this objection to both sexual pleasure for its own sake and eating pleasure for its own sake: The prohibition of certain foods and what is connected therewith.... The purpose of all this is, as we have explained in the Commentary on the Mishnah in the introduction to Aboth, to put an end to the lusts and licentiousness manifested in seeking what is most pleasurable and to taking the desire for food and drink /as an end/. ...The commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain sexual unions... The purpose of this ... is to bring about a decrease of sexual intercourse and to diminish the desire for mating as far as possible, so that it should not be taken /as an end/, as is done by the ignorant, according to what we have explained in the Commentary on the Tractate Aboth. Zvi Lampel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 01:16:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:16:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R' Aharon Lichtenstein was bothered by the difference in opinion regarding marital intimacy between Chazal who seem to have a very positive attitude and the Rishonim (especially the Rambam) who have a very negative attitude and the attitude of contemporary authorities who seem to have swung back to the positive side: "We, for our part, are confronted by a quandary of our own; and it is dual. At one plane, we ask ourselves, within the context of our learn- ing?it is Torah, and we must learn?a simple and straightforward ques- tion. In light of the predominant evidence we have noted from Hazal and, particularly, its halakhic component, how and why did Rambam, Ramban, and some other rishonim, deviate so markedly from their prevalent attitude? With reference to yetser (the inclination)?generic in connotation but defined by Rashi as shel tashmish (sexual desire)?Hazal identify it as one of a triad which, optimally, one should ?let the left hand deflect and the right hand bring close? (Sota 47a). One sometimes gets the impression that the proportion was subsequently inverted. ... To the extent that we do succeed in harmonizing the positions of Hazal and of rishonim, we ameliorate the pressure of one issue but exacerbate that of another. For we are brought, in turn, to a second quandary: our own. While I have conducted no empirical survey, I believe there is little question regarding the sensibility of the contempo- rary Torah world, irrespective of camp and orientation. We stand, fun- damentally, with R. Bar-Shaul. We assert the value of romantic love, its physical manifestation included, without flinching from the prospect of concomitant sensual pleasure; and we do so without harboring guilt or reservations. " Source: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 06:35:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:35:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shimon haTzaddik and Alexander the Macedonian Message-ID: <20150723133509.GA14333@aishdas.org> The story of Shim'on haTzaddiq, in the office of kohein gadol, meeting Alexander the Great, as told in Yuma 69a, is pretty well known. Josephus told the story earlier, in Antiquities 11:8. The Daily Mail recently covered what appears to be another retelling : Mosaic of Alexander the Great meeting a Jewish priest is the first ever non-biblical scene to be discovered inside a synagogue - Artwork was uncovered in a fifth-century synagogue in Huqoq, Israel - May depict Alexander the Great, based on the presence of elephants - Scene is the first non-biblical story to be found in an ancient synagogue - Depictions of Biblical hero Samson are also part of the decorative floor By Sarah Griffiths for MailOnline Published: 03:43 EST, 15 July 2015 | Updated: 07:21 EST, 15 July 2015 ... The artwork was uncovered in the east aisle of a fifth-century synagogue in the ancient Jewish village of Huqoq. ... The largest top strip contains the scene showing a meeting between two men, who perhaps represent the legendary warrior and a Jewish high priest. In the scene, a bearded soldier wearing battle dress and a purple cloak leads a bull by the horns, followed by other soldiers and elephants with shields tied to their sides. He is meeting with a grey-haired, bearded elderly man wearing a ceremonial white tunic and mantle, accompanied by young men with sheathed swords, also in ceremonial clothes. Southern Galil, 5th cent CE. Within a generation of the compilation of Mes Yuma. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 06:14:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:14:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B0E8A7.7050202@gmail.com> I agree with all those who reacted to my remark about Ramban vs Rambam, and I am especially grateful to Marty Bluke for the link to Rav Lichtenstein ztl's comprehensive article that provides the sources and notes the challenges they present. (I think that link was recently posted on R. Gil Student's blog.) As R. Akiva Miller has pointed out, it was Rebbi Eliezer of Nedarim 20b, referenced at the end of Kitzur 150:1 (and, as RAM pointed out, the Mechaber OC 240:8) who is understood to have expressed duress during the marital process. (And who is a Tanna, not an Amora, as I incorrectly stated.) Also, RAM asked, > For purposes of Talmud Torah, where is this Ramban who "strongly disagreed > with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting"? And again, I stand corrected. The Rav who gave me my "chassan shmuess" was probably referring to the /Iggeress ha-Kodesh,/ which, as Rav Lichtenstein pointed out in his article, is often erroneously attributed to Ramban. But apparently, had Rav Lichtenstein been giving me the "chassan shmuez," I would have come away with the same halacha l'ma'aseh regarding attitude. He writes: We cannot, as the author of the /Iggeret ha-Kodesh/ could not, abandon the conviction that so central a component of human nature is not part of the /tov me'od/ of primordial creation. Consequently, impelled by our spiritual instincts and animated by the faith instilled in us by our Torah mentors, we opt for consecration rather than abstinence. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 07:12:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:12:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> Message-ID: <26C8383E-E3E8-4443-8BAD-62AB922C5681@gmail.com> Again, one has to be very careful. There are four different sources here. 1)Shmona Prakim -- chapter 4 -- where reason for laws on arayot is to limit Sexuality -- in the sense of a golden mean. 2)Shmona Prakim -- chapter 6 -- where desire for things forbidden only by halakhah is endorsed as not a spiritual flaw 3) MN 3:35, where he describes category 14 of mitzvot -- relating to arayot -- in terms similar to source 1, as the rambam notes and meforshim point out. 4) MN 3:49 -- where purpose of hilchot arayot is to instill disgust -- not merely control and limit Therefore, RZL is correct that MN 3:35 refers to Spm but chapter 4. One can reconcile sources 1,2 and 3, or 1,3 and 4 -- but difficult to recocile all 4. I would ad that source 2 is problematic, in that it's view of halakhah as an almost arbitrary set of limitations, seems quite different than the rambam's normal presentation of the purpose of Halacha. Meir Shinnar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 10:15:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:15:16 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150723.131516.32484.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> Many posters - and their quoted sources - have compared the desire for intercourse with the desire for food. What I have not seen is any comparison between the *enjoyment* of intercourse and the enjoyment of food. Halacha restricts our eating in many ways, and we are taught that this is to curb our desires. But there are seem to be many exceptions to this, and I don't see parallels to intercourse. We have mitzvos where eating is merely a physical act used as a means to some other end. Achilas Matza might be the best example of this. We need to internalize the matzah and its lessons, but any enjoyment that we might get from this eating is utterly irrelevant. This seems quite comparable to the intercourse, where it is merely a means towards having children. The enjoyment that one gets from the intercourse (like from the matza) is irrelevant - or perhaps even lower, to be eschewed. One might cite Rama Even Haezer 25:2, which lists various permitted forms of intercourse, but to me, that is like saying "You can eat your meat broiled or cooked or fried, as long as you don't put milk in it, and don't eat it too often either." This is NOT what we are told about meat. Rather we are told that eating meat is the only way to enjoy Yom Tov. We are taught that eating is proper and good. When a simcha arises, we must make a meal so as to properly celebrate it. And if there are overlapping simchas, we should add an extra course so that each simcha gets its due. Red wine is more appropriate than white, but if you personally enjoy white, then go for it. Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. - Is the difference really that subtle? To me, it is as subtle as a brick. R' Marty Bluke posted: > Also see RAL's article OF MARRIAGE: RELATIONSHIP AND RELATIONS > ( http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf ) where > he discusses this question and brings many of the sources. Indeed he does bring many sources. And I was particularly intrigued by his conclusion, that the general thrust of recent authorities seems to be very different from before that: > To the extent that we do succeed in harmonizing the positions of > Hazal and of rishonim, we ameliorate the pressure of one issue but > exacerbate that of another. For we are brought, in turn, to a > second quandary: our own. While I have conducted no empirical > survey, I believe there is little question regarding the > sensibility of the contemporary Torah world, irrespective of camp > and orientation. ... We assert the value of romantic love, its > physical manifestation included, without flinching from the > prospect of concomitant sensual pleasure; and we do so without > harboring guilt or reservations. We insist, of course, upon its > sanctification?this, within the context of suffusive kedusha of > carnal experience, generally. and yet, a page later, > Assuming these facts to be correct ? as regards my own spiritual > environs, I can attest directly ? we ask ourselves: How and why > do we depart from positions articulated by some of our greatest > ? "from whose mouths we live and from whose waters we drink" - > and, is this departure legitimate? Are we victims of the Zeitgeist, > swept along by general socio-historical currents? Do we tailor our > attitude on this issue to conform to appetitive convenience and > erotic desire? Have we, in this case, adopted a self-satisfying > posture of facile world-acceptance clothed in culturally correct > garb? I did not find his answers to these questions very satisfying. But I do find his *asking* them to be extremely comforting. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 11:43:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:43:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Relative Priorities Message-ID: <1440012f20ae4d989f0b2c5fdc8b1c1e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> A yahrtzeit shiur is "being sponsored" at the same time as your regular learning seder. Evaluate the various score cards in shamayim (yours, the niftar's, your chavrutah's) depending on whether you attended the shiur or seder (all other things being equal). She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 24 07:09:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 17:09:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: artificial meat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Technological advances are bringing us to ask a pressing question: Does Judaism consider meat created in a laboratory to be kosher? Does Jewish law even consider it to be meat?The question takes on particular significance now, during the nine days, the traditional period of mourning that precedes Tisha B'Av when observant Jews abstain from meat. (Well, theoretical significance, at least ? the world's first lab-grown hamburger, created in 2013, cost a cool $325,000 and it's not exactly available at your neighborhood grocery store yet.)Some kashrut experts are ready to rule the burger kosher, and not only that, parve, reported Ynet reporter Koby Nachshoni ? meaning observant Jews, who won't eat milk and meat together, can eat their test-tube burger topped with cheese. Furthermore, the halachic authorities with whom Nachshon consulted even said this would apply to test-tube pork ? so make that a bacon cheeseburger.But, no surprise here, not everyone agrees about that.Chabad addressed the issue , too, noting that there are precedents for test-tube meat in the ancient Jewish sources. see http://www.haaretz.com/life/food-wine/1.667580 -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:30:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh Message-ID: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> Last night in the shul that I davened B'Leil Zeh was said with great fervor. However, I am wondering if it should have been said at all. B'Leil Zeh is referring to the night of the 9th of Av and the many things that occurred then. Last night was, of course, the night of the 10th of Av. Does it really make sense to have said B'Leil Zeh on the 10th of Av? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:50:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:50:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh In-Reply-To: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 10:30:37AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : B'Leil Zeh is referring to the night of the 9th of Av and the many : things that occurred then. Last night was, of course, the night of : the 10th of Av. Does it really make sense to have said B'Leil Zeh : on the 10th of Av? Now that you made me think about the question, I would ask the reverse one. Bayis sheini was set aflame shortly before sheqi'ah on the 9th and burned through the 10th. So wouldn't beleil zeh only fit a postponed ta'anis? As for bayis rishon... I'm still sorting my way through understandings of Yechezqeil and the Yerushalmi. RMT, kedarko (see ) touches on a nice subset of sources at http://download.yutorah.org/2012/1053/Tisha_Bav_To-Go_-_5771_Rabbi_Torczyner.pdf Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: R' Mordechai Torczyner -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:58:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:58:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh In-Reply-To: <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> References: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150726145900.0654D1831F2@nexus.stevens.edu> At 10:50 AM 7/26/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >Now that you made me think about the question, I would ask the reverse >one. Bayis sheini was set aflame shortly before sheqi'ah on the 9th and >burned through the 10th. > >So wouldn't beleil zeh only fit a postponed ta'anis? > >As for bayis rishon... I'm still sorting my way through understandings >of Yechezqeil and the Yerushalmi. Perhaps two separate tefillos are needed, one for the night of the 9th of Av and one for the night of the 10th of Av. However, given the vast amount of kinos and other tefillos for Tisha B'Av, I am loath to suggest adding any more. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 16:32:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 19:32:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Message-ID: From: M Cohen via Avodah There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why? What changed in the afternoon? Mordechai Cohen >>>> The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 22:02:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:02:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus Message-ID: Thew gemara in Gittin tells the story of the rich lady miryam bat batus who sent her sevant to buy food in the market, before the churban, each time the food is already sold and she finally dies from dung on her foot. OTOH the gemara in ketuvot says that miryam bat batus paid King Yanai a lot of money to appoint her son yehoshua ben gamla as high priest First the two stories are about 150 years apart. In addition Alexander Jannai was himself high priest and unlikely to sell that position -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 20:18:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:18:25 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150726.231825.30515.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> R' Zvi Lampel wrote: > But apparently, had Rav Lichtenstein been giving me the > "chassan shmuez," I would have come away with the same halacha > l'ma'aseh regarding attitude. He writes: > > We cannot, as the author of the /Iggeret ha-Kodesh/ could > not, abandon the conviction that so central a component of > human nature is not part of the /tov me'od/ of primordial > creation. Consequently, impelled by our spiritual instincts > and animated by the faith instilled in us by our Torah > mentors, we opt for consecration rather than abstinence. I am very bothered by this attitude. I will explain why. We have discussed the idea that a posek may sometimes choose a psak based on what "seems right" to him, and then he will find sources to support that conclusion. But if I remember correctly, this is usually done in the case of *new* questions, where there is little precedent to draw upon. But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed. And it changed so recently that Rav Lichtenstein couldn't name any seforim that might have explained it to him. Namely, that for some reason, various people (such as RZL's teacher) started paskening - "halacha l'ma'aseh" in RZL's words - that the halacha follows the Iggeret ha-Kodesh (whose author we aren't sure of) rather than the Shulchan Aruch and Rav Yosef Karo. Why aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? Can we really overturn the Shulchan Aruch simply because "We cannot ... abandon the conviction" that sex is "tov me'od"? When we justify a psak and say we were "impelled by our spiritual instincts", how are we different from Conservative and Reform? I would not speak this way if the topic was a machlokes rishonim. Can someone please point to another major Rishon besides the Iggeret ha-Kodesh who holds that way? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b5a34e339ce234e4610st01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 01:31:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:31:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why? What changed in the afternoon? Mordechai Cohen >>>> The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= R'YBS explained that once the mikdash started burning (PM of TB) we knew hkb"h was taking out his wrath on stones and wood, not us. 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 00:49:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:49:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> On 07/27/2015 01:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Thew gemara in Gittin tells the story of the rich lady miryam bat > batus Martha bat Baytus. > who sent her sevant to buy food in the market, before the > churban, each time the food is already sold and she finally dies from > dung on her foot. > > OTOH the gemara in ketuvot Yoma. 18a. And Yavamos 61a. I could not find any reference to this in Kesubos. > says that miryam bat batus Martha bat Baytus. > paid King Yanai a lot of money to appoint her son Husband > yehoshua ben gamla as high priest. First the two stories are about > 150 years apart. No, they're not. Yehoshua ben Gamla was the Cohen Gadol at the time of the revolt against Rome, and was murdered by the Biryonim. > In addition Alexander Jannai was himself high priest > and unlikely to sell that position Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos in both places points out, for precisely that reason. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 03:22:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:22:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> References: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150727102247.GA8241@aishdas.org> RnTK wrote: : The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting : the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people : (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house : on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. R' Yirmiyohu Kaganoff provided sources at : In some places there is a custom to wash the floors and clean the house on the afternoon of Tisha B'Av. This custom is based on a mesorah that Moshiach will be born on Tisha B'Av afternoon and that it is therefore appropriate to commemorate the redemption and strengthen people's hopes and prayers (based on Beis Yosef 554 and Kolbo). Although this seems like unnecessary work on Tisha B'Av that should be postponed, the poskim rule that one should not discourage those who follow this custom (Birkei Yosef 559:7). On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:31am +0000, R Joel Rich replied: : R'YBS explained that once the mikdash started burning (PM of TB) : we knew [HKB"H] was taking out his wrath on stones and wood, not us. I bet RYBS cited the Gra (OC 555:1). Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: Actually, Google gets most of the credit for filling in vague memories with mar'eh meqomos. -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 05:00:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:00:41 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150727.080041.13995.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> I asked: > I would not speak this way if the topic was a machlokes > rishonim. Can someone please point to another major Rishon > besides the Iggeret ha-Kodesh who holds that way? Alternatively, can anyone cite other halachos, where for centuries the acharonim followed the Shulchan Aruch, and then in recent decades, the poskim decided to follow a minority rishon? My first instinct is to say that the shitos of the Gra are in this category, but there were those who followed the Gra ever since his day, and the only real change is that his views became more and more widespread. Was there ever a community that was known for following the Iggeret ha-Kodesh in this inyan until recently? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b61d8f130a61d8b4299st01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 07:10:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:10:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 11:15:51AM -1000, R/ Dr Noam Stadlan wrote on Areivim: : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded : as ignorance... To do that woud be to disagree with her husband. See "Thinking Aloud", pg 113: DH: What is the heter for a married woman in her house not to cover her hair when there are outsiders present? RYBS: She has to cover her hair. Another exchange: DH: Someone was asking about a woman wearing a kisui rosh in the house. RYBS: We pasken you should. DH: Someone showed me a gemara in Kesubos that b'toch chatzeira it should be mutar, since otherwise there is no way any woman could remain tachas ba'alah (72b). Offhand it occurred to me that if it was lo shechichei inshei - just for going around the house when no one's around, and someone just may drop in - then it would be mutar. But if you have people coming over b'kevius, then why would it be any different than going aroung in the street? Is there a special din in the bayis that there's no din of covering your head anymore? DH: Is this kisui ervah like most kisui ervah? RYBS: Of course. DH: What should I do for myself, for my wife? RYBS: You will find out. There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 08:15:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & the Tosafists. http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ Our *Torah shebe?al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the *Torah shebe?al peh* would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe?al peh* today. I just heard a piece yesterday by Rabbi Weill, from a few years back on Kinnot and the destruction of Ashkenaz and burning of the gemorahs in Paris. It was very devastating for the area. Jews lived in other areas as well, thank God. So the Mesora continued with them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 11:42:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:42:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? Message-ID: From: Micha Berger via Avodah : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded : as ignorance...[--Dr. Noam Stadlan] To do that would be to disagree with her husband. ....There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. -- Micha Berger >>>> A similar quote (third hand): Someone told me he once asked RYBS if a married woman is obligated to cover her hair, and RYBS replied in a somewhat sideways fashion, "You are not obligated to divorce her if she does not do so." You have to understand that it was an era in which most American Jews were throwing away the Torah with both hands. It was hard enough to find a wife who was frum; demanding that she cover her hair was almost impossible in many cases. RYBS was not the only Torah scholar whose wife failed to cover her hair. I have to assume that this was simply one nisayon that was too difficult, given those times. After the post-war influx of chassidim arrived in America, kisui rosh, like so many other neglected mitzvos, became much more acceptable and common. R' Michael Brody in his article on the subject says that the Chofetz Chaim railed against the practice of women in Vilna, even those married to big talmidei chachamim, to go about with their hair uncovered. Although the CC is completely, vehemently, opposed to this practice, R' Brody deduces (I am paraphrasing) that "This proves that many talmidei chachamim did not demand that their wives cover their hair, from which we may deduce that they held kisui rosh was not required, and we may rely on them." This line of reasoning is reminiscent of the joke, "How do we know that Yakov wore a yarmulka? Answer: It says 'Vayetzei Yakov' -- would Yakov have gone out without a yarmulka?!" But at any rate it does indicate that this was a largely neglected mitzva even in Vilna, in the early 20th century -- though neglect of a mitzva does not make the obligation go away. I for one do not hold it against RYBS. What he would have preferred and what was actually obtainable, in that time and place, were not the same. For that time and place, for a woman to be Torah observant was already a madreiga. To have been the wife of such a man -- his rebetzen must have had extraordinary zechuyos. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 11:43:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:43:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> The below (and, btw, R Nachum Lamm makes an interesting point in the comments there) leads me to a different, but related, question: We trace Rashi's mesorah pretty easily back to Rabbeinu Gershom -- but where did _he_ get _his_ mesorah from? How did it get from Bavel and the Gaonim to northern Europe? > RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & the Tosafists. > http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ [1] > Our *Torah shebe?al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the *Torah shebe?al peh* would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe?al peh* today. Links: ------ [1] http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 12:41:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:41:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: From: Kenneth Miller via Avodah >> We have discussed the idea that a posek may sometimes choose a psak based on what "seems right" to him, and then he will find sources to support that conclusion. But if I remember correctly, this is usually done in the case of *new* questions, where there is little precedent to draw upon. But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? --Akiva Miller >>>> It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan Aruch. What frequency is optimum? Surely that is at least partly subjective, and any of the various sources that apparently disagree with each other can be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up what your gut tells you is right. I can easily see a modern day rav or Torah mentor varying his answers depending on the circumstances of the wife and husband who are asking him for advice, as well as accepted societal norms. Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least some obligation to fulfill. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 14:59:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gil Student via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 17:59:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume 2 of his Collected Essays. Gil Student From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 19:55:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 22:55:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Re:Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> References: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:10:59 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah > : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the > : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded > : as ignorance... > > To do that woud be to disagree with her husband. > > See "Thinking Aloud", pg 113: ... > There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with > his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. WADR, Micha misunderstands the issue. The issue is not whether RYBS agreed with his wife's practice -- there are sources (albeit most of them from long after her passing) which would suggest that he may ave disagreed, and paskened otherwise) -- but that is a different issue of whether he viewed it as ignorance -- and for sure not out of the pale of halacha. That is the crux of the issue -- not whether we wish to pasken that this is muttar for ourselves (or for those who listen to us..) -- but how we view those who follow a different shitta -- and anyone who suggests that RYBS viewed his wife as nonobservant or not fully halachically committed is motsi la'az and needs to go to her kever( you can ask R Seth Mandel his opinion how the rav would have viewed such a person) Several related stories: 1) The rav was the posek for a community, who knew that his wife did not cover her hair. The vast majority of that community, even those close to the rav, who followed his every word, did not think that he viewed this as being problematic -- and he had plenty of opportunity to let it be known.... 2) I knew a talmid who was close to the rav in the 70s (shiur many years, rav was measured kiddushin -- unfortunately niftar early. when getting married, he told me that he asked the rav all his shailos -- except about head covering for his wife (she did) -- he said that it was thought problematic to ask him because of the rav's wife 3) Another talmid was once invited, late 70s, to Rav Schwab's shabbes table. Topic got around to data's torah, and rav schwab said that many have it wrong -- there is not one da'as torah -- but da'as torah is the opinion of someone who is wholly torah -- rav kotler is da'as torah, rav feinstein is da'as torah,the satmar is da'as torah. My friend jumped in and asked what about RYBS? Rav Schwab was no fan of RYBS, and he hemmed and hawed and then said that as his wife did not cover her hair, he was not da'as torah. At that point Mrs. Schwab interjected, but you know that none of the litvische rebbitzens covered their hair. At which point R Schwab agreed to that, and then agreed that RYBS was da'as torah..... That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. Meir Shinnar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 06:52:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:52:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> Message-ID: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> On 7/27/2015 2:49 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos > in both places points out, for precisely that reason. > Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any permutation thereof. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 07:31:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:31:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> Message-ID: <55B79226.4030906@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 09:52 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 7/27/2015 2:49 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos >> in both places points out, for precisely that reason. > Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of > there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any > permutation thereof. Except this memra of Rav Assi, which is quoted twice in the gemara with the same language, so it's unlikely to be a mistranscription. Either Rav Assi was mistaken about the king's name, or there was a short-reigned later king of that name whom Josephus didn't bother mentioning, or one of the later kings had Yannai as one of his names, and Josephus didn't bother mentioning it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 07:21:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:21:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> References: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55B78FCC.2020104@sero.name> On 07/27/2015 10:55 PM, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: > At that point Mrs. Schwab interjected, but you know > that none of the litvische rebbitzens covered their hair. At which point > R Schwab agreed to that, and then agreed that RYBS was da'as torah..... > > That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it > was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, > it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. No, it was *not* a shita in Litte, it was a makas medinah. It was an aveira that was prevalent among women, and the best the rabbonim could do was not talk about it to the women, in the hope that they were shogegin. Even in an earlier generation, no less a person than R Akiva Eger had no control over his wife and daughters' mode of dress: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31632&pgnum=300 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 08:57:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:57:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 08:52:45AM -0500, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of : there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any : permutation thereof. Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and Hebrew? 400 years prior, having two names was common and the civil names we know of (Mordechai, Esther, Shadrach, Meshach, Aved-Nego, etc...) bore no relation to their Jewish names. Alternatively: Chazal could have thrown in the timing problem to flag to the historian that they were not speaking historically. After all, we know from the other narratives quoted that they knew the dates for Alexander Yannai wouldn't work. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:21:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 12:21:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> References: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150728162126.GC24227@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 11:09pm EDT, RnTK wrote: : with their friends, "You can't say kaddish for your Ima or your Abba : today, someone else has kadima"? Correct me if I am mistaken but my impression : is that kaddish yasom is really mainly for genuine yesomim, i.e., those who : lose their parents while they are still children. Rather than correct you, let me provide a mar'eh maqom: Rama YD 376:4, quoting the Mahariq. Both of us probably remembering R Michael Poppers posting this. The Rama says that Qadish Yasom was established for Qetanim, because they cannot be Chazan. BUT... the Rama is clear that this ended before the custom of multiple people saying Qaddish at once began. When writing the above, I started wondering about areas like Vilna, where a daughter would say Qaddish for parents who had no sons. Did this minhag begin back when only one person said Qaddish at a time? If so, she would get the same priority for Qaddish Yasom as a qatan, no? But cold you picture such a scene in early 19th cent Litta, a woman saying Qaddish by herself on one side of the mechitzah or by the doorway, and all the men of the minyan answering? So my instinct is that this minhag post-dates group Qaddish. But my instinct might be based on revisionist history, for all I know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:38:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:38:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:153am EDT, R Saul Guberman wrote: : RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & : the Tosafists. : http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ : Our *Torah shebe'al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish : history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a : great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, : but the *Torah shebe'al peh* would have survived without him. However, : without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, : any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe'al peh* today. Which is a different statement than the subject line. I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue understanding the gemara. But one thing RGS loses is RYBS's context. RYBS was saying this in shiur, in a room where talmidim bring a compact edition of the Rambam with them for reference. It's a different thing to make this statement while sitting in Brisk, when you may intentionally state a perspective re-setting idea more strongly than in other settings. On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 2:43pm EDT, R Sholom Simon wrote: : We trace Rashi's mesorah pretty easily back to Rabbeinu Gershom -- but : where did _he_ get _his_ mesorah from? How did it get from Bavel and the : Gaonim to northern Europe? In a teshuvah, Rabbeinu Gershom says he was taught most of his Torah by "R' Leon". He means Rabbi Yehudah (Leontin) ben Rabbi Meir haKohein. R' Leontin was from Iraly, but he was in France before reaching Mainz. In France he picked up talmidim who then followed him to Ashkenaz, including Rabbinu Gershom and R' Yosef Tuv Elem (Tuv Elem = Bonfils, you will see him the the Mordechai alot, Tosafos, and [if you ever have occasion to look] Machzor Vitri). Rabbeinu Gershom took over the yeshiva upon RYBRM's petirah, which is probably why he is "Rabbeinu" rather than "Rav". The thing is, the tradition in Provence is that they came from EY. For example, in Luneil it was (is?) believed that the city was founded by refugees from Yericho, who commemorated their city of origin by using a translation of the same name: yareiach = luna. Which brings me to RGS's reply to R Sholom, written yesterday, Jul 27, 2015, at 5:59pm EDT: : Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German : mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger : disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. : However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments : against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from : Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume : 2 of his Collected Essays. If there is any truth to the Israeli Provencial tradition, we have a link in terms of rabbinic leadership to EY. However, not only do nusach hatefillah, piyut, and a number of pesaqim (which RRW educated me on repeatedly on these "pages" in the past) point toward an EY origin of Ashkenaz, so does something I didn't see R/Dr Soloveitchik address -- genetics. A map of the Jewish genetic tree http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072 shows the closes affinity for the Ashkenazi gene pool were the Italian, Greek, Turkish and Syrian communities. Notably all under the Roman Empire. Whereas the Jews of the geonic lands -- from Bavel through Qairouan, Tunisia -- form a second grouping. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:45:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:45:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728174552.GE24227@aishdas.org> I just posted: : However, the loss of a codifier who : stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of : mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But : Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue : understanding the gemara. I meant to add a different (and to my mind very important) way of looking at this idea: In terms of mesorah, a flow of TSBP as a "dialog down the ages" (to use RYBS's terminlogy), the parshan keeps the chain connected down the ages in a way that a Yad, designed to be stand-alone, does not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:24:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:24:20 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go > by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and > Hebrew? > I don't follow: the Hasmonean and post-Hasmonean kings did all have both Hebrew and Greek or Latin names, but Yannai is a *Hebrew* name, from the same root as Yona. I know someone who Hebraized his surname from Taubmann to Yannai ("Taub" is German for "dove"). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:50:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:50:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 09:24:20AM -0700, Simon Montagu wrote: : > Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go : > by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and : > Hebrew? : I don't follow: the Hasmonean and post-Hasmonean kings did all have both : Hebrew and Greek or Latin names, but Yannai is a *Hebrew* name, from the : same root as Yona. I know someone who Hebraized his surname from Taubmann : to Yannai ("Taub" is German for "dove"). I believe this is a folk etymology. Where would the alef (yud, nun, alef, yud) have come from? But more tellingly, Alexander Janneus's Hebrew name was Yehonasan, like his uncle. See the Latin and Hebrew on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Jannaeus#/media/File:JanaeusCoinPhoto.jpg If he could be "Alexander Yannai" in one language and "Yonasan" in another, who knows it there weren't another king whose Latin name "Janneus" was simply not preserved? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:17:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:17:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: There are those who argued that Tosfos (in particular Rabbeinu Tam) essentially created Ashkenazi mesorah by radically changing how we study and relate to Gemara and how we relate to popular practice. One might suggest without exaggeration that Tosfos created our Mesora. In which case Rashi's mesora is less relevant. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> There certainly is a lot of evidence that Ashkenzi minhagim com more from E"Y than Bavel. But do we know of any chochomim that went from anywhere in the Middle East to Germany? I.e., ok, even if we accept that either there was a third school, or it came from E"Y -- do we yet know *how* it got to Northern Europe? (Or perhaps the answers are in articles that Haym Soloveitchik or David Berger wrote? (And, if so, does anyone have any citations?) -- Sholom On 2015-07-27 17:59, Gil Student wrote: > Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. > > However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume 2 of his Collected Essays. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:18:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:18:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Sources_for_Not_Covering_Hair=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > 2) I knew a talmid who was close to the rav in the 70s ... when getting married, he told me that he asked the rav all his shailos -- except about head covering for his wife (she did) -- he said that it was thought problematic to ask him because of the rav's wife I have a related story. A talmid who was also close to him. When getting married he _did_ ask about a head covering for his wife (after apologizing for asking it). If I remember the story correctly, the Rav smiled and said that he wasn't the right person to ask. -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:41:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:41:08 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Molad Message-ID: Calendars in my home town print the latest times of saying Kiddush Levana, which equate to exactly fifteen days after the announced Molad time. This might be an entire night, or an exact time, e.g. Sunday night 22.45. But since the astronomical Molad can be some distance from the calculated Molad times, by sometimes as much as twelve hours, does this not mean that these sof zeman kiddush levana times can be faulty by that same margin? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:00:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:00:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728180043.GG24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 01:28:42PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : There certainly is a lot of evidence that Ashkenzi minhagim com more : from E"Y than Bavel. Although experts, O Rabbi-PhDs, debate the issue. So what seems obvious to you or me apparently isn't. : But do we know of any chochomim that went from anywhere in the Middle : East to Germany? I already posted the mesorah from EY to Provence to Rabbeinu Gershom. Jews really started reaching the Rhineland area at the invitation of Charlemagne in the 9th cent CE, when he started the Holy Roman Empire. They came from Provence (again) and Italy. Recall that most of the captives from EY ended up in Rome, and you can understand how an Israeli presence in Italy would have already been established. Far more so than the Jews of the geonate -- who, as I mentioned, were living outside the Roman Empire. In mythic form, we have a story of a King Charles invited R' Moshe ben Klonimus from Lucca to Mainz. In documentation form, Louis "the Pious", C's son, left charters showing that he too invited Jewish merchants to provide an economic backbone to his country, and mentions that he was continuing his father's invitation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person must be very patient micha at aishdas.org even with himself. http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:10:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:10:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: AIUI the MN "was all that you needed to study". Are you/RGS saying that this is only as a codifier? RAMBAM did not feel that he was passing on the mesorah? In the end, it does not matter what he wrote, RASHI vs RAMBAM, you must have RASHI, RAMBAM is nice but without RASHI you come to a dead end? On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > > I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah > through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who > stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of > mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But > Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue > understanding the gemara. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:32:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:32:24 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are forgotten after 12 months (memory of the bet hamikdash is different) I have a personal problem with this statement. To my sorry I know of several people who have lost children especially in the age of 18-25. One thing I have learned from these people is that one never forgets a child, It is part of their lives every day. The secretary of my department lost a son in a flash flood in the negev. She changed her last name to incorporate the name of that son. Every time she signs her name she remembers her son, Others who have lost sons in military actions say kaddish every day for the son many years later. I would just imagine that Yaakov having lost his "favorite" son would not forget him after 12 months but indeed would mourn for him forever -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:09:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:09:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 12:41 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > Calendars in my home town print the latest times of saying Kiddush > Levana, which equate to exactly fifteen days after the announced > Molad time. This might be an entire night, or an exact time, e.g. > Sunday night 22.45. That should be halfway between moldos, i.e. 14d 18h 22m after the molad, not a full 15 days. It should also be adjusted for the time difference between your standard time and Y'm's real time, which for NY is 7h 20m in the winter and 6h 20m in the summer. Using a full 15 days is only bediavad. > But since the astronomical Molad can be some distance from the > calculated Molad times, by sometimes as much as twelve hours, does > this not mean that these sof zeman kiddush levana times can be faulty > by that same margin? Yes, but since we have no easy way (other than consulting readily- available secular resources, of course) of determining when the real full moon occurs, we use the calculated moldos, *unless* there is a lunar eclipse, since that by definition happens at the true full moon. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:28:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:28:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B7C9D0.5030709@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 01:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If he could be "Alexander Yannai" in one language and "Yonasan" in > another, who knows it there weren't another king whose Latin name > "Janneus" was simply not preserved? Here's a thought: AFAIK there is no mention in the gemara of a second, bad, King Agrippas. The only Agrippas mentioned is the first one, the good one. Also, as far as I know, there is no record of the second Agrippas's Hebrew name. What if the first Agrippas gave his oldest son Yannai as his Jewish name, after the first Yannai, and that is how he was known among Jews, and therefore by the Amoraim, while Josephus called him by his Roman name, Herod Agrippa? -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:23:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:23:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus Message-ID: <> Any Jewish king would have been over 100 before the churban besides there is the known problem with Yehoshua ben Gamla having his position bought for him OTOH he seems to have done good deeds Interestingly wikipedia writes "*Yehoshua ben Gamla* (or Joshua son of Gamla) was a Jewish high priest who officiated in about 64 CE. He married the rich widow Martha of the high-priestly family Boethos (Yeb. vi. 4), and she by bribing Jannai secured for him the office of high priest (Yeb. 61a; Yoma 18a; comp. "Ant." xx. 9, ? 4). Although Yehoshua himself was not a scholar, he was solicitous for the instruction of the young, and provided schools in every town for children over five years of age, earning thereby the praises of posterity (B. B. 21a). The two lots used on the Day of Atonement , hitherto of boxwood, he made of gold (Yoma iii. 9). Yehoshua did not remain long in office, being forced, after a year, to give way to Matthias ben Theophil ("Ant." xx. 9, ? 7)." i.e. Martha bribed someone named Jannai in 64CE. Not clear who this Jannai is but definitely not a king -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:44:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:44:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B7DB8C.8030404@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 03:23 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Interestingly wikipedia writes I.e. somebody, perhaps with no more information than you or me, wrote > i.e. Martha bribed someone named Jannai in 64CE. Not clear who this > Jannai is but definitely not a king Says who? Why do you say that, especially when not only does the gemara say he was a king, but we know that at the time the kehuna gedola was in the gift of king? -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 13:37:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:37:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? Message-ID: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> From: Meir Shinnar via Avodah >> That is the crux of the issue -- not whether we wish to pasken that this is muttar for ourselves (or for those who listen to us..) -- but how we view those who follow a different shitta -- and anyone who suggests that RYBS viewed his wife as nonobservant or not fully halachically committed is motsi la'az and needs to go to her kever [snip] That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. << Meir Shinnar >>>> [1] No one has ever suggested that RYBS viewed his wife as "nonobservant" so nobody has to go to her kever, although anyone who wants to may do so. I assume her children and grandchildren go on her yahrzeit. The line between observant and nonobservant is pretty clear, even though all of us sometimes sin. I have yet to hear of anyone saying that if a woman keeps Shabbos, kashrus and taharas hamishpacha, but does not cover her hair, she is "nonobservant." However if you know of a person who does say that, please cite the source, thank you. Maybe he is the same person who says that if you talk loshon hara you are nonobservant -- and therefore there are only about 500 observant Jews in the whole world, if that. [2] There is no "different shita." There was no "shitta in Lita" allowing married women to go out with their hair uncovered. What there was in Lita was the winds of Haskala, Reform and sliding, sliding, sliding away from Torah, more marked among the women even than among the men. Sarah Schnirer noted that there were chassidishe homes in Poland where, after the Friday night Shabbos meal, the teenage girls and even the mother would go out to see a play at the local theater. If there was slippage in Poland, where chassidus was strong, you can just imagine what was going on in Lita, where there was nothing to capture the hearts and minds of people who were not themselves talmidei chachamim -- viz, the unlearned masses, and the women. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 14:30:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:30:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> References: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150728213052.GA12259@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:37pm EDT, RnTK wrote: : [2] There is no "different shita." There was no "shitta in Lita" : allowing married women to go out with their hair uncovered... The AhS, whose theory of pesaq gives a lot of weight to seeing which ruling was accepted as general practice, famously permits saying Shema while seeing a married woman with her hair uncovered. But this is what he says in OC 75:7 , where that heter is given: And now, we will cry about the breached of our generation in its many since, for many years Benos Yisrael violate this sin and go with a revealed head. And whateve we yell about this, it doesn't help and it doesn't have an effect. And now this mispachas [oe of the nega'im] has spread, that married [women] go with their hyair like the besulos do. Woe to us that this arose in our generation! Still, al kol panim, according to the din is appears permitted to us to daven and make berakhos opposite their revealed heads, since now that most of them go this way... memeilah there won't be hirhur. So, RYME is pretty clear: It was common, it was viewed has a sin -- not "a different shittah", and the rabbinate did complain but no one listened. And again, that's the AhS, not the textual theoretician "what ought the ideal halakhah be from a clean slate" approach of the MB. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 14:46:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:46:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728214605.GB12259@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 02:10:52PM -0400, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: : AIUI the [MT] "was all that you needed to study". Are you/RGS saying that : this is only as a codifier? RAMBAM did not feel that he was passing on the : mesorah? In the end, it does not matter what he wrote, RASHI vs RAMBAM, you : must have RASHI, RAMBAM is nice but without RASHI you come to a dead end? As the Rambam says in the haqdamah (par 40 ), the goal was to put the "TSBP kulah sedurah befi hakol" -- his primary audience was the masses. And we know how much he thought of the masses. Similarly he continues (41) by telling you he his work "Mishneh Torah" because it fulfills the shelish bemishnah -- the studying of halakhah pesuqah. (He calls it sheliesh BTSBP, but as you just saw in the haqdamah, the Rambam both identifies the two and also says they're contained in his MT.) However, in Hil' Talmud Torah 1:12 tells you that that's only "betechilas tazlmudo shel adam, aval kesheyagdil bechokhmah" he should set time for TSBK and divrei hashemu'ah so as not to forget, "veyifneh kol yamav ligemara". So it is not impossible that even the Rambam himself might agree that those who explain how to do the shaqlara vetarya like gemara, or lomdus, or "veyotzi davar midavar veyidmeh dava ledavar" etc... are more central to the mesorah than his own Mishneh Torah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 13:54:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: <9ea4b.71e33b03.42e9460c@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) >>The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are forgotten after 12 months (memory of the bet hamikdash is different) I have a personal problem with this statement. To my sorry I know of several people who have lost children especially in the age of 18-25. One thing I have learned from these people is that one never forgets a child << --Eli Turkel >>>>> My grandmother had a baby daughter who died at the age of five months, and fifty years or more after that, I once asked her about the baby she had lost. She started to cry as if it had just happened, and described the baby in detail -- what she looked like, what she could do at five months and so on. So I learned the lesson that a parent never forgets a lost child. However, she only cried for a little while and then returned to her cheerful self. I'm sure that in the year after her baby died, she was not cheerful. I don't think "gezeira al hameis" means the person is literally forgotten, but that the degree of mourning becomes less intense. Initially the bereaved person, especially a bereaved parent, simply cannot believe the child is gone, and constantly thinks and even dreams about the child. With the passage of months and years, the knowledge that the child is truly gone is assimilated and the parent goes on with life, even if a heaviness always remains somewhere in the background. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 15:38:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 18:38:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150728223810.GD12259@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:12am EDT, R/Dr Meir Shinnar wrote: : Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions : I) in hazal - that continued desire for some forbidden actions : is compatible with a high spiritual state - issue is control of : the desire - NOT its presence : II) Aristotelian ethics - a high spiritual state does not desire : for forbidden - the desire is a sign of a flaw. But chazal too talk in terms of virtue ethics, not just in terms of kibush hayeitzer (overcoming the desire) but also tiqun hayeitzer (adjusting those desires). Most famously, "mah Hu Chanun, af atah chanun". Or, as the Rambam paraphrased, "mah hu *niqra* 'Chanun'..." It doesn't speak of giving to others without cause despite desire, it asks us to develop the middos of chanun, rachum, etc... Now, on to a totally different topic... On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 05:15:16PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote: : Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. Sex : is proper as long as you minimize it. - Is the difference really that : subtle? To me, it is as subtle as a brick. I think the difference is just about that, but because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: 1- It involves a second party. There is no threat of objectifying good. 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... Therefore, the attitude toward perishus for each comes from opposite directions. For food, which is necessary for survival, we talk about how much is too much. For sex, we talk about the right balance between keeping the other happy (chiyuv onah) and turning them into a tool for your own happiness. The bottom line is still the same: perishus from challenges I cannot handle while be maqdish olam hazeh the rest of the time. The details differ due to the differences above. On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:18am GMT, Kenneth Miller wrote: : .... This is a case where the Shulchan : Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went : uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed... On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:41pm EDT, Rn Toby Katz replied: : It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too loosely. If : it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim and acharonim, agree : that marital intercourse is always mutar (assuming the usual, the wife is not : a nidah, it's not forced, it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really : talking about here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan : Aruch. What frequency is optimum? Surely that is at least partly subjective, ... While what I said before about "minimize it" not meaning all that different from "don't overdue" addresses this question of RAM's as well, I think RnTK's response is really the essence of the answer. But to quibble with the language... I'm not sure it's "hashkafah" as much as Hilkhos Dei'os / Chovos haLvavos. After all "Qedoshim tihyu" is a chiyuv, not a nicety, and that's a source for "perushim tihyu". What a mitzvah to be or to become something (such as "qadosh") is in practice, though, is inherently situational and subjective. If we were talking about something reducible to black-letter halakhah and objective rules, it would have been. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 15:58:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:58:41 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <20150728.185841.2133.0@webmail10.vgs.untd.com> R"n Toby Katz wrote: > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar > (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, > it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might also be RTK's point). But if that is how we are to understand the vocabulary, then we have a whole new way of reading the Shulchan Aruch. Here are some examples: It's not assur to shmooze between Geulah and Tefillah of Maariv. (236:2) It's not assur to say Shehecheyanu on the Lulav on the second day. (662:2) Surely that is at least > partly subjective, and any of the various sources that apparently disagree with each other can be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up what your gut tells you is right. I can easily see a modern day rav or Torah mentor varying his answers depending on the circumstances of the wife and husband who are asking him for advice, as well as accepted societal norms. Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least some obligation to fulfill. ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b8096a62fe9695575st03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 20:51:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:51:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 02:09:11PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : That should be halfway between moldos, i.e. 14d 18h 22m after the : molad, not a full 15 days. It should also be adjusted for the time : difference between your standard time and Y'm's real time, which : for NY is 7h 20m in the winter and 6h 20m in the summer. Using : a full 15 days is only bediavad. Y-m time to EST is 7h 21m, not 20. But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we call it. It's hard to know exactly where the molad is being announced for, since the average lunation has changed over time and the accumulated difference between estimation and reality over millenia has grown large. Right now, the average molad matches the average moment of new moon for Qandahar, Afghanistan. If we go back in time to when the molad was closest to one lunar month, we get to 4th cent CE, the days of Hillel Nesi;ah. The av beis din to whom R Hai Gaon attributes our current calendar. If we assume the molad then was most accurate in start time as well when it was most accurate in durection, then the molad is being announeced for something like Ur Kasdim, which is also around the middle of Jewish settlement at the time, between the Nile and the Euphrates. In which case, the molad is being announced for a place 44 min after IST (not 21m). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 23:45:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 02:45:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 11:51 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Y-m time to EST is 7h 21m, not 20. True. I was approximating, much as the Rambam did with Y'm latitude. > But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we > call it. http://mechon-mamre.org/i/3811.htm#17 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:33:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 02:45:03AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we :> call it. : http://mechon-mamre.org/i/3811.htm#17 The Rambam there (Qiddush haChodesh 11:17) discusses the calculation of the calendar. The rules are set up based on RC in Y-m. Announcing the molad doesn't reflect the calculated calendar, but the whole Qiddush haChodesh is set up to invoke Sanhedrin being meqadesh al pi re'iyah. So perhaps they chose a clock for announcing the molad that wasn't the one they used to translate to the meridian used for translating mollad into rosh chodesh. Why would we do so? Isn't the meridian of Y-m the obvious time to use even if it weren't the one used to compute the calendar? As I quickly mentioned (I gave more details more than once in the past), I am suggesting a different meridian because if Hillel Nesi'ah ubeis dino had assumed a molad that was 23 min earlier than the one we announce, the molad would be more accurate. 23 min later than Yerushalayim does correspond to a meaningful place at the time, a point exactly midway between the Jews of EY and those of Bavel. Aside from including Ur Kasdim. Not the most obvious choice (Yerushalayim) but still not a random meridian either. So why not assume they picked the meridian for announcing the molad on that basis, and credit the Sanhedrin with knowing the molad to greater accuracy? The question is what that does to molad zaqein, and how we would explain the clean result of before noon vs posponing RH if the molad is after noon. The idea behind molad zaqein is that the furthest east Jewish community would still be able to see (weather permitting) the new moon before the end of RC. This is obviously only a loose idea, since we're talking about timing based on the molad, an approximate average. (So that on average Jews in the east would see the new moon...?) RYGB and/or RAZZ theorize http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n038.shtml#08 that the Calendar Controversy was over the issue of how far east do we worry about. R' Aharon ben Meir wanted to move the cutoff for molad zaqein by 64 chalaqim. (More than 23 min, ie 414 chalaqim.) He doesn't say why. Their article suggests that RABM was setting the rule for molad zaqein based on the furthest known Jewish settlement at that time. Which would be Kaifun, and the numbers work. Whereas RSG objected saying that the location is theoretical, not experimental. The Kuzari (following RSG -- since it's his version of the calendar that we all use) uses this to argue that the international date line is 90 deg east of Y-m ih"q. And thus any Jewish settlement that would be further east would be on the other side of the date line WRT Rosh Chodesh, and there is no problem of the molad being on their day 2. If so, changing the molad by 23 min would change the calendar, halakhah would prove my claim wrong. But few if any of us hold that the date line is 90 deg east of Y-m, east down 125.2 deg E, down Dongeng St in Changchun, China. To quote R Dovid Heber at : Families on the eastern strip of Dongfeng Street would recite kiddush while families a block to the west would recite havdala. It may be possible for those who want two days of Shabbos to walk one block eastbound, down Dongfeng Street, after Seuda Shlishis and start Shabbos again. Those who want to skip almost all of Shabbos could take a short stroll westbound, and go from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. (This post needed something light to leaven it.) >From where I sit, between those who say 180deg and the CI's adjudgment of including the entire land mass if part of it is west of 90deg, the dominant shitah is inconsistent with the Kuzari's explanation. If the date line is not involved, it would mean the machloqes would be about what we mean by the far enough end of Jewish settlement who would still experience the molad before the end of RC. RSG is saying that 90 deg is the Sanhderin mandated estimate, and RABM holds it's the actual furthest settlement. And that stands whether or not RYGB and RAZZ are correct about RAML's sevara, as we're only looking at RSG lehalakhah. I just took the Kuzari's lomdus and asked what it would mean to those who don't agree with his date line. If that line of reasoning is correct, then saying the approximate eastmost community is to be measured from the center of the core Jewish settlement -- between Bavel and EY -- ends up more intuitive than saying it's measured from Y-m. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 05:11:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:11:28 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Ooops! Yesterday I accidentally pressed "send" when I meant to "save draft". The result was a post that was far from finished. Here is what I had intended to publish: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar > (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, > it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might also be RTK's point). But IF that is how we are to understand the vocabulary, then we have a whole new way of reading the Shulchan Aruch. Here are some examples of this new way of understanding: It's not assur to shmooze between Geulah and Tefillah of Maariv (236:2) or to say Shehecheyanu on the Lulav on the second day (662:2) or to say Hallel on RH and YK (584:1) or to get a haircut before Mincha (232:2). It's not assur to daven only in your heart, but it's better if you pronounce the words with your lips. (101:2) I will concede that these examples are indeed less severe than cases where the Shulchan Aruch DOES use the word "assur". But nevertheless, we do not take these halachos as mere suggestions. Despite the lack of the word "asur", we DO accept it as normative psak halacha, and not as "hashkafa", to use RTK's word. So why should Siman 240 be different? Why would we suddenly take the words of Siman 240 to be hashkafa, and wave off the Shulchan Aruch, saying that his derech is different than our derech? Shouldn't we accept it as normative halacha? Even if I feel these halachos to be strange or difficult, shouldn't I at least accept them as a goal to strive for? And if I *don't* strive for them, doesn't that require teshuva? > Surely that is at least partly subjective, and any of the > various sources that apparently disagree with each other can > be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up > what your gut tells you is right. Maybe, but one had better be VERY sure that those sources actually exist, and that they have ample support in the poskim. Otherwise - as I asked a couple of posts ago - how is this any different than what the conservative and reform do? "It's a big machlokes - there's gotta be someone who paskens the way I want, so that's what I'm gonna do." I shudder when I hear otherwise-observant people saying such things. There are indeed some cases where there is such a *lack* of consensus among the poskim that one can do as he wants (one of my teachers paskened this way and for this reason regarding brachos on dessert), but I do not see Siman 240 in this category. We seem to be abandoning the consensus of the Shulchan Aruch and Nosei Keilim, and running to minority rishonim. > Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing > this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing > to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation > of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional > closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly > pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least > some obligation to fulfill. Are we really sure that (for the wife) physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness from the Torah's perspective? Or perhaps that is only an invention of minds which have been clouded by the outside culture? Could it be that Onah requires physical closeness, but not emotional closeness? I get mixed messages on this. On the one hand, an awful lot of Siman 240 is devoted to husband and wife both being of the proper frame of mind, and this is extremely strong evidence to the real importance of emotional closeness. But when I see halachos about keeping conversation to a minimum, and keeping the time involved to a minimum, then I wonder how much closeness can be achieved. I had posted: : Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. : Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. R' Micha Berger responded: > ... because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: > ... 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... Really? Can we really survive without it? You and me, I suppose, but that's because we are male. RTK referenced mitzvas onah. In the Torah's view, sex is as essential as food and shelter are. But only for women. Regardless of whether we're talking about physical closeness or emotional closeness, it seems that the Torah is concerned about closeness only for the woman, and not for the man. For women, closeness is a need which must be met; for men, closeness is a taavah which must be controlled. Let's not allow ourselves to get confused between needs and taavos. A person may desire something so much that he thinks it to be a need, but he is deluding himself. Nowhere do I see any responsibilities of the wife which are comparable to Mitzvas Onah. Yes, she'll be a "moredet" if she refuses, but (as I understand it) that is due to the social contract implicit in the concept of marriage, which is a very cry from a Chiyuv D'Oraisa. ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b8c3465e5f543465c9est02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:01:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:01:07 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla Message-ID: according to the Hebrew wikipedia Matyha bat Baytus bought the high priesthood for her husband Yehoshua ben Gamla towards the end of the second Temple. As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai and they guess that it was from Agripas II. Furthermore Yehoshua Ben Gamla was killed during the revolt against Rome. (Where the high priest Yishmael ben Elisha fits in we have discussed in the past) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:07:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:07:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150729160759.GF12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 06:01:07PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> according to the Hebrew wikipedia Matyha bat Baytus bought the high :> priesthood for her husband Yehoshua ben Gamla towards the end of the second :> Temple. As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai and they guess :> that it was from Agripas II. : Furthermore Yehoshua Ben Gamla was killed during the revolt against Rome. : (Where the high priest Yishmael ben Elisha fits in we have discussed in the : past) The gemara is Yuma 18a and Yevamos 61a. The mishnah in Yevemos says that Yehoshua ben Gamla married Marta bas Baisus, an almana, but before consummating the marriage "umanahu melekh" to be kohein gadol, The point of the mishnah is that they can stay married, as actually happened in this event. The gemara comments on the language of "manahu" rather than the expected "nisnamneh" to denote that the appointment wasn't the usual approval of a candidate selected by the kohanim and vetted by Sanhedrin. Then the gemara says she spent two qavin ("tarqav" = trei + qav) of dinarim to buy it. The gemara in Yuma makes this last point as well. Josephus (Antiquities XX 9:4 ) wrote that he became KG during the reign of Herod Agrippa II. Nothing about how. The translation reads weird, calls him "Jesus the son of Gamaliel". I went to the Soncino, since I don't know who else would comment on a gemara - Josephus interaction. Fn 16 on Yuma, 20 on Yevamos make the identity. They first opine that "Jannai is often employed in the Talmud as a general patronymic for Hasmonean and Herodian rulers." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:30:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:30:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?HILCHOS_KIBUD_AV_V=92EIM?= Message-ID: <20150729153144.1CF3218089B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://halachafortodaycom.blogspot.com/2013/02/archives-hilchos-kibud-av-veim.html Some selections from this site. The Aseres HaDibros, the Ten Commandments given to us by Hashem on Har Sinai are divided into two parts, the first five are commandments between man and Hashem (Bein Adam L?Makom) and the last five are commandments between man and fellow man (Bein Adam L?Chaveiro) Kibud Av V?Eim ,the fifth of the Aseres HaDibros, is listed amongst the commandments that are between man and Hashem even though it is seemingly a commandment that is only between man and man. The reason for this is that honoring one?s parents is akin to honoring Hashem. There are 3 partners in every human being, the father, the mother and Hashem. If one honors any of the three it is as if all three have been honored, and if one dishonors any of the three it?s as if all three have been dishonored. 1)It is prohibited to contradict a parent. (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah Siman 240:2) If a parent has a verbal disagreement with another person, and the child tells the other person ?I concur with your view?, it is considered contradicting the parent and is prohibited. (Shach Yoreh Deah 240:2) 2) According to some Poskim this prohibition is only in the presence of the parent. Other Poskim, however, maintain that even not in the presence of the parent it is prohibited. 1)It is forbidden to call a parent or refer to them by their name; rather they need to be referred to as ?My father [my teacher]? or ?My mother?. 1) What constitutes ?Kibud, respecting? parents? One must speak to their parents softly, with respect the way one would speak to a king. 1) Children are obligated to stand up for their parents when they enter a room. 1) If a parent does something that is against the Torah and a child sees, the child should not say ?You transgressed a Torah prohibition?, as bluntly saying so will cause the parent embarrassment. Rather, the child should say something to the effect of: ?Father Does it say in the Torah that one should not .?? in a way that sounds like a question and not like a chastisement or rebuke, and the parent will realize on their own that they have committed the sin. 1) If one?s father asks for a glass of water or any other task, and at the same time his/her mother asked for a glass of water or another task, tending to the father?s needs takes precedence, as the son/daughter and the mother are both obligated to respect the father/husband. 2) If a parent is sleeping it is forbidden to wake them up. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:51:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:51:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B8F66D.2000701@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 11:33 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > > But few if any of us hold that the date line is 90 deg east of Y-m, > east down 125.2 deg E, down Dongeng St in Changchun, China. To quote > R Dovid Heber at: > Families on the eastern strip of Dongfeng Street would recite > kiddush while families a block to the west would recite havdala. > It may be possible for those who want two days of Shabbos to walk > one block eastbound, down Dongfeng Street, after Seuda Shlishis and > start Shabbos again. Those who want to skip almost all of Shabbos > could take a short stroll westbound, and go from sunset Friday to > sunset Saturday. > (This post needed something light to leaven it.) Shu"T Bnai Tziyon points to a gemara about two villages within techum shabbos, where it was Yom Kippur in one and not the other, because that was the last place the messenger had made it before sunset. (I can't figure out how that actually worked, but that is what the gemara says.) He avoids the awkwardness of the situation posited in this clip by positing that the line is not one-dimensional but is several miles wide, and that the area inside the line has an official din of sofek, like bein hashmoshos. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:21:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 19:21:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: saw some trivia questions: 1) Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters of the alph-bet (I only know one) 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:51:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:51:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150729165138.GH12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 07:21:20PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 1) Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters : of the alph-bet (I only know one) Soferim use Tzefania 3:8 to show their penmanship, because it not only includes all 22 letters, it also includes all the sofios. Is that a way to denote total ultimate justice (the meaning of the words ) or what? This question is easier than that, just asking for 22 letters, not whether sofis or not. I already heard this one so I will leave the other 6 for others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:58:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B8F834.5060103@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 11:01 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > according to the Hebrew wikipedia Which is no more authoritative than English WP, and in fact seems to have looser rules regarding sourcing. > Matyha bat Baytus Martha. > As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai As Tosfos already points out, in both places where the gemara quotes this memra. > they guess that it was from Agripas II. That seems like a good guess, that the Yannai in the memra refers to the king Josephus calls Herod Agrippa II, but it is only a guess. On 07/29/2015 12:07 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I went to the Soncino, since I don't know who else would comment on a > gemara - Josephus interaction. Fn 16 on Yuma, 20 on Yevamos make the > identity. They first opine that "Jannai is often employed in the Talmud > as a general patronymic for Hasmonean and Herodian rulers." Which, for all we know, it may have been. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 10:13:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:13:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B909C7.7070906@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 12:21 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach 1. The definition of an "edah" from "this wicked edah". 2. Hezek re'iyah from Bil'am. 3. Standing for a davar shebikdusha, from Eglon. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 14:57:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:57:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150729215724.GA3540@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:11:28PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : R"n Toby Katz wrote: : > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too : > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim : > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar.... : > What we are really talking about : > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan : > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... : : Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. : : I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount : of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as : "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" : (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken : literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that : these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might : also be RTK's point). Which is why I quibbled with RnTK's language. Becauser I think it's assur -- really and actually assur -- not to try for perishus where possible. It's a bitul asei of "qedoshim tihyu". However, a mitzvah of hilkhos dei'os is to stretch, to move the nequdas habechirah and is therefore not only "at least partly subjective" but necessarily subjective. And if the criteria for behavior could be spelled out non-subjectively, they would be spelled out in chovos ha'eivarim. : I had posted: :: Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. :: Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. : R' Micha Berger responded: :> ... because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: :> ... 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... : Really? Can we really survive without it? You and me, I suppose, : but that's because we are male. Under normal circumstances, one can't go 3 days without food and water. Not just "one would be miserable if", but actual death. I am not sure how you could compare the need for intimacy to that kind of mechanistic do-or-die. : RTK referenced mitzvas onah. In the Torah's view, sex is as essential : as food and shelter are. But only for women. I disagree. And BTW, my #1 which you ellided /was/ mitzvas onah. : Regardless of whether we're talking about physical closeness : or emotional closeness, it seems that the Torah is concerned about : closeness only for the woman, and not for the man. For women, closeness : is a need which must be met; for men, closeness is a taavah which must : be controlled. Or, the Torah presumes that opportunity is in the hands of men. Not a difference in desire. Or -- a 3rd possibility -- lehefech, men are presumed more likely to get distracted by their own taavos and objectify their spouse and therefore the chiyuv of onah to focus on someone else's psychological needs. In any case, the requirement to avoid misery would motivate a chiyuv, one needn't define it as a need. Esperically since biologically, it's not necessary for survival the way food, drink or air are. But getting back to what you're saying here... Let me repeat point #1 in different phrasing: Because onah is indeed a chiyuv, saying that it should be minimized outside the realm of mitzvah isn't that much of a minimization. And yet, the threat of erotic desire becoming an end in itself is both more damaging, since there will be other victims beyond the self-destructive aspect and more likely. (In most people's psychology -- it's not like there is an internet food "porn" industry.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 15:37:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:37:27 GMT Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> R' Eli Turkel asked: > The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov > mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are > forgotten after 12 months ... > > I have a personal problem with this statement. ... one never > forgets a child R"n Toby Katz answered: > I don't think "gezeira al hameis" means the person is literally > forgotten, but that the degree of mourning becomes less intense. > ... the parent goes on with life, even if a heaviness always > remains somewhere in the background. I have had the same question as RET, and I thank RTK for this answer. I have written on several occasions, about my belief that Chazal often exaggerate, and this misleads those who are not used to their style of speaking. I think we have here another example of the same thing. There's a tendency to take Chazal at literal face value. We need to be more careful when reading the poetry. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 08:02:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:02:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Parallels in Kiruv Message-ID: <56c357c0b3404dbcbfc7bce2d25a6162@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Here's a quote from "Their Rock is Not Like Our Rock" - Daniel Strange In a recent article addressed to evangelical pastors I outlined a three-point "to do" list that might begin to move us into this stance: * Develop and deploy a biblically rich and nuanced theology of religions * Discern and denounce the arrogance and intolerance of pluralism * Demonstrate and display, in both word and deed, the unique power of the gospel to change lives and communities My impression is the first two are not generally done by kiruv folks but I was wondering if you replace gospel with orthodoxy and evangelical pastors with kiruv professionals, what fits? Should it be considered as an approach? Kol Tuv, 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 09:30:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:30:47 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: 'oh hanisa elokim' is one; the other is in parshat haman , i forget which one. will leave the dvar tora connecting the two , to others , other than to say the import of 'zeh gilui shechina' and lechem mishamayim as fundaments of faith,,,, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 10:38:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:38:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: From: Eli Turkel via Avodah " 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach -- Eli Turkel >>>>> Don't know if this is what you had in mind but I can think of these: [1] A woman cannot be married without her consent -- learn from Lavan -- "Nish'alah es pi hana'arah" before sending Rivka off with Eliezer to marry Yitzchak. [2] A younger sister cannot marry before the older sister (unless she gets permission from her) -- from Lavan again, excusing himself for giving Leah to Yakov instead of Rachel. [3] Celebrating seven days of sheva brachos -- from two places. One is Lavan again -- give Leah a week to celebrate and then Yakov can marry Rachel. And from the Pelishti "friends" of Shimshon who celebrated his wedding for a week. [4] We also learn from Izevel (Jezebel) that it's a big mitzva to dance at a wedding, to be mesameach chassan vekallah, but strictly speaking this is not in Tanach, it's a midrash. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 11:41:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:41:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: In Avodah V33n109, RET posted > Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters of the alph-bet (I only know one) < In the Torah, a *pasuq* in P'Va'eschanan (4 :34) is usually noted, but it (containing letter *sin* but no *shin*) works only when the *shin* and the *sin* are considered the same letter (they are, so long as we're considering the written form). The other *pasuq* in the Torah of which I'm aware is Shmos 16 :16 (in it, the *shin* is extant but there's no *sin*). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 15:30:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:30:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months In-Reply-To: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150730223053.GA17753@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:37:27PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : I have written on several occasions, about my belief that Chazal often : exaggerate, and this misleads those who are not used to their style of : speaking. I think we have here another example of the same thing. There's : a tendency to take Chazal at literal face value. We need to be more : careful when reading the poetry. Tanakh sometimes does something else with a similar effect, and it may be what Chazal are doing here. Lei'ah, rather than being described as "less loved" is "senu'ah". It's not necessarily exageration as much as a language norm to express a relative statement uing the same terms as absolutes. Here too chazal are making a comparison. Was the reader expected to know it's guzma, or was the norm in mishnaic Hebrew as well to use the term for the end of the spectrum to mean "less mourned than"? My problem with this is the parent of the MIA who can't let go for years or decades, and then it's found out that the chayal r"l was killed upon capture (or their body was taken after petirah for a bargaining chip). We have no experimental evidence of parents having that mystical knowledge of their children's state, and quite a bit of evidence otherwise. Perhaps Yaaqov avinu, or even someone with "just" ruach haqodesh is that aware of what's going on on the plane of souls without learning about them through normal olam hazeh means. But I do not see it being true of the majority of humanity. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 20:39:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 03:39:12 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> I tried to make the point that although many try to show similarites between food and sex, if we look at the Torah's view, there are far more differences. I suggested a rule of thumb: > Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. > Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. Chazal see food as an entirely proper way of enjoying olam hazeh, to the point that it is actively encouraged as a form of all sorts of celebrations. (And not only happy celebrations, but eating is also involved in various mourning practices.) Under normal circumstances, one can and should eat as much as he needs, subject to the limitations of kashrus and brachos. One is never allowed to eat in a quantity or manner that he becomes a menuval, but that is not a major concern. Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah. And even there, the restrictions are many. Food has tremendous room for creativity even within the restrictions of hilchos kashrus and brachos. Sex could be similar, even within the bounds of hilchos nidda and arayos, but the restrictions set out in OC 240 go much farther than merely to insure that one does not become a menuval. R' Micha Berger responded: > I think the difference is just about that, but because of the > biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: > 1- It involves a second party. There is no threat of > objectifying [food]. > 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... > Therefore, the attitude toward perishus for each comes from > opposite directions. For food, which is necessary for survival, > we talk about how much is too much. For sex, we talk about the > right balance between keeping the other happy (chiyuv onah) > and turning them into a tool for your own happiness. I think that he is agreeing with me that food and sex are very different, but I disagree with his explanation of *why* they are so different. In his first point, intended to be "food"), he seems to feel that the restrictions on sex are to prevent people from taking advantage of each other: If I have even a small desire for a snack, the Torah has no problem at all if I go to the kitchen and take an apple (provided that I say the bracha to acknowledge Hashem's involvement) because the apple is nothing more than an apple. But while casual eating is fine, casual sex is not. Casual sex involves people, and they must not be taken advantage of. My problem with this is on several levels. First, Chazal are pretty explicit that the purpose of Hilchos Nida is to restore a honeymoon-style atmosphere on a regular basis, and that alone might suffice to insure that spouses aren't objectified. Also, we have the many parts of OC 240 which insure that husband and wife are in the same "place" emotionally: no one is drunk, words of "ritzui", and so on. But isn't that sufficient protection against objectifying? What is gained from the additional restrictions (such as various positions, or finishing quickly) which have no parallel in food? In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach the Torah uses for Onah. While men and women are pretty much identical in the halachos of food, Onah places the husband and wife in opposite situations. Any discussion of Onah that uses the word "spouse" will be flawed, because Onah treats the husband and wife so differently. For example, whenever the wife desires relations, then the husband has a clear and present chiyuv d'Oraisa. But if the husband desires, she has no corresponding obligation; in fact (if I'm not mistaken) she's not even labeled as a "moredet" until after prolonged and repeated refusals. It seems to me that Onah may have the effect of objectifying males. Those parts of Orach Chaim 240 which forbid unwilling relations ought to suffice to insure that the women are not objectified. But Onah seems to push the pendulum too far. In response to RTK, RMB wrote: > I'm not sure it's "hashkafah" as much as Hilkhos Dei'os / Chovos > haLvavos. After all "Qedoshim tihyu" is a chiyuv, not a nicety, > and that's a source for "perushim tihyu". > What a mitzvah to be or to become something (such as "qadosh") > is in practice, though, is inherently situational and subjective. > If we were talking about something reducible to black-letter > halakhah and objective rules, it would have been. And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective rules", is it not? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 1 22:55:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 00:55:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: I initially replied on Areivim to a post reminding women during the summer to cover their hair. Mrs. Katz added that there was no support for those who hold that hair covering in public is not necessary. Others have disputed what RYBS's position on hair covering was, in view of the fact that his wife did NOT cover her hair in public at all times(someone seems to have the impression that she wore a hat). Here are the sources I have collected, in addition to the fact that a significant percentage of Modern Orthodox women to not cover their hair in public except in shul/davening situations. In response to those who have stated that the younger more educated women are covering their hair, I would point out that they have been educated to believe that it is an obligation, and the permissive sources have not been shared with them- case in point Mrs. Katz who either is not aware or chooses to dismiss them out of hand. In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is: if it is the practice of women to cover [their hair] and she uncovered it, then this is immodesty ( *ervah*). But if it was not the regular practice [of women] to cover [their hair] then [going uncovered] is not in the category of immodesty at all. If they uncover one hand?s-breadth in a place where they are habituated to cover then it is [a case of] uncovering immodesty and it is prohibited to read the Shema prayer in their presence... But if their (ladies?) custom is to uncover their hair (or a hand?s-breadth of the body) ? as single women do who by custom walk around with head [hair] uncovered - then this [action] does not constitute immodesty (*ervah*)." If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. Here is a list of easily accessable sources: Rabbi Marc Angel(former president of the Rabbinical Council of America) discusses why hair covering is not mandated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbrQwEerLsY Massive article by Rabbi Michael Broyde: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/0095-0180.pdf I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and everyone can come to their own conclusion. Rav Yosef Haim(author of Ben Ish Chai) writing that hair covering is not necessary(and how his opinion was altered by others): http://text.rcarabbis.org/the-ben-ish-hai-and-women%E2%80%99s-hair-covering-an-interesting-case-of-censorship-by-jacob-sasson/ See Rabbi Broyde's article(pages 155-158) for citations of those who state that hair covering is not mandated in the current society: R. Yitzchak Hurwitz in Yad HaLevi R. Moshe Malka(late Chief Rabbi of Petach Tikvah) R. Josef Messas(late chief rabbi of Morocco and later Haifa) R. Yaakov Haim Sofer Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did not cover her hair? Was this permitted by the *halachah*, or was it not prohibited on the grounds of modesty? He took out a *Gemara Berachot*, opened it to page 24A and showed me the Talmudic statement. "Said Rav Sheshet: [showing] hair by a woman is *ervah *(an act of immodesty)." Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with uncovered hair. Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat common. Some will say that- 'they couldn't control their wives' or other such statements. I would point out that RYBS also went to the opera- perhaps in keeping with an approach that hair wasn't erva, a lenient view of kol isha, all of which seems consistent. Furthermore, it seems quite far fetched that a rav who knew that he had great communal status would abide by gross violation of halacha in public by his own family, and at the very least would make it clear that he did not hold by it. Obviously, the fact that he did not make a deal of it(certainly not a big deal), illustrates something. Do you think he would countenance his wife eating treif? furthermore, the chiyyuv is also for men not to see hair(if that is the position that is being taken), and by not protesting his wife's uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 2 03:40:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 13:40:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: <<> 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach 1. The definition of an "edah" from "this wicked edah". 2. Hezek re'iyah from Bil'am. 3. Standing for a davar shebikdusha, from Eglon. >> Some others are: 4. Lavan: Sheva Brachot; also the Bracha we give the Kalla at the bedeken 5. also "chaye shaah" is less important that "chaye olam" from the 4 lepers, gechazi and his sons -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 2 01:25:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 11:25:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: ""It's a big machlokes - there's gotta be someone who paskens the way I want, so that's what I'm gonna do." I shudder when I hear otherwise-observant people saying such things. There are indeed some cases where there is such a *lack* of consensus among the poskim that one can do as he wants (one of my teachers paskened this way and for this reason regarding brachos on dessert), but I do not see Siman 240 in this category. We seem to be abandoning the consensus of the Shulchan Aruch and Nosei Keilim, and running to minority rishonim." R' Lichtenstein was bothered by this point and answered that we need to rely on our teachers and Gedolim. "Probably most significant, however, is our reliance upon our own mentors. Sensing that modern gedolim, ?the judge of your era??for our purposes, most notably, the Rav, but not he alone?have examined the issue and the evidence and adopted a positive stance, we, ordinary students of Torah, follow in their footsteps as we identify with their position. Whether they felt justified in accepting, out of the depths of their own conviction, a minority view; whether they held that our topic was essen- tially a matter of hashkafic proclivity, not necessarily amenable to the nor- mal procedures of pesak; or whether some other unknown but imagined element?might, for instance, the hospitable climate of Kabbalistic sources, have had some impact?is a matter for conjecture. That the authority of our mentors can inform and sustain our sensibility is not." I understand that for many of us that is not a very satisfying answer and leads to many questions about why specifically here we follow minority opinions as opposed to other places (e.g. wombs issues, etc.) but I don't think there is a better answer. This is the way the halachic system works. Even after all of this, R' Lichtenstein himself was bothered by this very point: "I am left, nonetheless, with a lacuna. Even while adhering to the Rav?s position, one may freely concede wishing that he had done for us what we have been challenged and constrained to do here: examine the various tiers of tradition and elucidate the basis for his own judgment and commitment." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 01:21:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:21:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on tefillin Message-ID: There is a disagreement between Rashi/Rambam and R Tam whether one says one or two brachot on tefillin of the arm and head. While sefardim follow SA and say one bracha ashkenazim follow R Tam and say 2 brachot bur add "baruch shem kvod ..." to avoid a bracha le-vatala I have 2 things I don't understand about the ashkenazi minhag 1) The usual rule is "safek bracha le-kula" and so when in doubt don't say a bracha 2) How does saying "barch shem" help ? We have many disagreements about brachot. For example ashkenazim (again following R Tam) say brachot on customs, eg half hallel. We don't add "baruch shem ..." in these cases. Why only in tefillin? Furthermore whenever there is a doubt about a bracha (classical case is if one forgot to count the omer at night and remembered during the day) why do the act without a bracha - why not say the bracha and add "baruch shem" -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 07:43:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:43:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150803144333.GA30399@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 03:39:12AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed : in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah... ... and priya verivya, no? : Food has tremendous room for creativity even within : the restrictions of hilchos kashrus and brachos. Sex could be similar, : even within the bounds of hilchos nidda and arayos, but the restrictions : set out in OC 240 go much farther than merely to insure that one does : not become a menuval. ... : I think that he is agreeing with me that food and sex are very different, : but I disagree with his explanation of *why* they are so different. I have the same assessment. I am saying that the same principle of when perishus is appropriate is very different for food vs sex because food and sex are different in nature. Summarizing my point #1: : But while casual eating is fine, casual sex is : not. Casual sex involves people, and they must not be taken advantage of. : : My problem with this is on several levels. First, Chazal are pretty : explicit that the purpose of Hilchos Nida is to restore a honeymoon-style : atmosphere on a regular basis, and that alone might suffice to insure : that spouses aren't objectified.... If your objection is based on the "might suffice", all one needs to assert is or might not. : What is gained from the additional : restrictions (such as various positions, or finishing quickly) which : have no parallel in food? I am not sure that prohibitions based on mood are sufficient, as it's too easy to fool oneself about what the other person really wants. In any case, you return to OC 240 again at the end of the post and ask: : And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective : rules", is it not? Perhaps not. Is OC 1 black-letter halakhah? Is hitting the snooze button, or even lying around for a few seconds before getting up, actually assur? For that matter, there is a mitzvah to remember right vs left when putting on and tying shoes, but do you really think someone was oveir an issur if they don't? As the AhS OC often notes, the style of the SA is just to discuss do vs don't, and it blurs the distinctions between levels of issur -- a deOraisa can be next to an accepted minhag, and both may even be written in parallel language. : In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival : without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, : psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach : the Torah uses for Onah. : : While men and women are pretty much identical in the halachos of food, : Onah places the husband and wife in opposite situations... Whereas moredes has no parallel because she cannot initiate a gett. And for that matter, it has no parallel because he is obligated to support here. For that matter, the assymetry in who supports who is quite possibly why HQBH set up an assymetric process for gittin. The man who obligates himself in support can get of it. Onah is a protection against that objectification. Against turning that whole support thing into near prostitution. And with onah, the outcome is more symmetric -- he can end a marriage if dissatisfied, and is obligated to keep her satisfied. Without which BD can force him to willingly end the marriage. (Just paraphrasing the din...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 08:17:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:17:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on tefillin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150803151733.GB30399@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:21:03AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I have 2 things I don't understand about the ashkenazi minhag : : 1) The usual rule is "safek bracha le-kula" and so when in doubt don't say : a bracha : 2) How does saying "bar[u]ch shem" help ? ... The AhS (OC 25:11 ) agrees with you on both points, and therefore posits (se'ifim 12-13) a totally different meaning to the 2nd berakhah. And even though shel yad and shel rosh are two different of the 613, we make one berakhah on maaser rishon and maaser sheini. He also quotes that the BY rejects a possibility that if someone talks between the two tefillin, he would have to make both berakhos on the shel rosh -- repeting "lehaniach" and yet still saying "al mitzvah". But even though he uses this as proof, he requires (se'if 16, following the Ran via the MA s"q 15) loosening the shel yad so that you are still saying "lehaniach" the 2nd time on both. This is a pretty big chiddush, a birkhas hoda'ah that says "asher qidshanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu al mitzvas..." However, similar arguments are made about Birkhas haTorah, if one says the berakhah is deOraisa (Ramban) and therefore "aqb"v la'asoq bedivrei Torah" can't be a birkhas hamitzvah. The IM says as much (OC 2:3). : We don't add "baruch shem ..." in these cases. Why only in tefillin? Leshitas AhS, it follows enacting the qesher gadol between us and HQBH for the same reason the pasuq is said after the first pasuq of Shema. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:04:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 17:04:47 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> I wrote: : Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed : in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah... R' Micha Berger asked: > ... and priya verivya, no? I was trying to show differences between sex and food. I would say that, in the eyes of Halacha, there is no connection between pirya v'rivya and the olam-hazeh enjoyment of sex, in exactly the same manner that there is no connection between achilas matzah and the olam-hazeh enjoyment of food. The latter is a means of internalizing a historical connection, and the former is a biological imperative, but neither has any connection to olam-hazeh enjoyment. However, that it not to say that halacha is blind to the fact that sex *IS* enjoyable. This is recognized by the mitzvah of Oneg Shabbos, where if the act is to be done once a week, then Shabbos is receommended. Chiyuv Onah also recognizes that if the wife has a taavah for this particular hanaah, then it is the husband's obligation to satisfy her taavah. But pirya v'rivya? No, I don't see evidence of that. I asked: : And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective : rules", is it not? RMB suggested: > Perhaps not. Is OC 1 black-letter halakhah? Is hitting the snooze > button, or even lying around for a few seconds before getting up, > actually assur? For that matter, there is a mitzvah to remember > right vs left when putting on and tying shoes, but do you really > think someone was oveir an issur if they don't? I agree that there are degrees of obligation. A simple verb like "yaaseh" clearly implies a smaller obligation than "chayav laasos". "Must" is much stronger than "should". But if a subject makes it into Shulchan Aruch - as these did - that also shows a stronger obligation than something that appears only in Mesilas Yesharim, or even Gemara for that matter. Yes, I do think that when the alarm clock rings, one has an obligation to seriously consider whether he really *needs* to stay in bed a little longer, or whether he merely *wants* to. And I will admit that - b'shaas maaseh - I rarely consider that as seriously as I should. And that's one of the things I'm trying to improve on. Same thing for tying my shoes - I think that by now I do it correctly by habit, but I'm not really sure, and I'll try to remember to watch myself tomorrow morning. RMB wrote: > Whereas moredes has no parallel because she cannot initiate a gett. And > for that matter, it has no parallel because he is obligated to support > here. For that matter, the assymetry in who supports who is quite > possibly why HQBH set up an assymetric process for gittin. The man who > obligates himself in support can get of it. Yes, I agree that this could be part of why Hashem set it up that way. But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no corresponding safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55c0f0f9c892870f9653ast02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:43:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:43:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <117801d0cedd$1904bea0$4b0e3be0$@com> > But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan > Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went > uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why > aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? Good question. I can't help but thinking that this is one of those (many) halachic issues where the hanhaga of Klal yisroel in certain halachic (or hashkafic) areas has developed to be inline with yechidim than with the majority of chazal/rishonim/etc Why this happens is certainly a discussion - is it societal / siata shimaya guiding Klal yisroel / etc We have many others similar to this (some d'oriasa, some d'rabbanan) - human hair sheitals, chadash, live music after the churban, etc. When this should happen (and when it should be fought), I will leave to the einei haeida. Mordechai Cohen From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:49:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Baruch Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 10:49:07 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Halachic Requirement for Dayanim Evaluating In-Person Facial Expressions of Parties in Bais Din In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: List Mates: In an AMI issue that was reported in VosIzNais, Rabbi Hershel Schachter was quoted as saying: ""*There is a Mishna in Pirkei Avos that the oilam says a vort on. It says, "K'sheyihiyu habaalei dinim lifanecha, yihiyu b'einecha k'resha'im. K'she'yaamdu m'lifanecha yihiyub'einecha k'tzaddikim, shekiblu aleihem es hadin." ["When the litigants stand before you (the judges), they should be in your eyes like wicked people. When they stand up from being in front of you, they should be in your eyes like righteous people, because they have accepted the judgment."] They say from a few different dayanim that they would put a tallis over their face, to not see the face of a rasha. But that is wrong; part of the din Torah is to look at the person and see from his facial expression and how he talks...whether or not he is saying the truth. You have to be able to detect whether he is telling the truth*.'" ( http://www.vosizneias.com/92931/2011/10/11/new-york-in-exclusive-ami-magzine-intreview-noted-rabbi-schachter-slams-set-up-of-rabbinical-court-system/ ) Is there a Halacha that you can direct me to that mandates in-person and face-to-face participation by the parties to a Bais Din for the reasons given by Rabbi Schechter? I found this... The seating configuration of the Sanhedrin ??????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?? ?? The Mishnah describes how the members of the Sanhedrin sat in a row in the shape of a half-circle in order *for each person to be able to see everyone else*. Why was it necessary for everyone to be able to have direct eye contact with everyone else? Rashi explains that it is only when people have direct sight of each other that they can listen and then argue and debate with each other. ?"????? elaborates and says that when people argue and express their views, they often rise from their seats. If they did not sit facing each other, it is quite possible that they would not be able to hear when a person turns as he speaks from a standing position. Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin 1:3) explains that this arrangement was used in order for the President (????) and the Av Beis Din to be able to see everyone. Lechem Mishneh notes that this was a sign of respect for these leaders to sit in the middle and for everyone to easily be able to listen to them. Rashi also addresses why the Sanhedrin sat in a half-circle rather than in a full circle. From a technical standpoint, the witnesses and litigants would have to have a way to enter the circle to present themselves in front of the judges (see Rashi, Chullin 5a). Furthermore, if the judges sat in a full circle, while the witnesses would be facing some of the judges, their backs would be turned toward the others. *The judges might have a hard time hearing the witnesses and litigants, or they would not be able to see them as they spoke. Facial expressions and other subtleties are essential in communication, and the judges must be able to pick up on any and all such nuances during the deliberations*. The Tosefta (8:1) cites differing opinions regarding the seating position of the President of the Sanhedrin. Tanna Kamma holds that the President sat in the center of the semi-circle, with thirty-five of the members of the Sanhedrin seated on each side of him. R' Elazar b. Tzadok says that when Rabban Gamliel sat in the Sanhedrin in Yavne, one of the sages sat to his right, and all the others sat to his left. Rambam (ibid.) writes that the ???? sat with the Av Beis Din to his right, and the rest of the sages to his left, seated according to their ages and their wisdom, with the wisest among them to his immediate left, and the rest seated closer according to their level. Radva"z and Kesef Mishneh ask why Rambam does not rule according to Tanna Kamma, and, as he rules according to R' Elazar b. Tzadok, why the row begins with the Av Beis Din, and not with the ???? himself. Radva"z explains that it was not only the Av Beis Din who sat to the right of the ????, but the ???? sat in the middle, as Tanna Kamma explains, with the Av Beis Din to his immediate right. ??? ???? explains that Rambam rules according to R' Elazar b. Tzadok because he cites the actual case of Rabban Gamliel http://www.dafdigest.org/Sanhedrin/Sanhedrin%20036.pdf -- Respectfully, Baruch C. Cohen, Esq. Law Office of Baruch C. Cohen, APLC Los Angeles, CA 90010 e-mail: BCC4929 at gmail.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:24:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:24:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> From: Kenneth Miller via Avodah >> In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach the Torah uses for Onah. [snip] It seems to me that Onah may have the effect of objectifying males. << Akiva Miller >>>>>> To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without reproduction. Our nitzchius is absolutely dependent on this particular activity, which is why "peru urevu" is actually a mitzva and not "mutar if you wish." It is Hashem's chessed that He made this activity intrinsically pleasurable. If you were a robot or an alien without human emotions and you witnessed this human activity, you would wonder, "What the heck are these humans doing? And why?!" I am not an expert on male physiology but I am under the impression that for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. This reminds me of something else I wanted to say in response to some of RMB's posts. He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her. But human beings derive pleasure from each other all the time, whether the pleasure is a stimulating conversation, "please scratch my back," playing with a delightful, cuddly baby -- I could go on and on -- and it is just absurd to think that if another person gives me some kind of pleasure, I have "objectified" that person. Not to forget the main point I wanted to make: sex /is/ necessary for survival, and therefore some comparison to eating food /is/ valid. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:57:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:57:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> References: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150804185730.GA28011@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 02:24:43PM -0400, RnTK wrote: : To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS : required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human : species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without : reproduction... The question is the difference in relationship a person to their hunger compared to their sex drive. You appear to only be objecting to an overly broad use of "required for survival" by not saying "individual's survival", without touching the point that people relate to each desire very differently. (You also seem to ignore non-reproductive sex -- an infertile couple, post-menapouse, etc...) .... : This reminds me of something else I wanted to say in response to some of : RMB's posts. He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from : being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her... Pleasure is a positive thing, as long as it's not the only thing. It's turning a wife into a cheftzah by which he obtains his pleasure that is literally objectifying. If the husband is forced to think about her perspective, his wife as a person, during relations, the risk of the pursuit of pleasure taking over to that point, the mutual search for pleasure is humanizing and bonding, quite the reverse. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:10:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 14:10:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150804181031.667AC180E06@nexus.stevens.edu> At 01:51 PM 8/4/2015, Noam Stadlan wrote: >If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered >hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. Is it really true that what women in the general society do is some standard for tznius for Jewish women. If so, then the practices of "well undressed" gentile women (as R. A Miller used to call them) of today have eliminated all tznius standards. One sees women in public today dressed in almost nothing. [Email #2] At 01:51 PM 8/4/2015, Noam Stadlan wrote: >Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat >common. Just because something is or was commonly done does not make is correct according to halacha. Many, many people talk loshon hara, yet it is not proper according to halacha. [Email #3] Please see Covering the Hair by Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 13:07:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 23:07:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: >> Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters >> of the alph-bet (I only know one) < [R' Michael Poppers:] > In the Torah, a *pasuq* in P'Va'eschanan (4:34 > ) is usually noted, but it > (containing letter *sin* but no *shin*) works only when the *shin* and the > *sin* are considered the same letter (they are, so long as we're > considering the written form). The other *pasuq* in the Torah of which I'm > aware is Shmos 16 :16 (in it, > the *shin* is extant but there's no *sin*). We still need another 3 pesukim in the rest of Nach including one that has not only the 22 letters of the alphabet but also all the end letters -- Eli Turkel [Well in I already wrote: > Soferim use Tzefania 3:8 to show their penmanship, because it not > only includes all 22 letters, it also includes all the sofios. Is > that a way to denote total ultimate justice (the meaning of the words > ) or what? -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 15:31:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:31:53 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I see your pesukim and raise you a medieval Hebrew poem of four lines, where each line contains every letter of the alef-beit including sofiot exactly once with no repetition: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pagefeed/hebrewbooks_org_38040_154.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 5 02:53:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 05:53:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" Message-ID: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> I think a philosophy book just came out detending a variant of RSSchwab's "two clocks" explanation of ma'aseh bereishis. RSS's shitah appeared in AOJS's Challenge (ed. R Aryeh Carmel, R/Prof Cyril Domb pg 164 onward. surveys the area and summarized RSS as follows: Similarly, Rav Shimon Schwab talks of two types of time, cosmic time and earthly time. The 6 days of creation are counted according to cosmic time, during which period millions of years may have passed according to our measure of time. (Althugh I disagree with their next sentence on REED's position.) Now for the book. I just got this review : > he Fall and Hypertime > Hud Hudson, Oxford University Press, 2014, 211pp., $65.00 (hbk), > ISBN 0198712693. > Reviewed by Trent Dougherty, Baylor University > Hud Hudson's book is a brilliant and creative defense of the following > proposition. > There is a conflict between a literal reading of the book of > Genesis and science only if one assumes that the hypertime hypothesis > is false. > The import of Hudson's thesis is that those who allege a conflict between > science and a literal reading of Genesis are not basing that claim merely > on science but on controversial metaphysics as well.,,, > To understand the hypertime hypothesis (hereafter "HH"), begin > with the "growing block" theory of time, one of the standard set of > options. According to this theory, the past is real and "still exists" > as a "block" as spacetime and the future is "open," i.e. the future > does not exist. The block grows as the quantity of either space or > time increases. Hudson notes that there is nothing more intrinsically > mysterious about the block losing parts than its gaining parts. He > then points out that it is also not more intrinsically mysterious that > a "morphing block" shrink or grow not just in units of hyperplanes > ("slices" of the block) but also in sub-regions of hyperplanes. As a > result, there are no in principle limits to the ways in which a block can > morph, to the "shape" it can take. Furthermore, there is no good reason > why the hyperplanes (or sub-regions thereof) might not be "reshuffled" > in a different order. > Because the universe is here modeled as a spacetime block, the temporal > dimension only measures changes within the block. Hypertime measures, > as we may think of it, changes to the block (though technically blocks > at different hypertimes are numerically distinct,and there remains a > question concerning the status of various essentialisms about blocks > with respect to their parts). That means that at any given moment on > the hypertimeline, there can be a complete spacetime block, a complete > physical universe distinct from blocks at different hypertimes. Given > infinite hypertime, this generates a plurality of worlds not unlike that > of David Lewis. Hudson applies the possibility of this plurality in three > ways: to an understanding of omnipresence (which I will not discuss), to > (three versions of) the problem of evil (one of which I'll discuss below), > and in defense of his main thesis. The way HH helps with an understanding > of omniscience and the problem of evil gives it credit and motivates > it as a viable option so that its application to the main thesis is > not ad hoc (though it's being ad hoc would not prevent its success for > its purpose). I will describe the application to the problem of evil, > offer a criticism, then describe its application to the main thesis. > If there is a plenitude of spatiotemporally discrete universes, then it is > difficult to infer from any empirical observation that the actual world > is not the best possible world. It is important to remember that on the > hypertime hypothesis the spacetime blocks at different hypermoments are > only one portion of total reality. Our observable universe is a drop > in the bucket. So an argument from evil against the existence of God > from ours not being the best possible world would have to argue that > the observable universe could not even be a part of the best possible > world. That is not clearly an easy argument to make. > This move takes the form of what is traditionally called a "defense" > rather than a "theodicy"... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 5 15:22:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 18:22:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesak and Safeik Message-ID: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> Anyone know a source (or at least a theory) that discusses when we treat a machloqes as a safeiq, rather than applying the rules of peaq? The issue comes up in AhS YD 24:42. (Mazal tovs on completing OC will be graciously accepted.) Siman 24 discusses 4 of the 5 halakhos leMoshe miSinai of shechitah. (Shehiyah got its own siman.) There is a machloqes between the Behag and Rashi about the line between aqirah and tereifos. Rashi says that aqira is the displacement of the qaneh or veshet caused by using a nicked knife. Most rishonim hold like the Behag, and then there is a submachloqes about what kind of dislocated simanim are aqirah, ad what are tereifos. Leshitas Rashi, they would all be tereifos. Anyway, here the AhS says that Rama holds that midinei shechitah, we are machmir for every definition of aqirah. But midinei tereifah, which differ in that it would also prohibit the milk or eggs from such an animal, we recognize that the iqar hedin if the Behag, and are meiqil. So okay, one tiny bit of my question is answered -- we have a special rule by shechitah that machloqesin are resolved by safeiq deOraisa lehachmir. But WRT tereifos.... The AhS says that despite the Rama, we are nohagim lehachmir. So, while the Rama thinks this is a case where the rules of pesaq apply, the AhS says "we" disagree and treat it like a safeiq. Why? I also realize the line isn't all-or-nothing. I presume that not every shitah rises to the level of creating a safeiq, so there is some kind of pesaq-like reasoning necessary to assess which do and which don't. So it's more an issue of how balanced do shitos have to be for us to be unwilling to pasqen and just assume it's a safeiq. But still, these two acharonim are setting te line at a different place. So, does anyoe discuss the kelalim of when to bail out from the (other) kelalei pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 07:47:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:47:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] They Found Gat Message-ID: <20150806144710.GA2303@aishdas.org> As you may have heard, a team found the gates of Gat, Golias's home town. And, as I've noticed in the past, the question of whether they find evidence of the events as found in Tanakh or evidence against can be predicted in advance by checking the religious stance of who is running the dig. So you get this story from Haaretz : Philistine City of Gath a Lot More Powerful Than Thought, Archaeologists Suggest Powerful fortifications newly uncovered by Israeli archaeologists suggest the kingdoms of Saul, David may not have been quite as powerful as thought. Nir Hasson Aug 04, 2015 3:08 AM [IDT] ... According to Maeir, the discovery of Gath as a huge, fortified city on the border of Judea during an extended period, without any signs of destruction as a result of a war with Judea, proves the Philistines controlled the Judean plain. Because Khirbet Kaifa existed for a relatively short period -- about 30 years -- it is likely the remnant of a failure of the Israelite kingdom to spread westward and not a sign of its power. "The Judean kingdom is supposed to be big, important and strong," says Maeir. "But it turns out there is a very big city on its western border. For years, I claimed Gath was a big city, but they countered that it has no lower city, and if it has one it is not fortified. After finding a huge fortification, its clearly the most important city of the 10th and ninth centuries." Now, to get a hint of how we would have heard about Gat had the dig been run by a bilical maximalist, here's an element mentioned in : Near the gate, Maeirs team also unearthed the remains of the citys extensive fortification wall, a Philistine temple, ironwork and pottery. While the pottery bears hallmarks of the distinctive Philistine style, elements of Israelite techniques can be seen on the fragments as well, indicating there was more interaction between the two cultures than previously thought. Since Pelishti culture was importing Jewish culture, doesn't that lend MORE credibity to the idea that David haMelekh's kingdom was at east on the same scale if not overshadowing theirs? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 15:28:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 23:28:31 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] : Re: De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> RAM writes: >And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective rules", is it not? In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? And further read the Tur (and the meforshim on the Tur) in Even HaEzer simin 25 to get a fuller picture of the sources (and the original gemora sources) - so you can see the history of the machlokus on how to deal with this issue all the way back. As Rav Lichtenstein articulated it, the question is not so much that we differ from the position of Chazal, as our position (and the one quoted by the Rema) is much more in line with the majority position in Chazal, but why did the major rishonim - Rambam, Ra'avid etc differ so markedly from what appears to be the majority position in Chazal and posken - well like Rabbi Eliezer (shmuti hu?), as then did the Achronim. I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the influence of the outside world. The same sort of influence that reputedly led to the cherem of Rabbi Gershom (Jews who are supposed to be the upholders of morality cannot be seen to have more than one wife in a world where that is seen as immoral). In a world which identified relations with sin and death (standard Xtian theology of the time, and the Muslim theology in many circles was not that different) - it would have been inappropriate, and led to general looseness if the general non Jewish world view had been repudiated to the extent consonant with the positive positions found in Chazal. Hence Orech Chaim, the book most accessible to the masses, contains not a word of the Rema's position, that is buried in Even HaEzer, where it is more likely only the scholarly will look (or from the point of view of Maran, go look in the Tur). But to talk about relations positively in an open way in Xtian Europe would have created temptations for the non Jewish world that would have unleashed a level of vengeance (eg from the priesthood) that could likely not be endured. There was a lot of censoring and self censoring that went on in all sorts of areas, it seems to me also here, especially as there are the minority positions to bring and rely on. Only in the modern day world which has swung so far the other way is it possible to honestly and openly evaluate the position of Chazal, and that is what in effect has been done, by Rav Lichtenstein and others. >Akiva Miller Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 17:28:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 00:28:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? Message-ID: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Apparently, In the U.S., the therapist's duties are owed to the client, subject to statutory obligations such as the mandatory-reporting requirement. There is no exception for the therapist's religious custom or belief, unless, in limited circumstances, the client consents to it. Question-from a torah point of view should it make a difference who shows up at the therapist's (or Rabbi's)door (for any therapy or advice)? How does Halacha balance the needs of the individual, the family, the community, Jewish society and/or society in general? 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 12:56:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 15:56:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" In-Reply-To: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> References: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> What's the difference between this and Gerald Schroeder? KT, GS, YGB On 08/05/2015 05:53 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I think a philosophy book just came out detending a variant of RSSchwab's > "two clocks" explanation of ma'aseh bereishis. > > RSS's shitah appeared in AOJS's Challenge (ed. R Aryeh Carmel, R/Prof > Cyril Domb pg 164 onward. > > > surveys > the area and summarized RSS as follows: > > Similarly, Rav Shimon Schwab talks of two types of time, cosmic > time and earthly time. The 6 days of creation are counted according > to cosmic time, during which period millions of years may have > passed according to our measure of time. > > (Althugh I disagree with their next sentence on REED's position.) > > > Now for the book. I just got this review > : > >> he Fall and Hypertime >> Hud Hudson, Oxford University Press, 2014, 211pp., $65.00 (hbk), >> ISBN 0198712693. >> Reviewed by Trent Dougherty, Baylor University From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 13:32:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:32:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" In-Reply-To: <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> References: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150807203234.GA14121@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 03:56:56PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: : What's the difference between this and Gerald Schroeder? R' Gerald Schroeder is working within physics, using Relativity to try to make the timelines match up. R' Schwab, and for that matter this Hypertime idea are metaphysical, saying that the 6 days were not physical days, meausured using the same kind of time Galileo turned into a variable when he measured pendulum swings, Newton took derivatives with respect to, and Einstein unified with space. Rather, a logically prior idea altogether. This is more in line with the rishonim who said that science as we know it post-dates creation, and therefore time during creation is has to be measured with a different kind of clock than the one of physics. ------- And some day when humanity develops to this point, the two will finally be in sync. Which would fit RAYK's metaphysics in which every duality is an illusion, as everything is the Or Ein Sof from the Absolute Unity. And le'asid lavo, even the division between olam hazah and olam ha'emes will fall. Leshitaso, techiyas hameisim is a consequence of the reunification of the worlds of life and of death. Those souls don't so much come back to life as the distinction disappears. (I do not recall if RAYK invokes "hayinu kekholmim".) And yes, in such a situation, physical time will be back in sync with supernal time. Although one needn't believe in RAYK's eschatology in order to accept the concept that the two definitions of time will be unified, nor do we need to believe in eventual synchronization in order to talk about the 6 days of ceration being on a different kind of clock than physics. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 13:56:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 15:56:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Re; sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R. Levine wrote: "Is it really true that what women in the general society do is some standard for tznius for Jewish women. If so, then the practices of "well undressed" gentile women (as R. A Miller used to call them) of today have eliminated all tznius standards" Response: Of course there are baseline standards of tzniut for Jew, men and women, that are independent of surrounding culture. But hair covering is not one of them.(At least according the sources and shitta that I have brought). R. Levine then brings an article by Rav Breuer. That is his shitta, it doesn't mean it is universally accepted or binding. Much of what he brings is not specific halacha but advice or Nach based(the entire sugya of kol kevuda etc) I would note that the vast majority of shittot do not require single women to cover their hair I will not have access to respond for a week or so, but will be address further responses at that time. shabbat shalom noam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 8 12:02:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 22:02:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] depression Message-ID: Enclosed is a summary of the last shiur of R Zilberstein to the doctors. I am giving a shiur on this in my shul this coming shabbat. Since I feel it is controversial I am looking for input from the list. Question from a psychiatrist - A patient has 3 kids and has mild depression since the last birth. She wont take chemical drugs and instead uses one based on plants which is good for mild depression. It had some side effects and so the patient stopped that also. The dictor suggested various anti-depression drugs and other help which the patient refused, Contacting a social worker it turns out the woman runs a "nursery' (mishpachton) from 8am to 4pm. The social worker says she manages only with a great effort; her husband comes home from work at 1pm and the mother helps. The woman refuses to open a file in the social ministry because of this nursery which they may close down. The social worker pointed out that if something happens the state will prosecute the psychiatrist. Question: On one side there might be a danger to the kids in the nursery and the psychiatrist might lose her license OTOH this is a major income for the young family. She has successfully run the nursery for several months without any complaint with the help of the husband and mother. If this is all explained to the ministry it most likely won't help and they will closer her down Answer: The job of a bet din is to watch out for the welfare of the community. Hence, according to Torah law the doctor must go the rabbi of the city or neighborhood to hear their opinion, R Zilberstein notes that in Bnei Brak there is an agreement with the authorities that the local bet din deals with such problems and calls in the local authority only if they feel this is necessary. Such an arrangement should be set up in every town that the local bet din makes the decision. see YD 336:1 that ba doctor needs the permission of the bet din to practice, Therefore one needs the permission of the local secular authorities to rely on the judgement of the local rabbi. It is well known that the "mara de-atra" have the ability to treat broken and depressed people. In England there was a baby born with Down's syndrone whose Jewish parents disappeared. The local board of health turned to Rav Yoseph Dinner Zt'L what to do, Rav Dunner , who was the 65, (after checking with his wife) said they would adopt the baby since at that time there was no Jewish institution capable of handing this baby. The local board of health accepted this solution. The couple cared for the child until they reached the age of 80. At that point they transfered the child to an instituion in Afula, Each year R Dunner would come to Israel to bake matzot and then visit the child in Afula. The doctors in Britain said the best social workers are the Jewish leaders. In the beit midrash of R. Pam there was born a child with Down's syndrone. R Pam always tried to cheep up the boy. One year the boy complained that on simchat Torah they used all the sifrei Torah except for his paper one. After Musaf R Pam went to the Bimah and announced to everyone that now they were reading from the sefer Torah of this boy. This was the happiest moment for the boy and the angles surrounding "kise hakavod" Conclusion: The psychiatrist should explain to the local rabbi the situation in the nursery. The rabbi should come to some agreement with the local secular authotities to rely on his judgement -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 8 21:21:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 21:21:33 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? Message-ID: you are basically asking when must the rabbi/frum therapist offer halachic therapy and then risk prosecution? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 12:17:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:17:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] human hair sheitals Message-ID: In the thread "De-Chokifying Arayos", I asked: > But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan > Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went > uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why > aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? R' Mordechai Cohen answered: >>> I can't help but thinking that this is one of those (many) halachic issues where the hanhaga of Klal yisroel in certain halachic (or hashkafic) areas has developed to be inline with yechidim than with the majority of chazal/rishonim/etc >>> ... >>> We have many others similar to this (some d'oriasa, some d'rabbanan) - human hair sheitals, chadash, live music after the churban, etc. You are raising a great point. I have wondered this about chadash and music myself, and I'm somewhat surprised that I didn't see the connection. Thank you very much for bringing it to my attention. (Though, to be honest, these examples sharpen my question about Conservative "psak".) But for THIS thread, my question is simple and direct: Tell me more about why you specify "human hair sheitals". Have chazal/rishonim ever distinguished between wigs made of human hair vs other kinds of wigs? I was always under the (possibly mistaken) impression that chazal and rishonim - and even acharonim - only discussed the requirement to cover hair, and how much to cover, and the ramifications of leaving it uncovered. But I don't recall any discussion of the covering itself except by the leaders of very recent chasidic groups. Am I mistaken? Where is this discussed in the seforim? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 13:15:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 16:15:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: In Avodah V33n111, RET noted: >> Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters >> of the alph-bet (I only know one) << > We still need another 3 pesukim in the rest of Nach including one that has not only the 22 letters of the alphabet but also all the end letters < Fact-checking what I found via Google'ing (besides the *pasuq* already noted by R'Micha) provides these fifteen (!) *p'suqim* containing all the letters: -- Y'hoshua 23:13 -- M'lachim Beis 4:39, 6:32 -- Y'sha'yahu 5:25 -- Yirm'yahu 22:3, 32:29 -- Y'chezqeil 17:9 -- Hosheia 13:2 -- Amos 9:13 -- Esther 3:13 -- Daniel 3:22, 4:20, 7:19 -- Ezra 7:28 -- N'chemya 3:7 All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 14:11:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: <<< To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without reproduction. Our nitzchius is absolutely dependent on this particular activity, which is why "peru urevu" is actually a mitzva and not "mutar if you wish." >>> Yes, that's true. But please note that you yourself are referring to "peru urevu". My question concerns a different mitzva, namely Onah, wherein sex is explicitly linked to food and clothing/shelter. I don't think it is a big stretch to say that the common thread of these three things is how important they are to this particular individual, and NOT how important they are to the species. <<< ... for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. >>> I think we may be understanding the word "objectify" in different ways. Contrary to what some might think, not all men are constantly obsessed with having sex. At any given point in time, a particular man might have other priorities - other activities that he'd rather do than this one. But a husband cannot give higher priority to these activities over Onah, just like he can't choose them over minyan, or other mitzvos. He must be sensitive to his wife's needs and wants, and if he senses her mood, he is under a chiyuv d'Oraisa to act accordingly. (Actually, he'll have this chiyuv even if he does NOT sense her mood accurately, in which case he will have been Mevatel the Aseh b'shogeg, though I suppose it could easily be argued that it's more of a "shogeg karov l'meizid" if he hasn't even tried to judge her mood accurately.) But there is no flip side to Onah. The wife has no responsibility to judge her husband's desires. In fact, even if she does realize that he is "in the mood", there is no Chiyuv d'Oraisa for her to ignore her other desires and respond to her husband's desires. Sure, it could well be advisable for her to do so for Shalom Bayis reasons, and one might even call it a "chiyuv" in that context, but the imbalance remains: Her chiyuv would be Shalom Bayis alone, while the husband must deal with both Shalom Bayis and Onah. That's what I meant by "objectify": Much of Orach Chaim 240 is to protect the wife from a forcible rape (for instance, she can't be asleep or drunk), and much is also to protect her from more subtle rape (such as thinking of another woman). But there are far fewer protections offered to the husband. Neither can be drunk, and neither can have decided to divorce, but in general, the wife is within her rights to demand relations whenever she wants, and to me, this can "objectify" the husband. RTK reminds us that the husband *will* have pleasure from this. But that is exactly my point: If someone is required to have a pleasure that (for whatever reason) he does not actually *desire*, it is a sort of rape. RTK also wrote: <<< He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her. But human beings derive pleasure from each other all the time, ... it is just absurd to think that if another person gives me some kind of pleasure, I have "objectified" that person. >>> You are correct. Merely receiving pleasure does not automatically objectify a person. But if one receives pleasure without returning that pleasure to the giver, this carries a danger of objectifying the giver. And if one receives pleasure against the giver's will, that is the very definition of "objectifying" (in my view). R"n Chana Luntz wrote: <<< In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? And further read the Tur (and the meforshim on the Tur) in Even HaEzer simin 25 to get a fuller picture of the sources (and the original gemora sources) - so you can see the history of the machlokus on how to deal with this issue all the way back. >>> Indeed, the first few times I saw that Rema, he seemed to be saying, verbatim, that "you can do anything you want, and whenever you want to do it." A sexual hefkervelt, a world with no rules. But a more careful reading shows that he is only making two specific points: That there are no restrictions on positions, and that (as we've already said in this thread) the timing restrictions of O"C 240 are a "madrega" but not the basic halacha. But aside from these points, I see OC 240 and EH 25 as very similar: Their main focus concerns the *mental* state, and it is in this area (it seems to me) that Shulchan Aruch - including all acharonim until quite recently - endorses a very prishus-oriented approach. RCL again: <<< I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the influence of the outside world. ... In a world which identified relations with sin and death (standard Xtian theology of the time, and the Muslim theology in many circles was not that different) - it would have been inappropriate, and led to general looseness if the general non Jewish world view had been repudiated to the extent consonant with the positive positions found in Chazal. >>> There are many responses I could give to this. Perhaps the simplest would be: So then let Shulchan Aruch be silent; why did they choose to pasken overtly like the prishus view? Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 10 05:08:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:08:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: To continue from my previous post: R"n Chana Luntz wrote: <<< In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? >>> I think it is noteworthy that the Aruch Hashulchan often goes out of his way to justify the common practice in the face of the consensus of poskim, but does *not* do so in this case. In fact, Aruch Hashulchan EH 25:11 quotes the same Tur as the Rama did, but emphatically warns us *against* following it. This suggests that the turning of the tide, from a more prishus-oriented view to something else, occurred more recently than the days of the Aruch Hashulchan. Can anyone suggest a more precise time? Or, to put my question more blatantly: Does the less-prishus-oriented view appear only in recent articles such as the one by Rav Lichtenstein, and in the sort of verbal psakim such as he received? Does it appear anywhere at all in any of the seforim that one might happen to be learning, such as the Igros Moshe, Tzitz Eliezer, or similar? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 07:14:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akirah In-Reply-To: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> References: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150811141458.GA31500@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 6:22pm EDT, I wrote: : The issue comes up in AhS YD 24:42... : There is a machloqes between the Behag and Rashi about the line between : aqirah and tereifos. Rashi says that aqira is the displacement of the : qaneh or veshet caused by using a nicked knife. Most rishonim hold : like the Behag, and then there is a submachloqes about what kind of : dislocated simanim are aqirah, and what are tereifos. Leshitas Rashi, : they would all be tereifos. : : Anyway, here the AhS says that Rama holds that midinei shechitah, : we are machmir for every definition of aqirah. But midinei tereifah, : which differ in that it would also prohibit the milk or eggs from such : an animal, we recognize that the iqar hedin if the Behag, and are meiqil. In response RAF sent me offlist an essay he wrote in Dec 2001, titled "Hagdaras Iqur Simanim baTalmud", which I put up on-line here . The article does a survey of various definitions of ique hasimanim, which vary amazingly widely. He lists some causes: - The discussion is in scattered snippets across Chullin, not one organized sugya. - The rishonim do not agree about the girsa of the gemara that contrasts iqur from tereifah. - The rishonim do not even agree on basic defining features about iqur simanim. RAF also mentioned to me: "I have a very different peshat in ikkur, based on actually looking at the Behag." Sec. 4 does appear to quote a Behag that is at odds with the mesorah about shitas haBehag that the baalei Tosafos received. We've discussed the relationship between errors in reception and whether finding one would change pesaq before. Here, the nafqa mina lemaaseh is small but real, as per above. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: If anyone else has a Torah article they want up on-line, feel free to ask. -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 15:53:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:53:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150811225301.GA13480@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 12:55:06AM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : Here are the sources I have collected, in addition to the fact that a : significant percentage of Modern Orthodox women to not cover their hair in : public except in shul/davening situations. Although there is long evidence of rabbis saying it's a problem, but not a battle they can win. So the mimetic side is dismissable. (Also, how does someone who advocates for more roles for women in shul make a mimetic argument?) : In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of : uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is... : If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered : hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. But saying it's not a breach of tzeni'us doesn't say it's allowed, that's your addition not in the translated text you quote. RYB could mean what the AhS says, that it's terrible things came to this, but you may daven in her presence. Or, that whle it's not a tzeni'us problem, it's still prohibited deOraisa as per the implication in parashas sotah. : Here is a list of easily accessable sources: : Rabbi Marc Angel... Listening to his citing R' Masas and your quoting R Badad, maybe it's a Seph thing? He presumes hair covering is das Yehudis, which makes his a rare shitah. (Again, given the derivation from a pasuq.) But then again, R' Ovadiah Yosef firmly disagrees. But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. ... : I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and : not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. : However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and : everyone can come to their own conclusion. ... which is what he does, that the theory is there, but it's a shitah dechuyah. And noticably, he too quotes R' Yosef Masas, R' Moshe Malka and the Kaf haChaim -- Sepharadi sources. : Rav Yosef Haim... So, assuming the woman doesn't eat qitniyos, may she go with her hair uncovered? And even if she does... At what point is a shitah dechuyah? ... : Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony : of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. : R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: : "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did : not cover her hair? ... : Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in : this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." : I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the : artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with : uncovered hair. : Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat : common... And yet the rabbanim protested. This isn't even admissable as mimetic tradition, any more than noting how often people speak leshon hara or buy off-the-books or anything else rabbis have failed to curb. : uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his : wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. He too, would only need to be convinced is wasn't ervah in the sense of "all those men" sinning. But as we see in the AhS, that doesn't mean it's allowed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 16:00:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:00:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R' Noam Stadlan wrote: <<< Of course there are baseline standards of tzniut for Jew, men and women, that are independent of surrounding culture. But hair covering is not one of them. ... I would note that the vast majority of shittot do not require single women to cover their hair. >>> I both agree and disagree. Hair covering is NOT a "baseline standard", in the sense that it applies only to married women and not to single girls. But hair covering IS a baseline standard for Jewish women, in the sense that it remains in force independent of the surrounding culture. Thus, we have at least three different standards: males, married females, single females. And actually, we have several more than that, if we distinguish among various ages of boy and girl children, not to mention infants. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 21:26:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:26:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: From: Akiva Miller via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) <<< ... for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. >>> [--TK] >> I think we may be understanding the word "objectify" in different ways. Contrary to what some might think, not all men are constantly obsessed with having sex. At any given point in time, a particular man might have other priorities -- other activities that he'd rather do than this one. But a husband cannot give higher priority to these activities over Onah, just like he can't choose them over minyan, or other mitzvos. He must be sensitive to his wife's needs and wants, and if he senses her mood, he is under a chiyuv d'Oraisa to act accordingly.... But there is no flip side to Onah. The wife has no responsibility to judge her husband's desires. In fact, even if she does realize that he is "in the mood", there is no Chiyuv d'Oraisa for her to ignore her other desires and respond to her husband's desires....<< Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) >>>>> There is a great irony in what you have written. You seem to think that there is an inequality, a lack of reciprocity, in the mutual obligations of men and women -- with women having all the power and men all the obligation. It is ironic because the mitzva for men to be sensitive to their wives' feelings derives from the /curse/ that was given to Chava! Look at Rashi on Ber 3:16, "el ishech teshukasech -- your desire will be towards your husband." Rashi says the curse is: You -- the woman -- will desire relations, but will not be so brazen as to request it verbally. Rather, "he will rule over you" -- it is all from him -- the initiative is his -- and not from you. [end Rashi] To modern ears this Rashi might sound strange because the idea that "women are not brazen" sounds so old-fashioned. Modesty has gone out the window in modern society. But even the brazen women -- and certainly the more refined and eidel women -- want to be wanted. By their nature, most women do not want to be the ones taking the initiative or the ones pursuing the men. For most women it is embarrassing to have to ask outright. If you want an example of a woman in the Torah who was brazen even way back then, look at Eishes Potiphar -- "Lie with me." The very fact that she behaved this way shows what a hussy she was, but also, it shows that she was utterly humiliated. Not only was Yosef not seduced by her wiles, but even when she so lost her dignity as to ask him outright, he /still/ refused. It is no wonder she felt such a burning desire for revenge. It was in order to mitigate the harshness of Chava's curse that Chazal instituted the rule that men have to be sensitive to their wives' desires, that a woman should not have to humiliate herself by spelling out what she wants. It is a chessed that a man does for his wife, to mitigate the curse, to somewhat level the playing field in which men have all the advantages! I actually think this a wonderful example of Chazal's extraordinary sensitivity to women. They acknowledge and partially correct an imbalance that favors men at the expense of women, ever since Adam and Chava. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 22:47:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (bk via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:47:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: depression Message-ID: I have worked in the mental health field and have other personal experience with serious depression. The description which you provided "mild depression", would not at all indicate a danger to anyone including daycare children. It seems that the description is very much lacking. Either there is much more to warrant defying her confidence, including/especially to a rav, or someone doesn't understand what depression is all about. I'm assuming that the former is the case. So, the question is, what can we learn from a case in which the problem is not accurate? b'kavod, ChaimBaruch Kaufman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 06:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:19:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waiting Six Hours for Dairy- A Rabbanite Response to Qaraism Message-ID: <20150812131918.925F517FC6A@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/08/waiting-six-hours-for-dairy-rabbanite.html Qaraites are a Jewish group that began around 760 CE. They rejected the Talmud and rabbinic Judaism and insisted that Jews only observe halacha as expressed in the literal text of the Torah. "Qaraite" means "Scriptualist". The movement started in Iraq and Persia by Jews who objected to the authority of the leaders of the Babylonian Talmud Academies, the Gaonim. The Gaonim and their successors, the rishonim, are called Rabbanites because of their stance in defending the Talmud and rabbinic laws. Scholars have noted that many minhagim began as a response to the Qaraite movement. For example, the recital of Bameh Madlikim on Friday evening after davening [1] was started in the times of the Gaonim to reinforce the rabbinic stance on having fire prepared before Shabbos, in opposition to the Qaraite view that no fire may be present in one's home on Shabbos [2]. There is evidence that the reading of Pirkei Avos [3] on Shabbos afternoon, which began in Gaonic times, was to emphasize to the Jewish masses that the Oral Law was passed down since Moshe Rabbeinu as stated in the first mishna of Pirkei Avos. Professor Haym Soloveitchik [4] has argued convincingly that the unique arrangement of Hilchos Shabbos in Rambam's Mishna Torah was organized specifically with anti-Qaraite intent. Briefly, Rambam's formulation of the Shabbos laws does not follow a chronological order or any other expected logical order. See the above URL for more. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:03:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 11:25:27AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : R' Lichtenstein was bothered by this point and answered that we need to : rely on our teachers and Gedolim. : "Probably most significant, however, is our reliance upon our own mentors. : Sensing that modern gedolim, "the judge of your era" -- for our purposes, most : notably, the Rav, but not he alone -- have examined the issue and the evidence : and adopted a positive stance, we, ordinary students of Torah, follow in : their footsteps as we identify with their position... : I understand that for many of us that is not a very satisfying answer and : leads to many questions about why specifically here we follow minority : opinions as opposed to other places (e.g. wombs issues, etc.) but I don't : think there is a better answer. This is the way the halachic system works. To some extent, yes. However, I do not know what halachiccategory is "gedolim". My job is to have my own poseiq, someone ho cnot only knows the halakhah, but knows me and my situation. Or to get as close to that as possible. My rav's job is to have experts to inform him, and to know when a question is either too complicated for his skills, or the stakes to high (eg mamzeirus, potential intercommunal fallout, or....) to not consult others, starting with his own rav. Yes, you will eventually reach the few at the head of the pyramid, so I guess we can call them "the gedolim", and their opinions will end up shaping policy on big or broad issues. But I do not think RYBS would be happy learning that he had a talmid in the job of mara de'asra who had so little confidence in his own ability to map theory to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronos and desires of the people in it that he hands the job off to people who know less of that reality. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:19:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:19:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> References: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150812201911.GB8165@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 11:28:31PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the : influence of the outside world. The same sort of influence that reputedly : led to the cherem of Rabbi Gershom (Jews who are supposed to be the : upholders of morality cannot be seen to have more than one wife in a world : where that is seen as immoral)... I understood this as well as the Sho'el uMeishiv's take on intellectual property in a single way, and slightly different than your explanation. The Sho'el uMeishiv invokes "lo sehei Torah shelanu kesichah beteilah shelahem. If they recognize a kind of property as a right our native sense finds moral, we obviously must obligated to protect it as well. This is not DDD, as the protection isn't to the extent of the civi law, but to the extent of the halakhos of property. He is identifying a moral obligation we must halachically defend, not the civil law in and of itself... My understanding is that it's not that we learned morality from their law, but their law reflects a new social contract. The new expectations are a change in metzi'us. Now that we expect to have intellectual property, that is part of the new situation, to which a new pesaq applies. Similarly, I understood Rabbeinu Gershom's mandating monogamy in the same terms. He was less worried about being seen as immoral, or learning morality from Xian marriage norms. Rather, once society created different expectations of what marriage is, we had no ability nor obligation to reset to the old expectations (after all, even chazal referred to sister wives as "tzaros"), and therefore have to support a moral solution to the new expactations. A woman gets married expecting a man for herself. Rabbeinu Gershom mandated treating that woman morally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:22:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150812202233.GC8165@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:04:47PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : ... But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent : the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no corresponding : safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. Given the size of the two porn industries, or the difference between what "porn" usually refers to and locating smut in a romance novel, I would think that it's not just Chazal who would conclude the threat of objectfication is assymetric. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 16:24:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:24:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> References: , <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <13CC426F-297A-4E3A-AC33-979E5391FA35@sibson.com> > > But I do not think RYBS would be happy learning that he had a talmid in > the job of mara de'asra who had so little confidence in his own ability > to map theory to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronos > and desires of the people in it that he hands the job off to people who > know less of that reality. > > I agree but I think it's also true That RYBS would not be happy learning that he had a talmid in the job of mara de'asra who had so so much confidence in his own ability to create the theory to map to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronosand desires of the people in it that he doesn't hand the job off to those more qualified to break new ground. Kol tuv 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 20:21:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:21:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: I wrote: : ... But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent : the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no : corresponding safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. R' Micha Berger responded: > Given the size of the two porn industries, or the difference > between what "porn" usually refers to and locating smut in a > romance novel, I would think that it's not just Chazal who > would conclude the threat of objectfication is assymetric. Chazal were aware of the differences between those two industries, and they suggested reasons for it on the top few lines of Kesubos 64b. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 12:36:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:36:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Copyright Message-ID: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> Back in Jun 2001, Napster was in the news, and I heard a shiur from R Zev Reichman, then of REITS' Kollel Elyon. So at the first on-list mention of copyrights, I used it as an excuse to post a summary on-list at and . It's been 14 years, and I just learned of a beautiful einfahl by R' Asher Weiss on the subject. So, I'm reviewing the list, and adding to it. (v7n58 #13 is marked ">", #4 is marked ":".) > 1- Dina dimalchusa issues: > According to Tosafos on Gittin, dina dimalchusah dinah is only on > taxation. > The Beis Yitzchak does rule that ddd applies here. However, RZR opined > that ddd still wouldn't apply apply to Sony Bono's law that was aimed > specifically at Disney, allowing them to extend their copyright on some > animated characters. It's not an evenly applied rule. > 2- I already cited the most chamur, the Sho'el uMeishiv 1:44, who goes > beyond ddd. : The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral : obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it : is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership : of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal : (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights : are lehalachah also eternal. : Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for : that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a : halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos : of copyright. : I just want to note the SuM's assumption, and the importance he assigns : moral rights identified by the surrounding culture. > RZR wondered if the SuM would also recognize the French philosophy of > copyright: that the artist could sell reproduction and profit rights, but > eternally retains rights to controlling how the idea is changed. (So even > if you sell a painting, the owner is allowed to copy it, but not modify > it.) After all, this is also a secularly identified moral right. Would > it be a halachah only in France? > 3- Hasagas gevul: > There is an old cheirem, invoked in many if not most haskamos for a few > centuries, against copying sefarim. (The SuM mentions it.) The cheirem > is at least as old as the publication of Tomer Devora (about a century > after it was written) -- because it's mentioned in the haskamos. That > if one copies the sefer beli reshus, or buys such a copy he is subject > to the cheirem and will lose all the berachos showered on people who > learn TOmer Devorah listed in the begining of the haskamah. > The Chasam Sofer traces the cheirem back to the Maharam Padua's edition of > the Rambam. After he invested all the time and money preparing the plates, > a non-Jewish publisher, Justinian, took those plates and printed his > own copy of the Yad, charging one gold coin less than the original. The > Rama said that anyone who bought a Justinian edition was under cheirem, > as they prevented him from recouping his loss. > Given this lashon, the CS concludes that the problem is hasagas gezul. > However, as RZR noted, hasagas gevul only applies to unfair competition, > not to give copies away as a tzadakah or a fundraiser. > This is also the conclusion of R' Moshe. R' Bleich, back when he was > a talmid at Torah Vadaas found a rare publication of a notebook of R' > Chaim and had it published as a TvD fundraiser. The original publisher > found out about it and cried "hasagas gevul". They went to R' Moshe who > ruled in favor of R' Bleich. > 4- Issur geneivah: > R' Bleich himself, when writing on the subject, quotes "ein berei'ach > mishum me'ilah", and that there is no geneivah without a cheftzah. > 5- Hezek > Now we're in "Micha's 2 cents" territory. Li nir'eh that even for a > tzedakah to do it, even if not hasagas gevul, you are causing hezek to > someone who would otherwise earn money. > Even if not quantifiably assur, I would want to invoke bal tishaktzu on > this one. > 6- Chilul Hashem > In a case like Napster, where the case will have a kol and a trial in > the press, I would think that the risk of chillul Hashem, and therefore > *dinei nefashos*, is enough to assur it -- even in cases where the > copying would be found to be technically legal. 7- Chamas So I heard from R' J Ziring (YUTorah.org) that R' Asher Weiss in a 2013 shiur compared the theft of intellectual property to the dor hamabul (after revisiting some of the above). I found a blog post of RJZ's that describes it or : Chazal explain that the sin of the dor hamabul was that they would each steal less than a shaveh perutah. Thus, in the aggregate they would destroy people's livelihood, but none of them could be prosecuted in court. From here he argued that there is an issur to do something, which while not formally theft, lends to a society that destroys other people's financial well being. If no one respects intellectual property, then inventors, writers, and the like will have no way of supporting himself. Thus, even if no one can properly be called a gazlan, they have all participated in chamas. Tir'u baTov! -Micha > PS: While on the subject, I should point out that we obtain reshus to > include any emails that are reposted on Avodah. When asking, I make it > clear that a copy will appear in the web archive as well. -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 15:08:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baal Nefesh in the Igeros Moshe Message-ID: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> R' Elli Fischer contrasted the use of baal nefesh yachmir in the MB with its use in the IM. (Also heard via R' Jonathan Ziring.) The MB uses baal nefesh yachmir to refer to chumeros where the person is acting in a way to fulfill all shitos. The MB lists the more recent opinions, and then advises that the baal nefesh follow the most stringent. (Although I believe we found in previous iterations that the MB doesn't actualy use the expression particularly often. The IM argues that chalav hacompanies is actually chalav yisrael, so that there is no textual reason to only drink milk that was literally Yisrae'el ro'ahu, as opposed to using anan sahade eidus. But leshitaso, FDA certified milk is kosher even according to the Peri Chadash. (YD 1:47) In 1:48 he dismisses all other possibilities, and then says baal nefesh yachmir. RMF's baal nefesh is not being chosheish for all shitos, he dismissed those other shitos. Instead he is keeping minhag yisrael saba beyond halakhah. Pretty much the opposite of the MB's baal nefesh, who is ignoring accepted pesaq in order to make sure all the textual bases are covered. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 20:27:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 05:27:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Baal Nefesh in the Igeros Moshe In-Reply-To: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> References: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55CD6005.7020707@zahav.net.il> I don't have it open in front of me, but IIRC, in his psak on eating veal RMF makes it very, very clear that the baal nefesh will not eat it and anyone who does is (to use my words) walking on thin ice. The way he relates to a baal nefesh in the CY issue (it is a nice thing to do but if you don't keep, no big deal) vs the veal issue (you really shouldn't be eating this stuff) is stark. Ben On 8/14/2015 12:08 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In 1:48 he dismisses all other possibilities, and then says baal nefesh > yachmir. RMF's baal nefesh is not being chosheish for all shitos, he > dismissed those other shitos. Instead he is keeping minhag yisrael saba > beyond halakhah. > > Pretty much the opposite of the MB's baal nefesh, who is ignoring accepted > pesaq in order to make sure all the textual bases are covered. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 14 12:13:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Heather Luntz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 20:13:15 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> I have been struggling with this thread, but have not found it easy to explain why, although I will do my best: On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:153am EDT, R Saul Guberman wrote: : RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & : the Tosafists. : http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ : Our *Torah shebe'al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish : history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a : great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, : but the *Torah shebe'al peh* would have survived without him. However, : without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, : any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe'al peh* today. And RMB then wrote: >Which is a different statement than the subject line. >I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to >the survival of mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue understanding the gemara. I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? I really struggle with that statement. Now, if you want to limit the claim, and say that Rashi and Tosphos are far more key than the Rambam to what people do in modern day yeshivas all day, including (if not particularly) the Briskers, then it would be hard to disagree. But is what people are doing in yeshiva all day in the 21st century "the mesorah" or is the Shulchan Aruch "the mesorah"? What are the consequences if we relegate the Shulchan Aruch and elevate the Tosphists in terms of halacha as she is practiced? Somehow these seem troubling directions in which to be heading, but I must log off as shabbas is coming very soon in this part of England (and I, for one, am not about to rely on Rabbanu Tam, Tosphotist par excellence, regardless of his mesorah, I don't know about you,). -Micha Shabbat Shalom Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 14 13:48:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:48:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 08:13:15PM +0100, Heather Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> Which is a different statement than the subject line. : :> I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah :> through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who :> stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of mesorah :> than the parshanim... : : I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan : Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the : Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, : we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. : : Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the : Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? Let me make it far more more explicit. The subject line differs from my understanding of RGS' expansion of RYGB's idea in that it claims "Mesora ONLY through Rashi" (emphasis added), whereas I heard them talking about cofication being "less critical". Comparative terms, not absolute ones. IOW, the mesorah could survive without codes, if we had to. But it couldn't survive without parshanim. Without them we couldn't handle any new case that isn't in a code, nor even have the skills to always determine which are the new cases. In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that discusses how the conclusions are reached. Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The parshan connects the past to the now. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 15:41:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:41:09 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> I wrote: : I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan : Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the : Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, : we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. : : Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the : Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? And RMB replied: <<>Let me make it far more more explicit. The subject line differs from my understanding of RGS' expansion of RYGB's idea in that it claims "Mesora ONLY through Rashi" (emphasis added), whereas I >heard them talking about cofication being "less critical". Comparative terms, not absolute ones. >IOW, the mesorah could survive without codes, if we had to. But it couldn't survive without parshanim. Without them we couldn't handle any new case that isn't in a code, nor even have the >skills to always determine which are the new cases.>> Firstly of course, the Rambam wrote his perush on Mishnayos, so I don't think it is merely parshanut that distinguishes the two. Secondly, in the Rambam's code there are various "nire li" statements where he comes across areas where the answer from the gemora is not clear, and he therefore inserts his own view. It seems slightly bizarre to suggest that he or the Shulchan Aruch ever assumed that their code would make determining new cases more difficult, nor does that seem accurate historically. >In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that >discusses how the conclusions are reached. So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no Rambam and no Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any distinction at all between the halacha of the Orthodox and the halacha as championed by the Conservative movement? Is that not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would of necessity lead (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent than we have today - one that would perforce have to embrace the Conservative movement, and certainly all the forms of Open Orthodoxy that RGS is so vehemently against. Part of RAM's distress on one of the other threads on this list at the moment, regarding modern day psak vis a vis sexual relations versus the postion of the Shulchan Aruch has to do with the fact that Orthodoxy in general (although not, I would note, at least some of the Chassidic movements, such as Ger, and possibly increasingly not other groups within the Charedi world) has without appearing to notice, abandoned the position as set out in the Shuchan Aruch (albeit for one that can be said to be the more majority position of Chazal). But take the codes out of the equation and *all* these multiple rishonic positions become tenable, allowing a general free for all within the vastness of the parshanut tradition. The codes therefore are a critical part of what might be considered a dual process - equivalent to the situation where one first brainstorms ideas, and then whittles away to those most tenable. There are of course, situations where Sephardim do not posken like the Shulchan Aruch, and there are even more situations where Ashkenazim do not hold like the Rema, preferring a Shach, Taz or Magen Avraham (or even a Bach). But in the post-Shulchan Aruch world the conversation that RAM has been leading on the other thread is fundamental and critical - if we do not posken like the Shuchan Aruch in the particular case in question - we need to understand and investigate precisely why not, because by and large, the Shulchan Aruch draws the line as to where we go or do not go halacha l'ma'aseh. Without the Shulchan Aruch, we are only left with the brainstorming side of the halachic endeavour, and that means - as I intimated in my closing remarks, that if you find Rabbanu Tam's shkia analysis compelling (or indeed, that of a more minor rishon), there would seem to be little to prevent you holding like it halacha l'ma'aseh. What would hold us together? Indeed you are, I see, engaged in a debate regarding hair covering on another thread. But surely those who seek to justify the practice of many, many women who otherwise led and lead fully halachic lives are full square within the mesorah of tosphos. It is only those who also have an eye to the codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in the light of common practice. >Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The parshan connects the past to the now. That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation handed over to the next. And the generation of the Shulchan Aruch, in accepting it as "The" Code which shall be followed in most circumstances (with exceptions) handed that down to all generations following - making the Shulchan Aruch the mesorah par excellence. I can debate the nature of shkia with the Tosphotists in a conversation down the generations, but my mesorah regarding Shabbas is unlikely to be based upon any such conversation, nor is it expected to be. If you want to redefine the word mesorah to mean only that which Rashi has given us, then of course the title of this thread becomes 100% correct, just rather pointless. Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more of them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the Rambam, were able to formulate their halachic conclusions. Without them it would be far more difficult to have anything like the number of people we have today engaging with the gemora. The Rambam in contrast might well not see the point - if you can't manage without Rashi and Tosphos, then, in his view, maybe you shouldn't be trying, and should be relying on his code instead, leaving gemora engagement to the true elite who should be leading the people. That aspect of the Rambam's view has not dominated as "the mesorah" - using the more commonly understood use of the term. While we might debate the length of time that should be spent in yeshiva, and whether one should do work/army instead of long term yeshiva study - there is pretty close to universal agreement within Orthodoxy that all Jews should spend at least some significant time engaging with the fundamental texts, even if they are of only average intelligence. But what people do in yeshiva is still, in my view, only a small slice of "the mesorah", as it is commonly understood (as opposed to as redefined by RYBS) and a far greater slice is the Shuchan Aruch itself, and for that, the Rambam's influence is surely pre-eminent. >-Micha Shavuah tov Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 13:35:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:35:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim Message-ID: Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? [image: --] Shui Haber [image: https://]about.me/shuihaber *"The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are."* ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 19:20:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:20:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55CFF350.3030205@sero.name> On 08/15/2015 04:35 PM, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: > Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? Devarim 6:13, 10:20. Hil' Yesodei Hatorah 2:1 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 22:14:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:14:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R. Micha offered the following critiques: > Although there is long evidence of rabbis saying it's a problem, but > not a battle they can win. So the mimetic side is dismissable. (Also, > how does someone who advocates for more roles for women in shul make a > mimetic argument?) If the same rabbi's whose wives were not covering hair were the same ones saying it is a problem, this critique makes sense. otherwise, there is no reason to say that those whose wives were not covering their hair were unhappy with the mitziut. The mimetic argument here is that the shitta existed and was followed. It doesn't mean that it is obligatory. So I think this is apples and oranges regarding roles of women in shul. >: In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of >: uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is... >: If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered >: hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. > But saying it's not a breach of tzeni'us doesn't say it's allowed, > that's your addition not in the translated text you quote. RYB could > mean what the AhS says, that it's terrible things came to this, but you > may daven in her presence. Or, that whle it's not a tzeni'us problem, > it's still prohibited deOraisa as per the implication in parashas sotah. I think that you are making a moving target, one rationale knocked down and another rationale surfaces. Obviously hair covering could be mandated for a number of different reasons, but all of them? I am not sure it is necessary to be yotzei l'chol hadayot and even if so, the sources who permit, permit it regardless of the rationale against. I also have to go back and look at the source because I think it said more than the quote. >: Here is a list of easily accessable sources: >: Rabbi Marc Angel... > He presumes hair covering is das Yehudis, which makes his a rare > shitah. (Again, given the derivation from a pasuq.) > But then again, R' Ovadiah Yosef firmly disagrees. He obviously is not paskening like R. Ovadiah > But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And > two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. There are Ashkenazim among the sources as well.....I am illustrating that not only the shitah exists, but was followed and continues to be followed by a significant segment of the MO community. And, were it not for the shoah, it seems that a large segment of Lithuanian Jewry would still be following it. ... >: I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and >: not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. >: However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and >: everyone can come to their own conclusion. > ... which is what he does, that the theory is there, but it's a shitah > dechuyah. And noticably, he too quotes R' Yosef Masas, R' Moshe Malka > and the Kaf haChaim -- Sepharadi sources. >: Rav Yosef Haim... > So, assuming the woman doesn't eat qitniyos, may she go with her hair > uncovered? Again, apples and oranges, or peanuts and sesame. It isn't just a Sephardi shita. > And even if she does... At what point is a shitah dechuyah? Good question. From my limited point of view, if it makes sense and some Rabbonim of at least some stature (and I think Rav Messas et al quality) hold that position, it is not dechuyah. What is your definition? ... >: Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony >: of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. >: R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: >: "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did >: not cover her hair? ... >: Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in >: this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." >: I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the >: artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with >: uncovered hair. >: Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat >: common... > And yet the rabbanim protested. This isn't even admissable as mimetic > tradition, any more than noting how often people speak leshon hara or > buy off-the-books or anything else rabbis have failed to curb. I do not agree. Many in Meah Shearim protest that all women do not wear long thick stockings but that doesn't mean that every rabbi holds that long thick stockings are obligatory. if it is the rabbi whose wife didn't cover her hair, you have an argument. otherwise I suggest that those who protest do not speak for everyone. >: uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his >: wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. > He too, would only need to be convinced is wasn't ervah in the sense of > "all those men" sinning. But as we see in the AhS, that doesn't mean > it's allowed. It is a possible option, but not the probable one. It seems you are going out of your way to figure out how this could occur in consonance with your pre-selected approach, rather than accepting the most likely and obvious rationale. kol tuv. Noam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 16 14:05:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:05:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150816210531.GE28046@aishdas.org> : I think that you are making a moving target, one rationale knocked down : and another rationale surfaces... You gave two counterarguments: 1- Ashkenazi mimeticism 2- A list of sources that appear to be predominantly if not entirely Sepharadi. I therefore gave a teo part reply: 1- Ashk mimeticism was consistently gainst rabbinic will. Even the AhS who weighs halakhah-as-practiced as a major factor in pesaq laments the ubiquitous sin of neglecting this din. He also says it's not ervah. So, the sole person who does spell out Ashk position gives me no reason to equate either (1a) ubiquity nor (1b) a textual statement ruling out ervah with permissability. 2- Those sources are not only Seph, but are possibly dechuyos in their community as well. But at the end of the day, I did write: :> But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And :> two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. (And I still find it ironic that someone making a mimetic argument about hair covering wants to also change the role of women by looking at tets to the exclusion of 3-1/3 millenia of common practice.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 17 08:59:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 11:59:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Soloveitchik on Single Women Lighting Shabbat Candles Message-ID: <20150817155949.GA11283@aishdas.org> http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/single-women-lighting-shabbat-candles Snippet: Torah Musings Halakhic Positions of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik Single Women Lighting Shabbat Candles By Aharon Ziegler on Aug 14, 15 1:00 am in Halakhic Positions ... ... Those who have family customs and if their minhag [custom] is that the single women do not light their own candles then they should certainly not deviate from their custom- "Ve'al Titosh Torat I'mecha"... ... .... As a matter of fact Rav Soloveitchik suggested that Le'chat'chila, all women should indeed first turn off the electric lights, light the Shabbat candles, open the electric lights and then recite the Beracha. Regarding single girls, Rav Soloveitchik noted that this was the practice in Europe, even in his town, and that is how the Rav practiced with his daughters when they were single-that they lit their own candles, even with a Beracha, even when his wife also lit candles with a Beracha. Interestingly, RYBS promoted mimeticism in not taking on the practice of lighting candles if one's mother and grandmother didn't light when they were single and still living with their parents. Yet in the same discussion, he acknowledges how the new reality of electric lights makes relying on the mimeticism of making the berachah on the candles / oil alone just a bedi'eved. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 01:22:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 04:22:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Copyright In-Reply-To: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> References: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55D2EB40.1060303@sero.name> On 08/13/2015 03:36 PM, in a message that Gmail, for some reason, decided was spam, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Beis Yitzchak does rule that ddd applies here. However, RZR opined > that ddd still wouldn't apply apply to Sony Bono's law that was aimed > specifically at Disney, allowing them to extend their copyright on some > animated characters. It's not an evenly applied rule. This isn't true. > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, > it is impossible that the Torah is less moral. This assumes its own conclusion. The exact same reasoning could have been used during the Jim Crow era to "prove" that the Torah requires racial segregation of shuls and yeshivos, or during Prohibition to "prove" that the Torah requires teetotalism. > Now we're in "Micha's 2 cents" territory. Li nir'eh that even for a > tzedakah to do it, even if not hasagas gevul, you are causing hezek to > someone who would otherwise earn money. Even if not quantifiably assur, > I would want to invoke bal tishaktzu on this one. Why should he earn that money? You could invoke the same idea against giving anything away to someone who might otherwise have bought it. Every wedding takes parnassah away from wherever the guests might have bought their dinner that night. Sellers do not own their customers, and have no rights to them. > Chazal explain that the sin of the dor hamabul was that they would > each steal less than a shaveh perutah. [...] From here he argued > that there is an issur to do something, which while not formally theft, Stop right there. Stealing less than a shaveh pruta *is* formally theft. The thief is over on lo sigzol. It's not *returnable*, which is an entirely different matter. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 17 22:18:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:18:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Splendor of Clothes Message-ID: <20150818051824.9B2F7183235@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/the-splendor-of-clothes/ Rav Soloveitchik further added that wearing a Yarmulke, a Kippa, is more dignified than a baseball cap. He said, "If the President of the United States suddenly appeared and wanted to take a picture with me, would I wear a Russian hat, a baseball cap,- or a Kippa? That is the way we should stand Shemoneh Esrei when addressing the King of the Universe, HaKadosh Baruch-Hu. See the above URL for more. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 15:08:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:08:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150818220842.GA26873@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:35:26PM +0300, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: : Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? While it's obligatory (see Zev's citations), I am not sure it's halakhah rather than something prior to halakhah. As in Moshe rabbeinu's list: Mah H' sho'el mei'imakh, ki im - leyir'ah es H' Elokekha - lalekhes bekhol derakhav - ule'avah oso - vela'avod es H' Elokekha... - lishmor es mitzvos H' ve'es chuqosav... It would seem that MRAH is excluding these for thing from the realm of mitzvos and chuqim, and yet still mandatory. Even though the Rambam calls "lalekhes bekhol derakhav" to be "HILKHOS Dei'os". I don't know how to shtim this with the pasuq. It seems more like the Rambam's approach, that there is a duty of pursuing qedushah, yashrus and tov in ways beyond the limits of black-letter halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 10:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:17:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halachic Requirement for Dayanim Evaluating In-Person Facial Expressions of Parties in Bais Din In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150819171747.GA2506@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:49:07AM -0700, Baruch Cohen via Avodah wrote: : ... The Mishnah describes how the members of the Sanhedrin : sat in a row in the shape of a half-circle... : Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin 1:3) ... : The Tosefta : (8:1) cites differing opinions regarding the seating position of the : President of the Sanhedrin. Tanna Kamma holds that the President sat in the : center of the semi-circle, with thirty-five of the members of the Sanhedrin : seated on each side of him. R' Elazar b. Tzadok says that when Rabban : Gamliel sat in the Sanhedrin in Yavne, one of the sages sat to his right, : and all the others sat to his left.... My apologies to RBC that I don't have any thoughts about his intended topic, but he got me thinking about something else... To quote myself from 2010 : > REMT quoted the IE, which I found at Shemos 25:37, in what Bar Ilan > calls the short version of the IE: > Neiroseha: And the qadmonim said that one lamp was in the middle > ve"hashisha ne'erachim ze achar ze bachatzi iggul" (to cut-n-paste > from REMT's post) > And after the scripture said "vehei'ir al eiver paneha", and the > reason for "al eiver" one [eiver], behold the shape is clear. Not semicircular as seen from the front, but the lamps in that pattern as seen from above. Continuing: > The IE appears to very explicitly places all the lamps on the same side > of the middle one. Similarly, in the long version of the IE, Shemos 27:21: > Yaarokh: baavur hayos haneiros bechatzi igul. Ve'od adaber al zeh. Notice that leshitaso, the layout of the Sanhderin parallels the layout of the neiros in the keli most associated with chokhmah. Which makes it interesting that the definition of neir ma'aravi also parallels the machloqes about where the nasi sat. We generally assume it's the middle lamp, on the central shaft. However, Tamid 33a speaks of the two western lights, which we also find implied in Abayei hava mesader, "hatavas shetei neiros" being at a different time than "hatavav 5 neiros". >From which Rashi (see also Rashi Menachos 86b "mimenah hayah madliq") concludes that the neir ma'ariv was the 2nd in the row. So it looks like a two machloqes, leshitasam, setup. But... IE's semicircular menorah is based on the idea that the middle lamp was westmost, the other lamps curving off toward the NE and SE directions. A variant on the shitah that the menorah stood so the lamps run north to south. The idea that the 2nd was the ner hama'ari has the lamps running from west to east. The 2 neiros on the west are lit on their own. The second from the west end is the neir hama'arivi, a title not given the westmost candle because it is lit facing the NhM, with the wick on the east. But that leshitasam looked so pretty! Anyone want to help me salvage it? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 12:25:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:25:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? In-Reply-To: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> References: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150819192519.GB2506@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 12:28:27AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Question-from a torah point of view should it make a difference : who shows up at the therapist's (or Rabbi's)door (for any therapy or : advice)? How does Halacha balance the needs of the individual, the : family, the community, Jewish society and/or society in general? Confidentiality and for that matter focusing on the needs of the client serves society in general in the long run. Society needs not only therapists, but therapists clients are willing to get help from. If we tell therapists that they are to compromise client trust for the sake of the family, community or society, we will lose that. So, even if halakhah requires factoring others' needs in to a greater extent, it might not change things all that much. (After all, the profession developed those standards for a reason. That reason needn't reflect a different set of values.) There are also the secondary effects of the law... If someone loses the opportunity to offer therapy because disobeying those standards open them up to threat of suit or legal consequences, we still lose the therapy. Which has to be factored in to the halachic decision. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 14:45:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:45:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Bais Hamussar] The Small Things Message-ID: <20150819214542.GD812@aishdas.org> ----- Forwarded message from Bais Hamussar ----- Bais Hamussar Al Sheim HaRav Shlomo Wolbe zt"l Shoftim - Elul Rav Wolbe (Daas Shlomo) cites a mind boggling Medrash (Bereishis Rabba 2:7). Reb Avahu said, "From the beginning of time Hashem gazed at both the actions of the righteous and the actions of the wicked. Yet, it is not clear whose actions He desired. Once the Torah writes, 'And Hashem saw the light that it was good' it is clear that He desires the actions of the righteous and not the actions of the wicked." What is this supposed to mean? Could there be a possibility that Hashem prefers the actions of the wicked over the actions of the righteous? Rav Simcha Zissel Ziv, the Alter of Kelm, offers a beautiful explanation. Indeed, even the wicked perform good deeds. However, they limit their good deeds to grandiose actions whose effects can be heard around the world. They will found organizations, create moral ideologies and give their lives for the sake of their country. In contrast, the righteous focus on the small, even minuscule, actions. Chazal were asking who's good deeds are superior -- those performed by the righteous or those performed by the wicked? The answer was provided by the Torah: Hashem prefers the small actions of the righteous over the high-flying deeds of the wicked. A similar idea is mentioned by the Rambam. He asserts that for one who wishes to give tzeddaka, it is better that he give many small donations than one big donation. Many small mitzvos are preferential to a single big action. Rav Yisrael Salanter writes that the focus of teshuva also must be on the small actions. Many are overcome with despair when faced with the prospect of teshuva. "There is no possible way for me to stop speaking lashon hara" or "I simply can't overcome this middah" they lament. However, there is no room for despair when the topic is teshuva. They are absolutely right; at the present time they cannot entirely overcome their inclinations. Nevertheless, they can greatly reduce the severity of their actions if they would merely desist at the times when it is easy for them to refrain from transgressing. If they would take small steps and resist for five minutes here and there, they will already have progressed tremendously down the road of teshuva. With this in mind, our understanding of Chazal's well known statement becomes even more profound. "Hashem says to Klal Yisrael, 'Open for me a hole like the eye of a needle and I will open for you gateways that wagons and carriages will be able to pass through!'" Hashem specifically is interested in the small holes. Teshuva must begin with a focus on the small actions. "Just five minutes" is a mantra that can change your life. I will refrain from lashon hara just for five minutes. I will learn just for five minutes. I will spend just five minutes on helping another Yid. The truth is that sometimes one doesn't even need five minutes. A wave of the hand to motion that one can't talk now can save a person from pages of bittul Torah or loads of lashon hara. Moreover, Hashem guarantees that He will reciprocate our small gesture with a huge dose of Heavenly assistance, as He waves us through big gateways of teshuva! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 20:49:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:49:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: I'm really very unsure what this thread is asking. Let's take, for example, this paragraph from R' Micha Berger: > In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the > BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, > but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that > discusses how the conclusions are reached. What can you possibly mean, that we COULD HAVE limped along without it? We ARE limping along without it! There is so much that is ALREADY missing from the Mesora! There are so many masechtos missing from the Bavli, for example. I suppose it is possible that Ravina and Rav Ashi never saw a need to compile them, but it's much more likely that they were written and then lost, no? Now, imagine, if you will, a halacha which was decided (by a rishon, acharon, it doesn't matter) because of one obscure gemara that some ingenious thinker found and applied to a particular situation. Without this gemara, the halacha pesuka would have been different than we are accustomed to, but because that gemara -- obscure though it might be -- WAS found, and is a legitimate part of our Mesora, the halacha as we know it came to be. There must be hundreds of such halachos, maybe even thousands. But what if that particular gemara was not hiding in Chullin or Makos? Suppose it was a gemara in Terumos? Then that halacha would never be known to us, because that gemara has been lost. R"n Chana Luntz wrote: > Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more > of them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the > Rambam, were able to formulate their halachic conclusions. You do realize, of course, that there was no such person as "Tosphos". The Tosaphists were very real, and very important, but they were not the ones to decide on the inclusion or exclusion of any particular comment. That was the choice of the publisher of the gemara, and if his whim had gone in another direction, who knows what other views would have gotten more press coverage. (Yes, I know that there are many volumes filled with the writings of even the most obscure Tosaphists, but the fact remains that getting included in the standard printed edition is the path to widest influence.) My point is that while RMB and RCL are trying to imagine what Torah would look like without Tosaphos, as I see it, even the Tosaphos that we do have is a somewhat random document. If Hashgacha (or, some might prefer, blind luck) had gone in another direction, Tosaphos would be very different, and practical halacha with it. But it doesn't stop there. Need I remind anyone that even our Torah Sheb'ksav is a reconstruction (or, some might prefer, an approximation) created by the Baalei Mesorah? If the sources that they worked from had been just a bit different, then our Sifrei Torah today would be different too. And yet, somehow we manage. We use the Torah that we have today, because it rendered the previous versions (the source material of the Baalei Mesorah) to be passul. What an amazing concept! One day, these several Sifrei Torah, all with known yichus, each had its own chezkas kashrus. And the next day, a new document, different from those that preceded it, comes to center stage and replaces the others! I would like to suggest that this is exactly how it would have worked if there was no Rashi, or no Rabenu Tam, or no Rambam, or no Rav Yosef Karo: We would use whatever we did have, and that would be our Torah. It would be different than the Torah that we do have, but so what? Rashi's Torah was different too! IN CLOSING, RCL asked: > So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no > Rambam and no Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any > distinction at all between the halacha of the Orthodox and the > halacha as championed by the Conservative movement? Is that > not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would of necessity lead > (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent than > we have today ... If you've been following me, then my answer to this should be clear: No! This "much broader tent" is pure speculation. If we had no Rav ABC to guide us, the void would have been filled by Rav XYZ, whose views might have been to the right, to the left, or the same. And in *exactly* the same manner as how we are obligated by the new Torah created by the Baalei Mesorah, the possibility of differences is much less important than our confidence and emunah that this Torah is the right one FOR US. Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller on gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:19:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:19:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mesorah only through rashi Message-ID: <> Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against the concept. Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own interpretation and not rely or be bound by any text. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:29:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:29:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mimetism Message-ID: <> I understood mimetism and trying to follow the custom of one's family. This is of no help when the physical circumstances have changed. Would anyone suggest using outdoor toilets because that is what our ancestors did and would object to an indoor bathroom. Plumbing changed the halacha. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:25:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:25:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] splendor of clothes Message-ID: > Rav Soloveitchik further added that wearing a Yarmulke, a Kippa, is > more dignified than a baseball cap. He said, "If the President of the > United States suddenly appeared and wanted to take a picture with me, > would I wear a Russian hat, a baseball cap,- or a Kippa? That is the > way we should stand Shemoneh Esrei when addressing the King of the > Universe, HaKadosh Baruch-Hu. The average person would also not wear a black hat while taking a picture with the president. I have noted before there has become a new minhag of wearing a hat all the time not only when wearing davening or saying a bracha. I went this week to a charedi wedding and most of the men wore their hats throughout the meal. OTOH I also went to a shiur of Rav Zilberstein this week. Throughout the shiur he wore a kippah. In the break he took some food and put on his hat for the bracha and then removed it for the shiur. This is also what I observed from RYBS If so why do other rabbis insist on giving a shiur wearing a hat? [Email #2.] BTW I just received a copy of a formal photo of RYBS with Ed Asner. RYBS is wearing a black kippa -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 05:10:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 08:10:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] splendor of clothes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 3:25 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > I have noted before there has become a new minhag of wearing a hat all > the time not only when wearing davening or saying a bracha. I went this > week to a charedi wedding and most of the men wore their hats throughout > the meal. For me, at least, this is a practical matter: There is often no place to leave a hat, not even in the coat room; and certainly no place from which the hat can be easily retrieved before bentching. --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 16:16:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 19:16:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:49pm EDT, R Akiva Miller wrote: : I'm really very unsure what this thread is asking... Part of the difficult of this thread is that we came in mid-conversation. RGS quoted Qinot Mesorat haRav. The quote is long, so I'm just giving part: Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebe'al peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... This is a comment RYBS frequently made in shiur. Picture sitting in a brisker shiur, where every talmid needs a reference set of shas and Rambam. It is logical for the rebbe to need to remind people that they couldn't play this game of comparing that Yad back to shas if we didn't have Rashi and Tosados opening up shas to understanding. Interestingly, RGS compared this to the Yam Shel Shelomo: Rav Shlomo Luria, the Maharshal, famously said that Rabbeinu Tam was greater than the Rambam (introduction to Yam Shel Shlomo). In discussing Kinah 42, Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik suggests that the French and German Tosafists were more important than the Rambam, without discussing who was greater. The Maharshal was very opposed to the SA. He had a hostile attitude toward the whole notion of codification which goes way beyond RYBS's intent in ways RYBS wouldn't agree to. He and the Maharal (his brother) were of the "many" in RET's response. On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:19am IDT, R Eli Turkel wrote: : Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against the : concept. : Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own : interpretation and not : rely or be bound by any text. This coming in in the middle caused language confusion and consequent frustration for RnCL. On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:41:09PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the :> Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The :> parshan connects the past to the now. : That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. : Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation : handed over to the next. Yes, but if you want to know what RYBS meant, it requires knowing what the word means in RYBS's lexicon, with the connotations he assumed. Notice my suggestion about how "mesorah" was being used fits the quote from the qinos and the example of the Yerushalmi. I understand the frustration of thinking you were discussing a statement that meant one thing and only after formulating a log response being told that it likely meant something else. But that's a straightforward misunderstanding due to your being outside the target audience when RYBS was saying / learning Qinos, and therefore not being used to the connoctations he assumes; and Lewis Carrol refferences aren't needed. I intend to write a post on the meaning of the word "mesorah" as developed in RYBS's and RHS's thought as the start of its own thread. Because it not only comes up here, it comes up in the discussions raging elsewhere (Torah Musings, Cross Currents, Facebook) on RWMO's objections to Open O and feminism. RnCL argues for the importance of codes in that post: : So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no Rambam and no : Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any distinction at all between : the halacha of the Orthodox and the halacha as championed by the : Conservative movement? Is that not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would : of necessity lead (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent : than we have today... ... : But take the codes out of the equation : and *all* these multiple rishonic positions become tenable, allowing a : general free for all within the vastness of the parshanut tradition... ... : It is only those who also have an eye to the : codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in : the light of common practice. Actualy, it's only those who have an eye on common practice. After all, we discuss machloqesin between Rashi and the Rambam in halakhah lemasseh contexts all the time. And if Ashkenazim accepted Rashi's ruling, or one found in Tosafos, the Rama has no problem limiting his pesaq to that rather than that of the Rif, Rambam or Tur. And had there not been a Rama, then some shu"t or parshan could as well. For that matter, there is also the middle ground, the shu"t writer (eg the Ritva) who discusses halachic sevara and lomdus without either using a study of a pre-existing text as his organizing principle nor trying to codify a complete set of rulings. For that matter, the Beis Yoseif and AhS also sit in the middle ground -- code-like works that spend more space discussing how they understood the sources to get there. Returning to RAM's post for his reply to RnCL's question: : If you've been following me, then my answer to this should be clear: No! : This "much broader tent" is pure speculation. If we had no Rav ABC to guide : us, the void would have been filled by Rav XYZ, whose views might have been : to the right, to the left, or the same. And in *exactly* the same manner as : how we are obligated by the new Torah created by the Baalei Mesorah, the : possibility of differences is much less important than our confidence and : emunah that this Torah is the right one FOR US. Without the parshanim, there is no way to fill in the holes between se'ifim, to know how the conclusions were reached so that halakhah can survive beyond the limited set of cases in the Rambam or SA. However, without the codifiers, it's hard to find Rashi's ruling, but not impossible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 02:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:02:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha Message-ID: RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear as ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) 1) Prozbul - while the originial takanah was for individuals that made loans and meant a trip to bet din today it has become a piece of paper signed given to the rabbi or some ad hoc bet din (similar to hatarat nedarim). 2) nonJewish produce during shemitta - whther bought directly from nonJews or through heter mechirah the end result is that the consumer feels little difference between a shemitta year and a regular year. Only consumers that use Otzar bet din have to account for shemitta rules (of course it affects the farmer) 3) mechirat chametz - In the extreme one goes away for the entire Pesach, sells everything in the house and returns after Pesach to eat whatever is around, no need to even put away the chametz. For the rest of us it means putting what we sell in some closet and for some getting rid of "real" chametz like cakes 4) heter iska - again originally meant making a document for a specific loan and allowing a possibility pf loss. Today (in Israel) the banks and other financial insitutions have the document on the wall somewhere and most customers are not even aware of it. Because of court cases the heter iska has been refined so that the possibility of loss to the bank is essentially zero. In addition the heter iska today applies to non business loans - eg renovating a house, buying a car or going on a pleasure trip In addition to things that appear as cereonies to the average layman there are halachot called "ha-aramh" which is a trick way of avoiding the usual halacha. Again some eamples (again including inyana de-yoma" 1) paying the chazan for RH and YK for singing the first night of selichot 2) returning to shemitta - buying the lulav and throwing in for free the etrog 3) R Tarfon "married" 300 women so they could eat termah In an actual case involving yibum a couple without children and the husband was senile and near death while the brother-in-law lived in New Zealand. The solution was for the brother-in-law t "marry" the wife's sister and then divorce her but now the wife no longer needs a yibum or chaitzah. Note that pruzbol and heter iska began as ha-aaramah and later became a ceremony. I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview it. Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 11:57:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 14:57:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah Message-ID: <20150821185758.GA8815@aishdas.org> The word "mesorah" is overloaded with too many meanings. Literally, it's "that which was passed on". So logically, a common usage would make it synonymous with TSBP. And yet it's also used for the near opposite -- we speak of the mesoretic text, its vowels and its trope -- the ultimate in TSBK. And the collections of notes that describe that text are also called "mesorah". (So the mesorah describes the mesorah?! And you can join the email list if you wish to discuss the mesorah, diqduq, nusach hetefillah and the like.) More along the lines of the direction I want to head in, unlike talking about TSBP and thus focusing our attention on Divine origins, when we speak of mesorah we focus out attention on the chain of people. And so there is the usage of "mesorah" to mean mimetic tradition, and is often posed in contrast to textual TSBP. Notice R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik not only defines "mimetic tradition" as knowing what a kezayis is because you remember what your father and greandfather ate at the seder but also considers such cultural mesorah (my term) rather than textual transmission to be the carrier of value and emotion. It is the loss of mimetic tradition that he blames for the loss of dread of the Yamim Noraim and (in speech, not writing) for the loss of what his father RJBS called the "Erev Shabbos Jew" (from "On Repentance, pp 97-98): Even in those neighborhoods made up predominantly of religious Jews, one can no longer talk of the 'sanctity of Shabbat.' True, there are Jews in America who observe Shabbat... But it is not for Shabbat that my heart aches; it is for the forgotten 'erev Shabbat'.... There are Shabbat-observing Jews in America, but there are no 'erev Shabbat' Jews who go out to greet Shabbat with beating hearts and pulsating souls. There are many who observe the precepts with their hands, with their feet, and/or with their mouths - but there are few indeed who truly know the meaning of the service of the heart!" Then we speak of someone "having a mesorah" in two different uses: both if they have a received practice and cultural (as above) and if they have a known rebbe-talmid lineage. Still in contrast to texts, we're talking about the importance of all that Torah that doesn't fit into books. We also talk about those in the hands-on kelei qodesh, such as a sofer, a mohel, a shocheit, etc... also of "having a mesorah" from the one who taught them the craft. And that too is all about the kind of thing you need to learn with your senses and muscles, and not know from books discussing the topic in the abstract. To pasqen mar'os, a rav must also have a mesorah in that sense. It's a skill, a craft, that is learned from practice under the guidance of a mentor. Usually called "shimush". For regular pesaq too there is an element that is a craft, an art, a skill, the kind of thing one needs to learn from shimush, not by studying from abstract texts. Qara veshanah velo shamash TC, harei zeh am ha'aretz. ... - Sotah 22a This is why I like R/Dr Moshe Koppel's metaphor of laws of grammar for some usages rather than always comparing halakhah to civil law. (More as per his sefer "Metahalakhah" than in the essay "Judaism as a First Language" .) As I wrote in Feb : The "First Language" model is much like R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik's mimeticism, but also somewhat different. Halachic rules are an approximation of something that is inherently more complex in kind than rules and algorithms. Much the way grammar is only approximated by ever more complex rules which still never get a foreigner studying the language in class to the same feel for grammar that the native-speaker has. (And why TSBP loses something when not be'al peh.) So the ESL student may know what a past pluperfect is, and I don't, but the native speaker is more likely to know what is valid poetic license and what will produce non-English results. Similarly, a poseiq needs to pick up that feel, not the formal rules. Unstructured knowledge. I have two rather lengthy quotes that help create a feel for what I am talking about. They're quite beautiful, so I appreciate this excuse to share them. Notice how RYBS explicitly defines the word "mesorah" at the beginning of this first quote, UBiqashta miSham 10:1, pp. 63-65 (tr. RARR, The Rav, vol. I, pp. 247-250): Let me stress the idea of the Mesorah by telling you a personal story. I remember that when I was growing up I was frightened and lonely boy. I was afraid of the world. For me, the world was a cold and strange place. I imagined that everyone was mocking me. But I had one friend; do not laugh at me, it was the Rambam [Maimonides]. How did we become friends? Simply, we met. Rambam was a constant guest in our home. During the days when my father was newlywed, supported by my grandfather... father studied Torah day and night. A small group of outstanding young scholars gathered around him and eagerly absorbed his teachings. My father studied with his disciples in the room where my bed was located. My wont was to sit on my bed and listen to my father's words. He constantly quoted Rambam. His method was to first open the Talmud and analyze the text under discussion and the relevant commentaries. He would generally say: these are the explanations of Tosafot. Now, let us analyze the explanations of Rambam. My father would inevitably discover that Rambam rejected the basic explanation of the text and differed with Tosafot. My father would declare, as if to complain, that we cannot comprehend the approach and conclusion of Rambam towards the Talmud text. It was almost as if my father were directly saying to Rambam: "Rabbi Moshe, why have you taken this approach?" My father would continue, "at first glance, the Ra'avad (commentary on the Rambam) is correct at his criticism." The students would jump forward and each would express his thoughts. My father would carefully listen but would refute their proposed interpretations. Once again he would exclaim that the words of Rambam were incomprehensible. Nevertheless, my father would not give up. He would place his head on his hand and soon be engrossed in deep thought. The students would not disturb his thought process. Finally, my father would gradually lifts his head and begin to expound the true meaning of Rambam. Sometimes he would be lengthy, and on other occasions brief. I would strain my ears to catch my father's every word. In my young and impressionable mind, there developed a duel impression: First, that the Rambam was being attacked by enemies who wanted to hurt him, and second, that the Rambam's only defender was my father. I felt strongly that without my father, who knows what would happen to the Rambam? It was as if the Rambam himself were with us in the room, listening to my father's words. The Rambam sat next to me on my bed. What did he look like? I don't know exactly. He seemed to look like an exceedingly handsome and good father. His name was also Moshe, just like my father. Intensely following my father, the students absorbed his every word. Slowly but surely, the tension evaporated. My father continued his discourse with strength and courage. New ideas were clarified; the laws under discussion were classified and carefully articulated. A new light emerged; the questions were resolved and the topic properly explained. Rambam emerged triumphant, and my father's face was filled with happiness and delight. He had defended his friend, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon. The Rambam was comforted and smiled. I too was delighted and joined in the feeling of joy in the room. I would jump from my bed and run to my mother and cry out the good news: "mother, mother, the Rambam won; he beat the Raavad. Father helped him. Look how wonderful my father is!" But once in a great while my father did not succeed, and despite all his efforts the enemies of the Rambam defeated him. Their questions were as strong as iron. Although my father mustered all his strength, he could not save the Rambam from his detractors. Salvation did not come for the Rambam. Deep in thought, my father would lean on his head on the palms of his hands on the table. The students and I, and even the Rambam, waited in great tension for my father's words. But my father would raise his head and sadly state: "there is no answer. The words of the Rambam are difficult. The shiur ended with no explanation. The students were sad, and even my father was depressed. A sense of despair descended upon all of us. I cried. Even the eyes of the Rambam glistened with tear-drops. With a broken heart, I would walk slowly to my mother and cry out to her: "Mother, father cannot answer the Rambam. What will we do? He did not succeed today." And my mother would tell me: "Don't worry. Father will find and answer to the Rambam. If he does not succeed, then when you grow up perhaps you will find an answer to the Rambam. Always remember, my son, the important thing about Torah is to study it in happiness and enthusiasm." It is true that this story is part of my youth. It is not, however, the fantasy of a young child or the creation of mystical feelings. This story is an historic and psychological reality that guides me at all time. When I sit down to learn, the giants of the Mesorah are with me. Our relationship is personal. The Rambam sits to my right, Rabbeinu Tam to my left. Rashi sits at the head and explains, Rabbeinu Tam asks, the Rambam decides the halacha, and the Raavad objects. All of them are with me in my small room, sitting around the table. They look at me with fondness. They world the text out with me, and life a father, they encourage and strengthen me. Learning Torah is not just a didactic, formal, and technical experience whose purpose is the creation and exchange of ideas. Learning Torah is the intense experience of uniting many generations together, the joining of spirit to spirit, and the connecting of soul to soul. Those who transmit the Torah and those who receive the Torah are invited to meet one another at the same historic juncture. And Reflections of the Rav, vol II, pp. 21b-23 (original language in: RARR's The Rav vol II, pp 186-189) this quote winds up with mention of the mesorah: The old Rebbe walks into the classroom crowded with students who are young enough to be his grandchildren. He enters as an old man with wrinkled face, his eyes reflecting the fatigue and sadness of old age. You have to be old to experience this sadness. It is the melancholy that results from an awareness of people and things which have disappeared and linger only in memory. I sit down; opposite me are rows of young beaming faces with clear eyes radiating the joy of being young. For a moment, the Rabbe is gripped with pessimism, with tremors of uncertainly. He asks himself: Can there be a dialogue between an old teacher and young students, between a Rebbe in his Indian summer and students enjoying the spring of their lives? The Rebbe starts his shiur, uncertain as to how it will proceed. Suddenly the door opens and an old man, much older than the Rebbe, enters. He is the grandfather of the Rebbe, Reb Chaim Brisker. It would be most difficult to study Talmud with students who are trained in the sciences and mathematics, were it not for his method, which is very modern and equals, if not surpasses, most contemporary forms of logic, metaphysics or philosophy. The door opens again and another old man comes in. He is older than Reb Chaim, for he lived in the 17th century. His name is Reb Shabtai Cohen, known as the Shach, who must be present when civil law (dinai mamonot) is discussed. Many more visitors arrive, some from the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, and others harking back to antiquity -- Rabbeinu Tam, Rashi, Rambam, Raavad, Rashba, Rabbi Akiva and others. These scholarly giants of the past are bidden to take their seats. The Rebbe introduces the guests to his pupils, and the dialogue commences. The Rambam states a halacha; the Raavad disagrees sharply, as is his wont. Some students interrupt to defend the Rambam, and they express themselves harshly against the Raavad, as young people are apt to do. The Rebbe softly corrects the students and suggest more restrained tones. The Rashba smiles gently. The Rebbe tries to analyze what the students meant, and other students intercede. Rabeinu Tam is called upon to express his opinion, and suddenly, a symposium of generations comes into existence. Young students debate earlier generations with an air of daring familiarity, and a crescendo of discussion ensues. All speak one language; all pursue one goal; all are committed to a common vision; and all operate with the same categories. A Mesorah collegiality is achieved, a friendship, a comradeship of old and young, spanning antiquity, the Middle Ages and modern times. This joining of the generations, this march of centuries, this dialogue and conversation between antiquity and the present will finally bring about the redemption of the Jewish people. After a two-or three hour shiur, the Rebbe emerges from the chamber young and rejuvenated. He has defeated age. The students look exhausted. In the Mesorah experience, years play no role. Hands, however parchment-dry and wrinkled, embrace warm and supple hands in commonality, bridging the gap with separates the generations. Thus, the "old ones" of the past continue their great dialogue of the generations, ensuring an enduring commitment to the Mesorah. So there is a community of baalei mesorah that carries down a mimetic tradition of how to pasqen. A tradition of informal knowledge that cannot be codified into books and that creates a feel and emotional consequence. This is RYBS's usual usage of the word, "mesorah". No better or worse than any of the other usages, but more relevant to two of the conversations we've (we as in various members of the A/A chevrah, not necessarily here on Avodah) been having lately. In the discussion of feminism and Torah (which hasn't been here, but we have had identical cycles here before), RHS's piece "Preserving Our Mesorah in Changing Times" and others like it are often cited. RHS opens: What is Mesorah? Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today.[1] The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers.[2] 1. Avot 1:1. 2. For a more extensive discussion of mesorah, see Nefesh HaRav, pp. 34-58 and Beikvei HaTzon, pp. 21-37. Firmly in line with what we've seen from his rebbe, mesorah is used in the sense of the chain of transmission down time that conveys the art and culture of halakhah decision-making and Torah as a whole. And a bit further down he discusses "Who Is Authorized to Institute Change?" {emph mine): Changes in practice require delicate evaluations that only a master Torah scholar, a gadol baTorah, can properly conduct. Only someone with a broad knowledge and a deep understanding of the corpus of halachah, with an intimate familiarity with both the letter and the spirit of the law, WITH A MASTERY OF BOTH THE RULES AND THE ATTITUDES OF THE MESORAH, can determine when a change is acceptable or even required. The more wide-reaching the proposed change, the greater the expertise required to approve it. The evaluator must not only be a master of the mesorah, but he must also be able to consider new practices based solely on values internal to the mesorah, removing external influences from the deliberation.[14] 14. See Halakhic Mind, n. 98. But I think this example from a teshuvah (tr and poor title by YWN is more on-topic: Indeed, the Rav would often say (see drasha to Parshas Korach), that every person must recognize that he needs a Rav or a Rebbe. Even a Talmid Chochom whose Rebbe had passed away must constantly ask himself in truth (when they present questions to him) what his Rebbe would have said in such a scase, and what stance he would have taken. ... The expression that some of those who have permitted this utilize that according to the technical halacha a certain act is permitted, and that which people wish to prohibit it is because of political considerations is incorrect. For even a matter such as changing the mesorah the traditions of the Jewish people is in and of itself an integral section of halacha. When one rules on the donning of Tefillin for women it is not enough to merely examine the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch in Hilchos Tefillin and in the sources there and treat it as a simple question. The version of mesorah in RYBS's usage is the same concept RHS invokes to reject a "but it can be fit to the technical halakhah so your objection is merely political" attitude. Change must conform to mesorah to be valid, even if the textualists are satisfied. This is not an invocation of "daas Torah", because we're talking about questions of Torah, not politics or other metzi'us; we are invoking knowledge, if cultural and informal knowledge rather than book knowledge, and not invoking any metaphysical or mytical power; and because we do not expect a single correct answer that "the gedolim hold". But it still makes halachic decisionmaking when it comes to significant change subject to the skill of a few, and the rest of us are forced to submit to their understanding. The other use we've been knocking around, and this was here on-list, is RYBS's statement (Qinos Mesorat haRav, quoted by RGS here : Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebeal peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... RYBS identifies mesorah as the ineffible skill to think like a poseiq. And that we do get from those who explain how the prior generations developed the law, how the community down the ages conversed about the law, from living in the culture whose mimeticism is mesorah. And we saw Sotah's opinion of someone who learns without shimush. From only a little further down in that sugya (22a): Tanna: Hatannaim (those who repeat codified law) are swallowers of the world. Could you really think [they] are "swallowers of the world"? Ravina said: For they are morah halakhah from their repetition of the law. There is a a beraisa like this: R' Yeushua said, "And are they 'swallowers of the world? Aren't they settlers of the world, as it says 'halikhos olam lo' (Chavaquq 3)? Rather, because they are moreh halakhah from their repetition of the law. You can't pasqen from codes, from legal knowledge. It takes knowledge of how the codes reached their conclusion -- both textual knowledge obtained from the meforshim, and the skills to pasqen obtained by shimush. As R Yochanan quotes besheim Rashbi (Berakhos 7b), "gedolah shimushah shel Torah yoseir meilimudah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 22 16:06:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 00:06:16 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:41:09PM +0100, RMB wrote: :> Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the :> Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The :> parshan connects the past to the now. I replied: : That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. : Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation : handed over to the next. And RMB further replied: <> I read the quote and the original RGS posting before commenting on the thread because I generally try not to jump in mid-conversation without understanding what has previously been said. And that is precisely what I am objecting to. Because the RGS piece (including the quote) - is actually about our mesorah *regarding learning* (ie a much narrower slice of the wider definition). In that, as I said, I think it correct - our mesorah regarding how to learn - how to sit in Yeshiva and deal with the texts owes far more to Rashi and Tosphos than to the Rambam. But as stated in the quote, this suddenly becomes "our mesorah" in general and that is what I find problematic as I will try and articulate below. So let us look at the quote again: RGS quoted Qinot Mesorat haRav. The quote is long, so I'm just giving part: Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebe'al peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... The point I am making is that "any mesorah, "any chain of tradition" is much, much wider than what is done in Brisker yeshivas as part of the learning process. <> Now, if the point you are making is that RYBS was addressing yeshiva bochrim within a yeshiva setting (albeit explaining kinos on Tisha B'av) and hence explaining what it is that they do all day learning-wise- then the use of such language is probably excusable without the modifier - ie in this context mesorah is simply short for "mesorah with regard to how to learn". But the problem is that this language has now been pulled, by way of RGS's article (and lends itself to being pulled by its sheer breadth), into a wider application and wider audience, and not modified as such. It was then pulled across into Avodah, and the reference questioned, which I think it should be, because RGS's argument is implicitly if not explicitly far wider. And that I think is a problem, because what is true for one slice of "the mesorah" is not necessarily true for the whole. Whether this imprecision is RYBS's or RGS's is hard for me to be sure, as you say, this is a quote taken out of context. <> And this is where this slide from discussing one slice of the mesorah - what to do in Yeshiva, to a much wider slice of the mesorah becomes problematic, because of the implication you have just made which is that what is true of the section applies to the whole. And in this context you are dealing with what is called in common parlance the mesorah, not about conversations down time. So by slight of hand what you are doing is taking a definition which you acknowledge is a very limited and idiosyncratic one, but then sliding the conclusions that arise from that definition into the more standard debate, and claiming that was RYBS's opinion regarding the debate about what is more commonly known as "the mesorah". Let us therefore back up for a minute and discuss that aspect of RGS's post which in my view is unquestionably correct, even using the usual definition of mesorah: RGS comments that he and his father tried to learn meseches Nedarim just using the meforash, in the absence of Rashi, and were not able to do so (they were then only able to do it using the Ran, a much later commentary) - thus demonstrating the point of the post, which is, without Rashi, most of the Talmud Bavli would be a closed book to most people of average, and even above average, intelligence (like the Talmud Yerushalmi). This is unquestionably true. The Rambam was also aware of this problem (after all he learned all of Talmud Bavli without Rashi and everybody he knew either did so or tried to do so). His solution to RGS's problem was to tell RGS and his father, and people like him, not to try and learn Talmud Bavli, but to learn his, the Rambam's, Code instead. Ie instead of trying to tackle Maseches Nedarim, he would suggest that RGS and his father learn Hilchos Nedarim from the Mishne Torah. Now the truth is that if RGS and his father had in fact learnt all of Hilchos Nedarim from the Rambam, and all of the rest of the Mishne Torah, backwards and forwards and inside out - they are likely then to be well set up to tackle the Talmud Bavli without Rashi. Ie you *can* use the Rambam as a guide back into the Talmud if you are bright enough (because you have most of the concepts already explained by him), but it is not an easy way to do it. The Rambam assumed that the average person would stop with his Code, and only the best and brightest would need then to go back to the Talmud, to help determine the ambiguous cases not caught by his code, in a method not a million miles away from the one use by smicha students in learning Hilchos Shechita or Kashrus - first learn the Shulchan Aruch, then work your way back to the underlying gemoras so you are in a position to posken those cases the Shulchan Aruch doesn't catch. Our mesorah is like Rashi in this regard and not the Rambam (except when it comes to smicha students). We open up the Talmud Bavli even to children using Rashi and hundreds of thousands are sitting in yeshiva following Rashi. The problem is that people (it would appear including you) then generalise from "how we learn" to "how we posken" - which is what really is involved in the discussion regarding Open O and feminism. And they are not the same thing at all. Indeed, the fact that smicha students (those that are being set up to posken) are taught in a totally different way to the more general way of learning in yeshiva, and one that owes far more to the Rambam than to Rashi and Tosphos should alert you to that. I am then going to diverge a bit to discuss RAM's post, because he is discussing something completely different again: I wrote: > Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more of > them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the Rambam, were > able to formulate their halachic conclusions. And RAM replied: <> But you here (and it is even more explicit later) are discussing something completely different to what I was and am discussing. To best differentiate, I would say that you are discussing *content* and I am discussing *process*. Yes with regard to *content* it makes a difference which particular one of the Tosphosim were included on the page, and which weren't - but that is not what I am discussing. Rather I am discussing *how to learn* - ie how to make sense of this Talmud Bavli which (as RGS elucidated so eloquently) is so difficult for people to get into without help. What Rashi did was to provide a clear and simple explanation of the words on the page. What Tosphos did (and in this regard the whole commentary called Tosphos - despite the fact that it was made up of many different people, in fact teaches pretty much the same thing) was to teach people to say "hold on a minute, if we take the simple explanation provided by Rashi, then: a) there is a contradiction with what the gemora says somewhere else; or b) there is a contradiction with what in fact people do - so therefore we need to try and solve this problem. I then further goes on to teach people to say: very commonly we can solve this problem by: (i) re-interpreting this gemora; and/or (ii) reinterpreting that gemora; and/or (iii) finding some way of harmonizing the two gemoras, or the gemora and people's practice, or if we cannot manage to that (but only in extremis), (iv) working out that a certain gemora is more authoritative or the people are wrong. Note that when you are considering the process, it doesn't matter which particular sets of Tosphos' questions made it onto the page and which didn't - what is far more important is the fact that the commentary in general teaches people to ask these questions and mechanisms for trying to answer them. That is what a (eg child) who is first taught to study the gemora with Rashi suddenly encounters when he moves on to Tosphos. Hold on, Rashi's commentary may make a lot of sense in localised context, but we now have to try and consider the whole. Now of course the Rambam had not only to be his own Rashi, but he had to be his own Tosphos. He could not have written his Code if underneath the surface he did not deal with the fact that the gemora appears to contradict itself all over the place, and also to contradict what people are actually doing. The fundamental job of most meforshim on the Rambam is therefore (a) to explain how the Rambam understood the simple explanation of the gemora (ie what the Rambam would have said if he had written Rashi) and (b) how the Rambam resolved the contradictions in the various gemoras and with common practice (ie how the Rambam deals with the kinds of problems raised by the Tosphosim). But all of this is under the surface. All we have from the Rambam is the result, what we have from Tosphos are the questions. And it is the questions which give people a better window into how to learn gemora. So that is why, when discussing *process* it does not matter that: <> Because while we might have different Tosphos questions (ie content) on (or off) the page if hashgacha had gone in a different direction, or if there were gemoros on some of the mesechtos on which we have none, the process of *how* Tosphos (or the Rambam) would have dealt with that content is still the same. But if we would have had no Rashi and no Tosphos at all, ie the process they originated, but only the Rambam, we would all have learnt the code backward and forward, and a few bright sparks would have then used that to understand the gemora - a very, very different process of learning. In that regard our mesorah of learning comes from Rashi and Tosphos. On the other hand, RET is correct: <> Although I would modify that statement not to say "and not be bound by any text", as most at that point agreed that they should be bound by the gemora (and the Tanach as understood by the mishna/gemora), just not beyond that. And that is the point. There are two different concepts being discussed here, the mesorah of "how to learn" and the mesorah of "how to posken" (which then leads into what it is that people do). And when the Shulchan Aruch came out a lot of people strongly objected to the way of poskening that is a consequence of the codes. They thought that each posek should re-learn the relevant underlying gemoras, and work out their own harmonisation of them without being influenced, and certainly not bound, by what the Shulchan Aruch said. Some people perhaps thought that was a bit extreme, and that at least they should learn the underlying gemoras with all the rishonim, and, to the extent there was rishonic view, at least make a judgement within that spectrum (but not necessarily prioritise eg the Rambam, Rif and Rosh, or the Trumas HaDeshen and the Mordechai, being the most recent, over the others). The problem you have though is that - well, according to the gemora there are at least 50 ways of determining that a sheretz is kosher. Even if you then say that the gemora draws certain lines in the sand, there is no question that - well, let us take the hair covering question as illustrative. There are clearly (at least) two ways of reading the question: (a) hair covering for married women is an absolute and immutable d'orisa principle; (b) hair covering for married women is a tznius related convention - and given the convention at the time of the gemora (and earlier) it is required in those societies where it is practiced by modest Jewish women by virtue of rabbinic decree. If you can't see that the underlying sources (eg the mishna and gemora) *could* lead to either interpretation, then you are either wilfully blinding yourself or you can't learn. If you purely follow Rashi and Tosphos, then *if* you can read the underlying gemora sources in such a way as to harmonise with common practice today (even if you believe it is a bit of a dochek), then you would be free to do so, or at least, have no basis to criticise others who do this. However, nobody has that conversation today. The conversation you are having is about "how authoritative" are the various poskim (and from which tradition) who do appear to rule in one way or another. The power of Rav Broyde's article for example - is that he argues that the Rosh (and hence the Tur) and even the Rambam actually posken (b) out of the options, and this can be seen in the Shulchan Aruch. That is the kind of conversation we have today - with others of course rejecting that this is what can be read into the Shulchan Aruch. Hence I said: : It is only those who also have an eye to the : codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in : the light of common practice. And RMB replied: <> But neither Rashi nor Tosphos gave us any method of limiting where psak went, and indeed the Ri can hold one thing and Rabbanu Tam another within the same Tosphos. The Codes are far less open. And the language of the Shulchan Aruch is in the vast majority of cases the language of the Rambam thereby leading back to the thought process of the Rambam. The Rema then picks up a few of the cases where Ashkenazi practice differs and used a Code process to insert Rashi's explanation into the Code (although often where it had already been filtered through the Rosh and the Tur first). That is taking Rashi content and using it in a Rambam like way. Which is why the mesorah for how we posken is much closer to the Rambam than it is to Rashi. And what we do outside of the yeshiva is more about how we posken than about how we learn. Which is why I disagree: >Without the parshanim, there is no way to fill in the holes between se'ifim, to know how the conclusions were reached so that halakhah can survive beyond the limited set of cases in the Rambam >or SA. Of course there is, you have to go back to the original gemora - having first learnt through all of the related si'ifim in the Codes, and then make sure you understand how the rulings that are in the Codes relate to the underlying gemora. Once you have done that you can start to fill in the gaps, But only the select few who need to actually posken need to know this method - which is why it only needs to be taught to smicha students. But it is obvious that is the method used by the Rambam when answering questions outside of his own code in his teshuvos. <> And if you don't find it, it probably doesn't matter - because without the attitude of the codifiers, you really only need Rashi to understand the gemora and if you can do it without him, then great. And if you can't understand the gemora without him you wouldn't have a hope of formulating any ruling as the gemora would be a closed book. >Micha Shavuah tov Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 04:38:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:38:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Daf HaKashrus August 2015 Message-ID: <20150823113822.1203D183A0B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/daf_hakashrus_aug_2015.pdf This issue includes articles about bishul on Shabbos and dairy bread as well as other topics. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 02:10:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:10:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: [Email #1, in reply to R' Akiva Miller.] > My point is that while RMB and RCL are trying to imagine what Torah would > look like without Tosaphos, as I see it, even the Tosaphos that we do have > is a somewhat random document. I believe this is somewhat of an exaggeration. The school of Tosafot was basically begun by Rabbenu Tam followed by Ri (haZaken). Unfortunately we don't have much of their notes and Sefer haYashar is fragmentary. However, from Tosfat Shantz through Tosafot Tuch we have several manuscripts. It is true that the early publishers (or more exactly the rabbis chosen by these publishers) used whatever material they had however, I don't think that in most cases the differences between different talmidim were that great. Obviously some were more verbose and some less so and each included their individual rebbes and their own opinions. Nevertheless on the whole they were similar. Tosafot haRosh was the main version used in much of Spain. For reasons that are not clear to me this version was lost for many centuries before reappearing relatively recently. In individual cases one learns something new from Tosafot haRosh but I am not sure that on the whole it is that dramatically different from the printed versions [Email #2, in reply to me. -micha] > To pasqen mar'os, a rav must also have a mesorah in that sense. It's > a skill, a craft, that is learned from practice under the guidance of > a mentor. Usually called "shimush". I recall seeing recently (on avodah?) a machloket of poskim whether one needs shimush in order to pasken on maaros or it is sufficient to learn from seforim. In general some poskim feel that for many areas shimush is no longer needed now that we have detailed seforim. A number of gedolim of the 20th century essentially learned alone with minimal input from teachers. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 07:20:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 17:20:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] child conversion Message-ID: The recent court to allow conversion of under bar/bat mitzvah children is controversial. The bone of contention is whether it is considred a zechut for children to become Jewish when they grow up in a non-religious setting. R. Rosen recently gave a list of rabbis that allow it (at least bideved) and those that forbid it. I found the list interesting and not what I would have guessed Machmirim and not allowing the conversion: R Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor, Sridei Eish,R. Kook and R. Yisraeli Mekilim (at least bideved) Bet Yitzchak, Mateh Levi, Achiezer, RMF, R. Elyashiv, ROY -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 15:03:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:03:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150823220352.GA13158@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:10:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : In general some poskim feel that for many areas shimush is no longer : needed now that we have detailed seforim. A number of gedolim of the : 20th century essentially learned alone with minimal input from teachers. Well, RYBS's notion of "mesorah" is broader than that, as Rashi and Tosafos are considered part of it. Yes, shimush is more central to relaying a feel for how halakhah should be decided, but books that spell out past decisions also apparently play a role. But the truth is most of the gedolim in the 20th cent (Slabodka alumni aside) learned one-on-one often moving in with their rebbe. What you call "minimal" I would call "short and intense". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 25 18:27:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:27:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion Message-ID: The assumption is that it is better to be a non-religious Jew (thereby violating numerous halakhos) than a moral non-Jew. (I am being over simplistic as being non-Jewish citizen in Israel is more of a liability than elsewhere, so there may be a zechus to be a non-religious ger katan.) The irony as many have noted is that those who are most lenient about child conversion tend to be those who are also lenient in accepting that one could lead a perfectly good life as a non-Jew. Those who think that it is better to be Jewish than non-Jewish by extension should accept the conversion of a ger katan who will be raised by a non-religious family. The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for reasons of Nationalism. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 25 18:50:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:50:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) Message-ID: To parachute into an ongoing discussion, I have found that people use Mesorah in four different ways: 1) Personal Mesorah from a Rebbe to a Talmid. What a scholar or layman learns from his teacher. 2) Mesorah as the unbroken chain of Torah going back to Sinai. Rambam zt"l has the most famous mesorah chart, though I like Micha Berger's. (Parallels can be in Hadith transmission traditiona, Sufi traditions or the Catholic Church's assumption of an unbroken chain back to Peter). 3) Communal norms and traditions. This is how the term is commonly used in the Chareidi communities and also how it is being used in the ongoing discussion. This is the idea that there are legitimate practices, norms, values or halakhic understandings. For example different methodologies of learning. Or, as my brothers-in-law say to me, well if that is the mesorah of your community, then it is legitimate, even if they don't relate to this practice. (Personally, I do not relate to such a usage. Either an approach is valid/true or not valid/true.) I discussed the last category in an essay that Gil was kind enough to post: http://www.torahmusings.com/2011/07/two-types-of-orthodox-judaism/ There are probably other uses of the term *mesorah*, but I cannot think of them at the moment. Best wishes, Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 26 00:43:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:43:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] smart lighting Message-ID: can one use smart lighting on shabbat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_lighting -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 05:00:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:00:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov Message-ID: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? KVCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 10:37:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:37:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:00:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party : to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not : actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) My own lexicon: hakaras hatov: realizing that a good thing came into your life hoda'ah: acknowledging the one who / One Who provided that good Say Avi gives Berakhah a ball. Berakhah's hakaras hatov has an primary object, which is the ball -- the tov she received from Avi. Not taking life's gifts for granted. But her hoda'ah has a primary object -- which is Avi, and a secondary object, the ball. As in the grammar of "Modim anachnu Lakh al..."; the prespositional phrase giving you the secondary object is a list of all the things Hashem does for us. I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. Which, if you think about it, is what Chazal say about the early makos and how Moshe would not be the one to launch a makah that afflicts the water that saved him as a baby or the sand that hid the body. I'm not thrilled with the whole idea of exchanging favors, creating a market. It turns everything back on self-service -- every positive act is tainted by expectation of being repaid. : How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? Perhaps kibud av va'eim and kavod harav are their own concepts for a reason. And that hakaras hatov might explain the issur against hurting or cursing one's parents, but not kavod and yir'ah. I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 10:55:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:55:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". Tir'u baTov! -Micha Zechiyah uMattanah - Chapter Seven Translated by Eliyahu Touger Halacha 1 It is a universally accepted custom in most countries that when a man marries, his friends and acquaintances send him money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Then the friends and acquaintances who sent him this money come and eat and drink with the groom during all - or part - of the seven days of wedding celebration; everything should be done according to the accepted local custom. The money that he is sent is called shushvinut, and the people who send the money and then come and eat and drink with the groom are called shushvinin. Halacha 2 Shushvinut is not an outright gift. For it is plainly obvious that a person did not send a colleague 10 dinarim with the intent that he eat and drink a zuz's worth. He sent him the money solely because his intent was that when he would marry, he would send him money as he has sent him. Therefore, if the sender marries a woman, and the recipient does not return the shushvinut, the sender may lodge a legal claim against the recipient and expropriate the money from him. KVCT 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 12:01:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:01:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55DF5E92.9020405@sero.name> On 08/27/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". I believe the reference is to the law of shushvinin. But that is not a matter of hakaras hatov; it's an explicit quid pro quo arrangement. If you don't pay it back when it falls due, you're cheating the person of a quantifiable amount of money that you explicitly owe him, so he can sue you for it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 12:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <55DF64EA.6000201@sero.name> On 08/27/2015 01:55 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Mistranslation: This should be "...the expenses of the feast." -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 11:40:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 11:40:40 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus Message-ID: if there is a general assumption that one eats in another shomer shabbos' house without going thru their pantry, does the same hold in a shmitta year in israel where there are also multiple minhagim ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 14:08:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:08:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> On 08/28/2015 02:40 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > if there is a general assumption that one eats in another shomer > shabbos' house without going thru their pantry, does the same hold > in a shmitta year in israel where there are also multiple minhagim ? Lich'ora, since there is no consensus about shmita standards among shomrei shabbos, one who has a stricter practise can't assume that a randomly selected shomer shabbos is at least as strict as his. Therefore, without ascertaining this he can't eat those things which (according to his practise) are subject to shmita, but can eat those things which are not. Most importantly, though, he *can* eat from the other person's kelim, even if he *knows* that his shmita practices are more lenient than his own; for this purpose he can rely on "stam keilim einam benei yoman", even though normally one may only rely on this bediavad. This is the famous kula of "keilim divnei rhenus". -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 13:56:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:56:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov Message-ID: R' Micha Berger: <<< I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. >>> "Mah ashiv laShem, kol tagmulohi alai?" Akiva Miller On Aug 28, 2015 2:46 PM, "via Avodah" wrote: > Send Avodah mailing list submissions to > avodah at 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 at lists.aishdas.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." > > > A list of common acronyms is available at > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi > (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Child Conversion (Kaganoff via Avodah) > 2. Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) (Kaganoff via Avodah) > 3. smart lighting (Eli Turkel via Avodah) > 4. hakarat hatov (Rich, Joel via Avodah) > 5. Re: hakarat hatov (Micha Berger via Avodah) > 6. Re: hakarat hatov (Rich, Joel via Avodah) > 7. Re: hakarat hatov (Zev Sero via Avodah) > 8. Re: hakarat hatov (Zev Sero via Avodah) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:27:59 -0400 > From: Kaganoff via Avodah > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion > Message-ID: > oOARsdknGfHD5uwwUfKrmZGA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > The assumption is that it is better to be a non-religious Jew (thereby > violating numerous halakhos) than a moral non-Jew. > > (I am being over simplistic as being non-Jewish citizen in Israel is more > of a liability than elsewhere, so there may be a zechus to be a > non-religious ger katan.) > > The irony as many have noted is that those who are most lenient about child > conversion tend to be those who are also lenient in accepting that one > could lead a perfectly good life as a non-Jew. > > Those who think that it is better to be Jewish than non-Jewish by extension > should accept the conversion of a ger katan who will be raised by a > non-religious family. > > The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious > Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also > for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for > reasons of Nationalism. > > Yonatan > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150825/68f7e72c/attachment.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:50:52 -0400 > From: Kaganoff via Avodah > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) > Message-ID: > JWwz1eftmfgGuULn71A at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > To parachute into an ongoing discussion, I have found that people use > Mesorah in four different ways: > > 1) Personal Mesorah from a Rebbe to a Talmid. What a scholar or layman > learns from his teacher. > > 2) Mesorah as the unbroken chain of Torah going back to Sinai. Rambam zt"l > has the most famous mesorah chart, though I like Micha Berger's. (Parallels > can be in Hadith transmission traditiona, Sufi traditions or the Catholic > Church's assumption of an unbroken chain back to Peter). > > 3) Communal norms and traditions. This is how the term is commonly used in > the Chareidi communities and also how it is being used in the ongoing > discussion. This is the idea that there are legitimate practices, norms, > values or halakhic understandings. For example different methodologies of > learning. Or, as my brothers-in-law say to me, well if that is the mesorah > of your community, then it is legitimate, even if they don't relate to this > practice. (Personally, I do not relate to such a usage. Either an approach > is valid/true or not valid/true.) > > I discussed the last category in an essay that Gil was kind enough to post: > http://www.torahmusings.com/2011/07/two-types-of-orthodox-judaism/ > > There are probably other uses of the term *mesorah*, but I cannot think of > them at the moment. > > Best wishes, > Yonatan > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150825/4814ca39/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:43:29 +0300 > From: Eli Turkel via Avodah > To: Avodah > Subject: [Avodah] smart lighting > Message-ID: > < > CAGDtJ1GVgO0Ez55DoorrtQw_kfhbpGcPtQS8J8mV2rq-8rjYAA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > can one use smart lighting on shabbat > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_lighting > > -- > Eli Turkel > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150826/394e7ffd/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:00:05 +0000 > From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" > To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group (avodah at lists.aishdas.org)" > > Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: > <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de at VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party to > return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not > actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) > How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? > KVCT > 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. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150827/99422da9/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:37:32 -0400 > From: Micha Berger via Avodah > To: "Rich, Joel" , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <20150827173732.GA29088 at aishdas.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:00:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > : Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party > : to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not > : actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) > > My own lexicon: > hakaras hatov: realizing that a good thing came into your life > hoda'ah: acknowledging the one who / One Who provided that good > > Say Avi gives Berakhah a ball. > > Berakhah's hakaras hatov has an primary object, which is the ball -- > the tov she received from Avi. Not taking life's gifts for granted. > > But her hoda'ah has a primary object -- which is Avi, and a secondary > object, the ball. As in the grammar of "Modim anachnu Lakh al..."; > the prespositional phrase giving you the secondary object is a list > of all the things Hashem does for us. > > I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although > there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, > Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an > obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. > > Which, if you think about it, is what Chazal say about the early makos > and how Moshe would not be the one to launch a makah that afflicts the > water that saved him as a baby or the sand that hid the body. > > I'm not thrilled with the whole idea of exchanging favors, creating a > market. It turns everything back on self-service -- every positive > act is tainted by expectation of being repaid. > > > : How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? > > Perhaps kibud av va'eim and kavod harav are their own concepts for a > reason. And that hakaras hatov might explain the issur against hurting > or cursing one's parents, but not kavod and yir'ah. > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, > micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just > http://www.aishdas.org beginning. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:55:37 +0000 > From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" > To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group (avodah at lists.aishdas.org)" > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: > <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7 at VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > > Zechiyah uMattanah - Chapter Seven > Translated by Eliyahu Touger > > > Halacha 1 > > > It is a universally accepted custom in most countries that when a man > marries, his friends and acquaintances send him money to support the > expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Then the friends and > acquaintances who sent him this money come and eat and drink with the groom > during all - or part - of the seven days of wedding celebration; everything > should be done according to the accepted local custom. > > The money that he is sent is called shushvinut, and the people who send > the money and then come and eat and drink with the groom are called > shushvinin. > > > Halacha 2 > > > Shushvinut is not an outright gift. For it is plainly obvious that a > person did not send a colleague 10 dinarim with the intent that he eat and > drink a zuz's worth. He sent him the money solely because his intent was > that when he would marry, he would send him money as he has sent him. > > Therefore, if the sender marries a woman, and the recipient does not > return the shushvinut, the sender may lodge a legal claim against the > recipient and expropriate the money from him. > > KVCT > 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. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:01:38 -0400 > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > To: Micha Berger , The Avodah Torah Discussion > Group > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <55DF5E92.9020405 at sero.name> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > On 08/27/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > I believe the reference is to the law of shushvinin. But that is not > a matter of hakaras hatov; it's an explicit quid pro quo arrangement. > If you don't pay it back when it falls due, you're cheating the person > of a quantifiable amount of money that you explicitly owe him, so he > can sue you for it. > > -- > Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you > zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in > the street and commands me to surrender my purse, > I have a right to kill him without asking questions > -- John Adams > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:28:42 -0400 > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > To: "Rich, Joel" , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <55DF64EA.6000201 at sero.name> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > On 08/27/2015 01:55 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > > money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. > > Mistranslation: This should be "...the expenses of the feast." > > -- > Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you > zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in > the street and commands me to surrender my purse, > I have a right to kill him without asking questions > -- John Adams > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Avodah Digest, Vol 33, Issue 117 > *************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 30 20:32:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 23:32:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz - Lu'ach 5776 Message-ID: <20150831033207.C42DF1831DF@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 00:33:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 03:33:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz - Lu'ach 5776 Message-ID: <20150831073325.1618E182644@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 18:44:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 21:44:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: <20150901014419.GA6761@aishdas.org> Something I noticed... After the animal is shechted, a lung could be hollow, or full of liquid, and it's still kosher. But if there is a pinhole in both membranes around the lung, it's treif. Similarly the brain -- if the outside is solid, the inside could be rotten and the animal is still kosher. These are laws of tereifah that we refuse to change recardless of whether veterinary medicine disagrees about survivability. So I assume there is some point being made about chiyus in general in all this. However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is more important than penimius. Maybe something more like "fake it till you make it" -- as long as you keep the externals going, there is hope that the internals will fill in. But I'm fishing for better suggestions. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 19:18:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 22:18:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Factory Farming and Panicking the Animals Message-ID: <20150901021819.GA14109@aishdas.org> If the lung is tzemuqah (dried enough to be wrinkly like a raisin, but not dry enough to be called yeveishah)... There is a halakhah leMoshe miSinai that if it was due to fright caused by a person, the animel is tereifah if it's caused by HQBH (eg a lion attack), the animal is kosher. (AhS YD 36:70) If you do not know what the cause was, you check the lung -- man-made rei'ah tzemuqah won't rehydrate when soaked in water for 24 hours. But, this test is only used if the cause of the fright wasn't known (se'if 74); the cause of the stress is the iqar, not the dryness. Interesting is a comment at the end of se'if 70: Therefore it is correct that shoechtim be careful not to shecht one ba'al chai in front of another ba'al chai so that the lungs not get wrinkly and will require checking, ae will be explained. Also, there is tza'r ba'alei chaim in it ve'issur gamur hu and so wrote a number of gedolei ha'achronim. So I'm wondering, is our factory-style slaughter mutar? Can you say that this speed is a tachlis that makes the tza'ar needful, and thus mutar? Do people disagree with the AhS and his unnamed acharonim? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 20:52:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 05:52:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus In-Reply-To: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> References: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> Message-ID: <55E5210A.9050302@zahav.net.il> I would just add that like any other kashrut issue, a lot depends on why one has a particular practice. If one refuses to eat heter michira vegetables (that is the real issue) because he feels the HM is simply invalid, that is quite different than not using HM products because one wants to be machmir (assuming of course that not relying on the HM is a chumra). Ben On 8/28/2015 11:08 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > Lich'ora, since there is no consensus about shmita standards among > shomrei shabbos, one who has a stricter practise can't assume that > a randomly selected shomer shabbos is at least as strict as his. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 10:49:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 13:49:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another Tereifos Observation Message-ID: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> As I mentioned yesteday, any hole in the surface of the lung large enough to leak air would make the animal tereifah. What if the hole heals? AhS YD 36:7 (and elsewhere) says that a qerum (membrane) she'alah machmas makkah doesn't count. In se'if 14 he learns peshat in Rashi (Yavamos 76a "eino qerum") that there are two sevaros: 1- because this kind of closure isn't permanent 2- the closure is new. Akin to Chullin 68b "kivan shenitrefah, shuv ein lah heter) But in reality, the AhS says, "be'emes chad ta'amah hu" -- what makes the closure temporary is that it is made from the liquids of the makah. And therefore once the makah is healed, it has no cause. RYME notes that this is bedavqa when a new membrane is closing the hole. But if the side grow in until it closes, the lung is kosher. What about "kivan shenitrefah"? He writes "keshehaheter hayah mukhan be'eis hatarfus, lo chal alahh sheim tarfus ba'olam." Continuing what I wrote yesterday, that there must be much lehislameid from the halakhos of tereifos, given how we etched them in stone despite many of the rules losing their veterinary explanations.... We are told to have bitachon that before sending troubles, "Ein HQBH makeh es Yisrael ela im kein borei lahem refu'ah techilah" (Megillah 13b) This rule of tereifos, that the chalos sheim "tereifah" doesn't apply if the means by which the hole would close were pre-existing, seems to imply something further. In a sense, the makah itself isn't real because the refu'ah is already prepared. It is not that the bad times cause the good ones. Because they aren't permanent enough to be the root of permanent solutions. Rather, it is because it's all one process, the bad times being a bump in a road that from the moment you strarted traveling it leads to good. Or as Nachum ish Gam Zu said, "gam lu LEtovah" (emphasis mine), not "gam zu tovah". What redeems the bad times is that the route from them to tov is there before they even begin. ---- Language note: I noticed that rei'ah means "lungs", even though the term is in the singular and the translation is in the plural. There is no term of art for a single lung -- the main body of each lung is an omah and the lobes are onos or in Hebrew "aznayim". Tir'u baTov! -Micha Off-topic PS: I am seriously finding the beginning of YD turning me off to meat. -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 09:55:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 19:55:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Kosher Switch, Grama and Rav Osher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://podcast.headlinesbook.com/e/8-15-15-headlines/ where Rav Osher Weiss explains in detail his approach to grama, and electricity on Shabbos in general. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 11:17:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 14:17:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another Tereifos Observation In-Reply-To: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> References: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55E5EBB7.7060400@sero.name> On 09/01/2015 01:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Language note: I noticed that rei'ah means "lungs", even though the term > is in the singular and the translation is in the plural. There is no > term of art for a single lung -- the main body of each lung is an omah > and the lobes are onos or in Hebrew "aznayim". Yes, Chazal conceived of the lungs as a single organ. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 18:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 21:45:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > Similarly the brain -- if the outside is solid, the inside > could be rotten and the animal is still kosher. > ... > However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that > chitzonius is more important than penimius. > > Maybe something more like "fake it till you make it" -- as > long as you keep the externals going, there is hope that > the internals will fill in. > > But I'm fishing for better suggestions. I will offer another data point which also seems to suugest that chitzonius is more important than penimius. Mechaber 78:1 and Mishne Brurah 78:2,3 are obviously talking about a person who unfortunately suffers from incontinence. If he urinates while davening, he must pause, but can continue when the flow stops. This applies even if his legs and undergarments are totally wet, but NOT if the urine is on his outer garments. It seems that the cleanliness of one's outer garments is more important than the cleanliness of his undergarments, or even of his body itself. Similarly, if one needs to defecate, but he can hold himself for 4 mil, he will be yotzay davening b'dieved -- Mechaber 92:1. But that leniency is because it is mere pnimius; Mechaber 76:4,5 seems to be stricter once the tzoah has gone external. (Note: I think that it would not be difficult to show that chitzonius *is* important. The problem as I see it is that we've found some cases where it is *more* important than pnimius.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 00:17:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 10:17:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] bavli variants Message-ID: We are pleased to announce the launch of a new version (1.2) of the ' *Hachi **Garsinan*' Site for Variant-Readings of the Talmud Bavli. The site is freely accessible to all through the Friedberg portal: http://jewishmanuscripts.org . Version 1.1 of the website shows all hand-written text witnesses of the Talmud Bavli from the Cairo Genizah, with digital images (more than 4,600) and their transcriptions, in the framework of a software that allows the display of all text-witnesses of a specific Talmudic text in parallel columns in small units. Identical excerpts in a specific text-witness and in the Vilna can be marked, in order to spare the user the effort of comparing the texts. There are also additional helpful functions such as Save and Print, as specified in the website Homepage. *In the new version (1.2) - text witnesses from the following early printings have been added:* - *Guadalajara**(1480?), Spain / Portugal (Toledo? 1480-1490), Portugal (Faro? before 1498), Faro (1497?), Fez (1516-1521)* - *Soncino (1484-1489), Italy (1489-1498), Barco (1498-1499), Pesaro (1509-1516), Constantinople (1505-1509)* - *Venice** (1520-1523) * *(for details on tractates included in early printings - see Homepage). * *Furthermore, a function has been added to enable the user search for **terms or expressions in the Vilna** edition and each of the text witnesses that take part in the current version (Genizah and early printings) as well as a function to display the lexicon (**list of different words and their frequency**) of Vilna and of each of the other text-witnesses. Finally, the new version allows each user to alter the way that the text units are displayed on the variant-readings screen, using special editing tools designed for this purpose.* -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 05:05:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 08:05:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In my previous post, I cited some halachos which seem to demonstrate - surprisingly - that externals are *more* important than internals. Perhaps the source pasuk for those halachos might help us out. Devarim 23:15: "... v'hayah machanecha kadosh, v'lo yir'eh v'cha ervas davar..." "... your *camp* will be holy, and nothing unseemly will be seen in *you*..." We learn much from each of these phrases, but does anyone compare the relative importance of the reisha to that of the seifa? Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 08:31:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 11:31:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150902153128.GB27954@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 09:45:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Mechaber 78:1 and Mishne Brurah 78:2,3 are obviously talking about a person : who unfortunately suffers from incontinence... : Similarly, if one needs to defecate, but he can hold himself for 4 mil, he : will be yotzay davening b'dieved -- Mechaber 92:1. But that leniency is : because it is mere pnimius; Mechaber 76:4,5 seems to be stricter once the : tzoah has gone external. I am not sure these are examples. It may have to do with when tzo'ah smells, or when it starts being "tzo'ah" rather than part of the person. : (Note: I think that it would not be difficult to show that chitzonius *is* : important. The problem as I see it is that we've found some cases where it : is *more* important than pnimius.) Thinking about it more, I have more confidence in my earlier guess, that chitzonius is a better indicator of future penimius than current penimius is. Someone who is a passionate eved H', but for some reason isn't acting on it will likely lose that passion, and someone who develops the right habits in attempt to develop the feelings, mitokh shelo lishimah, ba lishmah. So it's not that it's more important; it's still of derived value. And yet, this reasoning explains Yahadus's focus on halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 18:30:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 21:30:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In Avodah V33n118, R'Micha wrote: > However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is more important than penimius. < Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what can be seen? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 06:30:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:30:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We recently had a thread which discusses the meaning of the word "mesorah". Coincidentally or not, I'd like to ask about the meaning of the verb "moser" as it occurs in the context of the Prozbul. I'd like to begin by giving two different *colloquial* uses of "moser": It can refer to the act of literally handing a fellow Jew to the authorities, but it can also refer to merely informing the authorities about a fellow Jew. My question about Prozbul is this: When the Prozbul says that the lender is "moser" the loans to Beis Din, does he actually hand them over, or does he merely inform? For decades, I had thought that the lender actually gives the loans to the Beis Din, in a manner similar to how anyone can use a commercial collection agency: Usually, if someone owes me money, I can sell that debt to a collection agency, but in the context of Shmitta, I give it as a gift to the beis din. Then, the beis din authorizes me to collect the debt on their behalf, and will allow me to retain 100% of it as my service fee. With the above, I have accomplished three important things: (1) When Rosh Hashana arrives, no one owes me anything, so I have no possibility of violating any halachos of Shmitas Kesafim. (2) When I collect from the borrower, I'm merely acting as an agent of beis din, to whom Lo Yigos does not apply, so I'm not violating anything. (3) Although the lender did not repay anything to me directly, my finances did not suffer, and future Shmitos will not influence to me avoid lending. BUT - From what I've learned, when a Prozbul is done, no kinyan ever occurs between the lender and the Beis Din, not even a kinyan sudar of the sort that I do when authorizing the rav to sell my chometz. Without a kinyan, I can't see how the loan ever leaves the ownership of the lender. So it is clear to me that Prozbul does NOT follow the "collection agency" model. Is there some other model that it does follow? The Mechaber Choshen Mishpat 67:8 talks about a situation that I will presume occurs before Erev Rosh Hashana: "If one claims money, and the other denies it, and the first sues in beis din and wins, and the psak din is that the second one must pay - this is a gibui, and shmita does not cancel it." If I'm understanding this correctly, then when a court verdict declares the A must pay B, this is not the sort of debt that shmita cancels, because the requirement to pay does not come from any interaction between the two men, but directly from the beis din's power. In other words, the lender can ask the borrower for money, but he is not asking for the loan to be repaid; rather, he is enforcing the court's ruling. This is a new obligation upon the borrower, which was created by the court, and is therefore exempt from Shmitas Kesafim. Perhaps this is how Prozbul works: Without any evidence or documentation, or even an itemized list, a person approaches the beis din and tells them that there are debts which are owed to him. The beis din responds with a court order that those debts must be paid. He can now collect them, because it is the *Beis Din* that wants them to be paid (irrespective of the fact that the lender wants them paid). This explanation solves the problem of Lo Yigos: The lender is not pressing the borrower for repayment of a personal loan; he is pressing the borrower to pay the court judgment. But the personal loan does still exist, doesn't it? The lender would still have an obligation to be personally m'shamet the loan at some point, but I think most people think that the Prozbul relieves them of that obligation. I'm stumped. When the lender is "moser" the loan to Beis Din, exactly what is happening? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 11:26:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 18:26:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0b20dda77d534fbdbec18095eaf0ce72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> We recently had a thread which discusses the meaning of the word "mesorah". Coincidentally or not, I'd like to ask about the meaning of the verb "moser" as it occurs in the context of the Prozbul. Akiva Miller ================================= Listen hear for discussion on point http://www.torahbase.org/prozbul-concept-halachos-5775/?lang=en Rav Asher Weiss-Prozbul ? Concept and Halachos 5775 Kvct 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 13:07:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:07:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch Message-ID: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> S"A O"C 55:11 as recorded in the 1st volume of the mishna brurah (it's not in my regular S"A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of the S"A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn't apply "now" because dina dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? KVCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 14:41:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2015 23:41:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What am I missing? Message-ID: <55EB6184.5050706@zahav.net.il> Re prozbul, I seem to be missing something. Personally I haven't loaned out any huge sums such that if I don't get them back, I would be reticent about loaning in the future. If I did loan out something small, why should I sign the prozbul? If the borrower doesn't pay me, well he doesn't have to (right?). If the borrower does pay me, he gets a bracha and everyone is a winner. What am I missing? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 21:10:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 00:10:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <55EBBC9C.9070304@sero.name> On 09/04/2015 04:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > S?A O?C 55:11 as recorded in the 1^st volume of the mishna brurah (it?s not in my regular S?A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of the S?A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn?t apply ?now? because dina dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? The note appears in the first edition, so presumably it was put there by the original publisher, in order to get it past the censor. Or perhaps it was inserted at the censor's insistence. In any case it houldn't need saying that it was not intended to be taken seriously by the intended audience. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49623&pgnum=170 (BTW, the censor's approval is dated 23-Dec-1882, the Hebrew date on the front page is 5683, but the secular date on the front page is 1884. Presumably that's how long publishing took.) -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 21:04:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 00:04:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Factory Farming and Panicking the Animals Message-ID: From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> If the lung is tzemuqah (dried enough to be wrinkly like a raisin, but not dry enough to be called yeveishah)... There is a halakhah leMoshe miSinai that if it was due to fright caused by a person, the animel is tereifah if it's caused by HQBH (eg a lion attack), the animal is kosher. (AhS YD 36:70) ....Interesting is a comment at the end of se'if 70: Therefore it is correct that shoechtim be careful not to shecht one ba'al chai in front of another ba'al chai so that the lungs not get wrinkly and will require checking, ae will be explained. << Micha Berger >>>> I remember reading that Temple Grandin had designed a spiral ramp with high walls for cattle to walk along before reaching the slaughtering spot. The design was such that the animal could not see out the sides or very far ahead as it walked, and would thus not witness other animals being slaughtered. This was meant to keep the animal calm and not frightened. I did not find the article with a quick google search but I am sure it's available somewhere. Temple Grandin is a famous expert in humane methods of animal slaughter. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 01:19:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 11:19:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? Message-ID: Most of selichos is us beseeching Hashem (poetically) for forgiveness and declaring that we are unworthy and sinners. However, the main part of selichos is the recitation of the 13 middos. However, the recitation of the 13 kiddos seems like almost magic, something we say because Hashem told us to as we say in the preceding paragraph "Hashem you commanded us to say the 13 [middos] ... as you told Moshe [the anav] ...". What is our kavannah supposed to be when we say the 13 middos? What should we be thinking? Why is saying the 13 middos so important? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 16:25:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 19:25:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150906232531.GA15175@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 11:19:51AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Most of selichos is us beseeching Hashem (poetically) for forgiveness and : declaring that we are unworthy and sinners. However, the main part of : selichos is the recitation of the 13 middos. However, the recitation of the : 13 kiddos seems like almost magic, something we say because Hashem told us : to as we say in the preceding paragraph "Hashem you commanded us to say the : 13 [middos] ... as you told Moshe [the anav] ...". What is our kavannah : supposed to be when we say the 13 middos? What should we be thinking? Why : is saying the 13 middos so important? Actually, the wording in the gemara is Whenever Israel sins *ya'asu* lefana keseder hazaeh, and I will pardon them. The point isn't to say the 13 Middos, they're just a reminder that we're supposed to do them. If we remember the essential, to be merciful people in His Image, HQBH is ready to pardon everything else. (I am defining "mocheil" as pardon as in being mochel a debt, in contrast to full forgiveness. That's a choice among how acharonim take selichah, mechilah and kapparah, so your mileage may vary.) I passionately recommend printing up and keeping it with your selichos and YK Machzor. It's a summary of the 13 Middos as per Tomer Devorah mapped to the version of the Thirteen Middos in Shemos that we say in Selichos. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 16:58:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 19:58:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 08:07:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : S"A O"C 55:11 as recorded in the 1st volume of the mishna brurah (it's : not in my regular S"A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of : the S"A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting : for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn't apply "now" because dina : dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. However, the MBs Poland wasn't it. Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 07:31:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 10:31:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: Let's go back to one of the sources: Yoma 72b - "Any talmid chacham whose tocho (inside) is not like his baro (outside) is not a talmid chacham." Is this speaking only of one who appears fine externally, but is deficient internally? Or does it also apply to one who is fine internally, but doesn't look it to an outside observer? If it applies to both, does anyone compare the two? I have always presumed that the one who is not-so-good on the inside is a bigger problem than the one who is okay on the inside. But if I understood them correctly, RMB and RMP brought independent reasons why one should focus on the externals. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 01:32:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 11:32:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What am I missing? Message-ID: R' Ben Waxman asked: > Re prozbul, I seem to be missing something. Personally I haven't loaned > out any huge sums such that if I don't get them back, I would be > reticent about loaning in the future. If I did loan out something small, > why should I sign the prozbul? If you have money in the bank in Israel then you have lent the bank money and therefore Shemitta will cancel your loan and the bank could keep your money. Now, the fact is that all the banks in Israel have a hater iska so that they can pay interest, but even with a heter iska half the amount is an iska but half is a loan, so the half that is a loan would be cancelled by shemita. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 17:56:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 20:56:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> I passionately recommend printing up . It explains the 13 Middos as found in Shemos and therefore Selichos in terms of the version in Michah and the Tomer Devorah thereon. Rather than repeating the same words / names over and over throughout selichos and much of Yom Kippur, it can become an opportunity to commit and recommit to emulating them. As the gemara (RH 17b) says Whenver Israel sin, they shall perform before Me like this structure (ya'asu lefanai keseider zeh), and I will forgive them. Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:27:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:27:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 08:56 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > As the gemara (RH 17b) says > Whenver Israel sin, they shall perform before Me like this structure > (ya'asu lefanai keseider zeh), and I will forgive them. > > Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:18:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:18:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55ECF3DF.8090003@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 04:19 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > However, the recitation of the 13 middos seems like almost magic, > something we say because Hashem told us to as we say in the preceding > paragraph Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we say them and invoke that promise. Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a magical power that the holy ketores has. The Malach Hamaves told Moshe Rabbenu about this trick, and when the occasion arose Moshe told Aharon to use it. "There are more things in heaven and earth..." -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:22:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:22:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was > written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? No. > Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law > and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't > practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. > > However, the MBs Poland wasn't it Yes, it absolutely was. > Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 12:08:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 15:08:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dr. Leo Deutschlander - Father of the Bais Yaakov Movement Message-ID: <20150907190830.A1951181640@nexus.stevens.edu> The name of Sarah Schneirer is invariably associated with the Bais Yaakov Movement. However, she was not the only one who was responsible for the success of the movement before WW II. Sarah Schneirer was an idealist who decided that religious schools for girls were needed in Poland and who set out to found such schools. However, WADR to Sarah Schneirer, she had a very limited academic background and her Jewish education was quite basic. (This was the case for most girls who lived when she did.) Thus others were needed to assist her in the development of the Bais Yaakov Movement. One such person was Dr. Leo Deutschlander. Up until today I knew very little about him. I did know that there had been an article in the Jewish Observer about his life, but I did not have access to it. Today a friend mine, who has a complete collection of all issues of the JO, brought me a copy of the article about Dr. Deutschlander. I have put it at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/deutschlander.pdf Note that other people who helped Sarah Schneirer with the development of the Bais Yaakov movement are mentioned and almost all of them have a Frankfurt background which means they attended the school that RSRH started in Frankfurt that educated both boys and girls. Thus in a certain sense RSRH is to be considered the grandfather of the Bais Yaakov Movement. Judith nee Rosenbaum Grunfeld played a key role in the development for the Bais Yaakov movement. See her article about Sarah Schneirer at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/sara_schenierer.pdf Anyone really interested in the history of the Bais Yaakov movement should read Rabbi Abraham Atkin's PhD thesis which is titled The Beth Jacob Movement in Poland 1917-1939. I have put this document at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/beth_jacob_movement_poland.pdf Note that the article about Dr. Deutschlander says that he never had children. To the best of my knowledge, he never married, yet he taught Bais Yaakov girls of seminary age and perhaps even younger, something that would be considered scandalous today! Given that Dr. Deutschlander never married, I find him being characterized by Chaim Shapiro as the "Father of the Bais Yaakov Movement" somewhat amusing. >:-} YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 11:41:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 14:41:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar Message-ID: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> Please click here to download a back issue of Halachically Speaking on eating before Shofar. ---------- From the article Custom of Some Gedolim The Steipler zt"l used to recite the zohar and other tefillos during the break. In his later years he recited portions of tehillim.[1] He did not make kiddush before tekios.[2] Harav Moshe Feinstein zt"l did not eat before tekios.[3] Harav Elyashiv zt"l [4] and Harav Yisroel Belsky Shlita do not eat or drink before tekios. [1] Orchos Rabbeinu 2:page 182:4. Refer to Darchei Chaim V'sholom 716:page 251. [2] Orchos Rabbeinu 2:page 181:1. Refer to Chelek Levi 189. [3] As related by Harav Aron Felder Shlita. [4] As quoted in Chag B'chag page 113:footnote 79. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 14:13:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 17:13:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar In-Reply-To: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <55EDFE13.7010505@sero.name> I have to admit that this is one of the Lubavitcher customs that puzzle me. All year, not just on Shabbos but also on weekdays, the official Lubavitch minhag is to allow eating before davening (after saying sh'ma, on weekdays in tefillin), on the grounds that it's difficult to daven properly without it. In the Tzemach Tzedek's words, "it's better to eat in order to daven, than to daven in order to eat". If you find that you're davening in order to get to breakfast, you'd do better to get breakfast over with and then daven with kavanah. And yet on Rosh Hashana, when one often doesn't get to kiddush until 2 or 3 in the afternoon, and when one needs kavanah in davening more than ever, Lubavitchers fast until kiddush! I don't understand it. If you can make it on Rosh Hashana, why not on any other day? And if you can't daven on an empty stomach on a weekday without thinking about breakfast, then how can you daven on an even emptier stomach on Rosh Hashana without thinking about lunch? -- Zev Sero KVChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 16:32:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:32:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:18:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. : Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we : say them and invoke that promise. : Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores : to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a : magical power that the holy ketores has.. Where is this made explicit? On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:27:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. : That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". Who said that remembering something in tefillah, unlike lekhishah, talks about the words themselves without internalization? What's the verb for tefillah, anyway? In any case, the idea that it's about saying the words until we're committed to emulating them isn't mine, it's R' Elimelekh miLetzhinsk's, the Chafeitz Chaim's and R YL Chasmin's. The latter two relate this gemara to "mah Hu 'Rachum' af atah..." Hashem is not only just, He's not a Vatran. The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 16:43:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:43:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:22:37PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was :> written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? : No. Source? :> Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law :> and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't :> practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. :> However, the MBs Poland wasn't it : Yes, it absolutely was. Again, source? Actual excommunications were commonplace. Comes up in teshuvos on agunah. :> Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. : Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could : be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the : MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. In the CC's hayday, Radun was in the Vilna Voivodship, Poland. And I didn't ask about censortship, I asked about autonomy, as in having courts empowered to punish, and the Jewish community certainly did. At least, azoi shteyt YIVO The Polish government never recognized Jewish communal autonomy de jure, but autonomy existed de facto in hundreds of local communities, school systems, and youth movements during the interwar period. Because regardless of whether this appeal to dina demalkhusa was real or to satisfy a censor, the mileau that created this footnote had to have such a law. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 17:42:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 20:42:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EE2EF6.2060509@sero.name> On 09/07/2015 07:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:18:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. > : Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we > : say them and invoke that promise. > > : Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores > : to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a > : magical power that the holy ketores has.. > > Where is this made explicit? It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell? Also, the gemara deduces that this is where Moshe must have got it, because how else could he possibly have known about it? Now if it was about the kavanos or the zechus of the mitzvah stopping plagues, then why couldn't Moshe Rabbenu have worked it out from first principles? This shows that it isn't anything that could be worked out, there's no reason why it should be so, it just is. In other words, magic. > > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:27:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. > > : That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". > > Who said that remembering something in tefillah, unlike lekhishah, talks > about the words themselves without internalization? What's the verb for > tefillah, anyway? "Lehazkir" doesn't mean to remember, it means to mention, to pronounce words. For that matter, the word "yaasu" that you're basing yourself on refers not to the midos themselves but to the "seder tefillah", i.e. the ritual of naming the midos. > Hashem is not only just, He's not a Vatran. The notion of magic words > that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah > would be very problematic. But that is what the gemara seems to say. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 18:06:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 21:06:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EE34A8.7060303@sero.name> On 09/07/2015 07:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:22:37PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was > :> written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? > > : No. > > Source? There is no source that it was banned then. Why would you even imagine that it would be? There is no such note in any edition of the Shulchan Aruch. In any case, the concept of banning cherem doesn't seem to have come up until the late 18th century. http://t95.el.sl.pt > :> Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law > :> and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't > :> practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. > > :> However, the MBs Poland wasn't it > > : Yes, it absolutely was. > > Again, source? Actual excommunications were commonplace. Comes up > in teshuvos on agunah. Catherine the Great banned cherem in 1795. Of course they ignored the law and did it anyway, but to get a sefer past the publisher they had to pretend to be obeying the law, so if the sefer mentioned cherem they had to note that this was written before it became illegal. > :> Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. > > : Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could > : be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the > : MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. > > In the CC's hayday, Radun was in the Vilna Voivodship, Poland. What Poland? There was no such place as Poland. It was Russia, and there was no autonomy. > And I didn't ask about censortship, I asked about autonomy, as in having > courts empowered to punish, and the Jewish community certainly did. > At least, azoi shteyt YIVO > > The Polish government never recognized Jewish communal autonomy de > jure, but autonomy existed de facto in hundreds of local communities, > school systems, and youth movements during the interwar period. Read what you just wrote: "The Polish government". What period could this paragraph possibly be talking about? The period when there was a Poland and a Polish government. IOW not the time we are discussing. And indeed if you look at the page again, you will see that it is explicitly discussing the interwar period, after Polish independence. > Because regardless of whether this appeal to dina demalkhusa was real > or to satisfy a censor, the mileau that created this footnote had to > have such a law. Yes, it did. Catherine's law that I mentioned above. And it also had a strict censorship law, which this sefer was subject to. If you need any further convincing, note the language of the censor's stamp. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 20:16:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 23:16:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Joel Rich wrote: > Listen hear for discussion on point > http://www.torahbase.org/prozbul-concept-halachos-5775/?lang=en > Rav Asher Weiss - Prozbul - Concept and Halachos 5775 Thank you very much for showing me this. I listened to it a few times, and it seems that he gives his conclusions right at the beginning: (00:42 to 01:05) "The takana of Pruzbul is that there is no need to physically give over your notes to Beis Din and there is no need Beis Din should be the ones to collect your money. Hillel was metaken: it is enough if you declare, either orally or in writing, Mosrani lachem..." (02:00-02:24) "The takana of Hillel was: It is enough if you write 'Mosrani lachem ploni v'ploni'. It is considered AS IF you transferred your notes to Beis Din, and when you collect the money, you would be considered AS IF you would be shliach of Beis Din even though it's not really the real thing in practicality. But that was the takana of Pruzbul." But how does it work? He clearly says (at 8:40 to 9:23) that the functions of a Beis Din do not include acting as a collection agency. There ARE (9:49 to 10:30) are very limited circumstances where Beis Din does have that function, such as collecting for yesomim, because that *is* one of the roles of the Beis Din, as "avi yesomim". One the other hand, (10:30 to 10:52) yesomim do not need to make a pruzbul at all, because Beis Din is *automatically* the Avi Yesomim, and their loans will not be cancelled by shmitta. So he suggests (12:19 to 12:40) that although it is not Beis Din's practice to accept the responsibility of collecting loans except for unusual cases, perhaps the difficulties posed by Shmitta put other loans in this category, and so if someone would be moser his loans to Beis Din, then Shmitta will not cancel them. But exactly why are such loans exempt? He explains (14:20 to 14:40), "You have to be m'shamet loans, but the moment you gave your notes, your loans over to Beis Din, it is k'gavui dami - it is as if those monies were already collected." He then compares this situation to the case where the lender has collateral for the loan, and that too is "already collected" and exempt from Shmitas Kesafim. It seems to me that this is how Rav Weiss understands the Pruzbul: The loan was and remains property of the lender, but Beis Din accepts the responsibility to go to the borrower to demand payment. From that point, it is considered as "already collected". Since it is already collected, not only is he allowed to request the money after Rosh Hashana, but there's no need to even state "M'shamet Ani". There is no need for any kinyan, because the loan remains property of the lender, and the role of Beis Din is simply to accept responsibility for collecting the loan; this occurs automatically at the inception of the loan where the lender is an orphan, and it also occurs automatically at the execution of a Pruzbul per Ezra's takana. ON THE OTHER HAND, over Shabbos a friend lent me his copy of Sefer Dinei Shviis Hashalem, published by Keren Hatarbut Degel Yerushalayim, which contains a photo of a pruzbul on the stationery of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and (apparently) in his handwriting, dated 29 Elul 5754. It contains a very interesting clause. Other pruzbuls avoid details, and simply say something like "I am moser my loans to beis din", but this one adds some very significant points. Here is the full pruzbul, as best as I can render it: "[B'mosav tlasa bei dina k'chada havinu] We were three dayanim sitting together, [uva l'faneinu...] and R' Aharon Dovid Goldberg came [v'amar lanu] and said to us: [Hen shana zu hee shnas hashviis] This year is the seventh year, [v'yesh li chovos b'shtar uv'al peh] and I have loans - both in writing and orally - [al ayzeh anashim] against certain people. [V'hareni moser lachem pruzbul] I am now moser a pruzbul to you, [viyhavis l'chon b'matana] and give it to you as a gift [b'kinyan dalet' amos karka] with a kinyan of four amos of land, [me'arah d'ees li] from the ground that is mine. [V'al gabayhon] And through that, [arshees yas'chon] I give you permission [limigbah kol chovos] to collect all my loans, [d'ees lee al inshee] which I have against people. [Mayatah t'havoon li daiyna] Henceforth you will be my dayanim, [v'sagbuhu uskabluhu li] and you will collect and accept payment for me. [V'im lo tagbuhu atem] And if you do not collect it yourselves, [mayata kayvan shemasarti lachem pruzbul zeh] then since I was moser this pruzbul to you, [ani goveh kol chov] so I can collect any loan [sheyesh li ad hayom etzel kol adam] which I have up to today against anyone, [kol zman she'ertzeh] any time I want. [next paragraph] - "[Anachnu beis din] We the court [shamanu dvarav] heard his words, [veefinu kocho] and affirm its validity, [shelo t'shamet lay] that he will not have a cancellation, [v'yigbeh kol chovosav] and he can collect all his loans, [al ydei pruzbul zeh] via this pruzbul, [k'takanas Hillel v'Chazal] in accordance with the takana of Hillel and Chazal. [next paragraph] - "[Banu al hechasum] We have signed below [yom kaf"tes l'chodesh Elul, shnas heh-tav-shin-nun"dalet] this day, 29th of Elul 5754 [poh Ir Hakodesh Yerushalayim] here, the holy city of Yerushalayim. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach [I cannot read the other two signatures]" (end of pruzbul) I don't understand the purpose of the four amos of land. (Yes, I'm quite aware of the requirement in halacha, I just don't understand why that requirement was included. That's a topic for another thread.) And I quite likely made some errors in the transliteration and the translation. But I think that I understood it well enough to state with confidence that it seems that RSZA does indeed subscribe to the "collection agency" model, which Rav Asher Weiss had so clearly rejected. RSZA explicitly uses the word "kinyan". One could argue that the "matanah" which the lender is giving to the beis din is merely the pruzbul and not the loans. One could also point out that after the kinyan has occurred, the lender continues to refer to the loans (which beis din would collect) as "MY loans", suggesting that they are still owned by the lender and not the beis din. But if that is so, then what does it mean to make a kinyan on the *pruzbul*? This pruzbul is merely a record of the court proceedings, and it seems very likely to me that the intent is for the court to acquire the loans themselves, in very much the same way that a modern collection agency works. If anyone disagrees, and feels that RSZA does *not* subscribe to the "collection agency" model, please explain how you think this pruzbul works. And if anyone does agree with me, then I wonder if any other poskim hold that way, because every explanation of pruzbul that I've seen describes the document itself, and no one ever mentions any requirement of kinyan. Thank you Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 02:10:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 05:10:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar Message-ID: And if you can't daven on an empty stomach on a weekday without thinking about breakfast, then how can you daven on an even emptier stomach on Rosh Hashana without thinking about lunch? Kal v?chomer, how can you daven on T?B and Y?K when you wake up without having even drinking or eating and then must go another good 12 hours on an empty stomach? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 03:51:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:51:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote; > "It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that > ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to > have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there > the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so > obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. > How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell?" Rashi in Chumash quoting the Mechilta offers a second explanation of why the ketores was used to end the plague. Bnei Yisrael were complaining about the ketores that it was a sam hamaves, that it killed people. The ketores killed Nadav and Avihu, it killed the 250 people, therefore Hashem said watch that it can stop the plague and that sin is what really kills people. We see clearly from this explanation that there was nothing magical about using the ketores, rather Hashem wanted to make a point to the Jewish people about the ketores. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 07:35:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:35:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very problematic. (Or perhaps "confusing" would be a better description, as it moves the focus away from a "problematic halacha", chalila, and towards my obligation to understand it.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 08:14:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 11:14:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:35:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a : measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very : problematic... And I don't believe there is such a thing, so I have no problem. I suggested twice now 2007 http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol23/v23n174.shtml#12 and 2010 http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n130.shtml that itzumo shel yom mechaperes only someone who acknowledges and embraces the etzem shel yom. >From 2007: > My understanding is that itzumo shel yom is mechapeir, but without inuyim, > one isn't connected to that etzem. IOW, someone who eats on YK doesn't > get kapparah, but someone who observes YK gets kapparah from YK itself, > not the zekhus of observance. > And it's clear from R' Elazar ben Azaryah on Yuma 86a that YK is never > effective in and of itself. > - For an asei, teshuvah is effective > - For a regular lav, teshuvah must first achieve selichah (removal of > onesh) before YK can effect kaparah > - For a chayav kareis, one needs teshuvah and YK for selichah, and onesh > brings kaparah > - For chillul Hashem, only misah brings kaparah. > The philosophical problems are > (1) The justice in YK being mechapeir > (2) Given a ba'asher hu sham approach, why would onesh or misah in and > of itself help? > I couldn't make heads or tails of it without stretching the notion, > and saying that YK is mechapeir to the extent that one allows oneself to > experience the soul-changing nature of YK, and thus change the ba'asher > hu sham. Similarly oneshim or misah. I know all this could be seen as dachuq BUT, Divine Justice is the 11th iqar. I would prefer to take a number of chazal's statements as colloquial shorthand for more nuanced ideas than to dismiss what we have blessed as a defining feature of Yahadus. Or IOW, given that Ani Maamin and Yigdal made it into the siddur, I feel the burden rests on those who take itzumo shel yom in its simple sense. (And yes, "problematic" should be tken as "a problem for us to understand.") Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 10:08:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:08:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 midos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55EF15F0.8060200@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 06:50 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote; >> "It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that >> ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to >> have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there >> the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so >> obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. >> How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell?" > Rashi in Chumash quoting the Mechilta offers a second explanation of > why the ketores was used to end the plague. Bnei Yisrael were > complaining about the ketores that it was a sam hamaves, that it > killed people. The ketores killed Nadav and Avihu, it killed the 250 > people, therefore Hashem said watch that it can stop the plague and > that sin is what really kills people. > > We see clearly from this explanation that there was nothing magical > about using the ketores, rather Hashem wanted to make a point to the > Jewish people about the ketores. Yes, this is an alternative explanation, offered because the primary explanation leaves some question unanswered. But it is the second explanation rather than the first, because the problem with it is obvious: Hashem didn't tell Moshe to do this. Moshe told Aharon on his own initiative, which is why the gemara wonders how he knew that it would work. This is also why the Malach Hamaves challenged Aharon's right to stop him; if the instruction had come from Hashem he would have had no reason to object to being stopped. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 12:04:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:04:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55EF3124.3060704@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 05:10 AM, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: > Kal v?chomer, how can you daven on T?B and Y?K when you wake up > without having even drinking or eating and then must go another good > 12 hours on an empty stomach? Absolutely. But you don't have a choice. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 12:07:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:07:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> References: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EF31E7.5090303@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 11:14 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:35:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > : True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a > : measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very > : problematic... > > And I don't believe there is such a thing, so I have no problem. > > I suggested twice now 2007 > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol23/v23n174.shtml#12 and 2010 > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n130.shtml that > itzumo shel yom mechaperes only someone who acknowledges and embraces > the etzem shel yom. Rebbi is the one who says Itzumo shel yom mechaper, and he explicitly says that one who eats on YK is automatically forgiven the moment he swallows the food, so that the only way to get kares for eating on YK is to choke on the food and die before swallowing it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 10:18:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:18:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] thermostats Message-ID: as thermostats for the house get more sophisticated do they present a shabbat problem? http://www.cnet.com/products/nest-learning-thermostat-third-generation/?ftag=CAD1acfa04 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 10:37:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:37:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 12:11:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 15:11:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> References: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F08476.8010605@sero.name> On 09/09/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay > (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan. Whether it's allowed is a different question from how it works. Moser Shtorosav leveis din worked even when shmitah was d'oraisa. Tosfos says that Hillel didn't invent it, he merely legitimised it. Before his day it was known, but it was considered unethical, and no reputable beis din would go along with it. To do it required finding a fly-by- night beis din willing to entertain it, so upstanding lenders didn't take advantage, and instead were reluctant to lend. Then Hillel decreed his "solution for rich and poor", which was to instruct botei din to accept and even encourage such applications, so that people would be willing to lend. And he only felt comfortable doing so because shmita was d'rabonon. -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 15:32:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 18:32:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 09:30:46PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V33n118, R'Micha wrote: :> However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is :> more important than penimius. : Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what can : be seen? How is the surface of a lung or brain more visible than the innards? The only difference is how much cutting is required. In general, halakhah only deals with what can be seen in principle, not what happens to be visible in this instance. You can't eat unchecked lettuce any more readily because the light bulb blew in the room you're in. And in principle, these things can be checked. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 17:23:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:23:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> Re: Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom - Rabbi Natan Slifkin From: Ben Rothke via Areivim <_areivim at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:areivim at lists.aishdas.org) > >> "The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom" is the latest book by Rabbi Natan Slifkin. I found it to be a fascinating work. My review is here: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/book-review-the-torah-encyclopedia-of-the-ani mal-kingdom Let me know what you think. << --Ben Rothke >>>>> I think the book is magnificent. I've seen the first volume and read a good chunk of it (the projected second volume is not out yet). It is a fascinating work based on tremendous research, and also aesthetically beautiful. The first volume is about wild animals mentioned in the Torah. The projected second volume I believe is about domestic and kosher animals. The book definitively answers, at least to my satisfaction, a question I've wondered about for a long time: What is a re'em? According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). In Moshe's brachos to the shevatim he says Yoseph has "the horns of a re'em" (Dev. 33:17). Bil'am says when Hashem took the Jews out of Egypt He had "like the strength of a re'em" (Bamidbar 23:22). R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs, a huge and powerful horned animal, a wild ox, nearly the size of an elephant, that lived in Europe, Asia and North Africa. It went extinct only about 400 years ago. The last recorded aurochs died in Poland in 1627. BTW a description and drawing of the aurochs can be seen on pages 17 - 18 of a lovely 28-page monograph that is particularly appropriate for this season. See *Exotic Shofars: Halachic Considerations* by R' Natan Slifkin. http://zootorah.com/assets/media/essays/ExoticShofars.pdf --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 21:37:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:37:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> ------------------------------ I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem?s love for His people: ?If you sin, even if you?re not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here?s a ?ticket? of sorts that I?m giving you _now_ to show my love for you, that if you ?remind? me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate that you see yourselves as close to me, and I?ll give you some measure of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah.? The best Mashal I could think of for this is a PBA placard ? you buy it and put it in your car, and when the cop pulls you over for speeding, you show it to him and he goes easy on you, because he sees that you?re really a friend of the police. NOT because you demonstrated regret for speeding, necessarily. Does that make sense? KT, MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:14:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:14:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Thinking about, knowing about, and knowing G-d In-Reply-To: <000601d0eb81$09d77c90$1d8675b0$@gmail.com> References: <20150901180343.GC11612@aishdas.org> <20150903002115.GA1793@aishdas.org> <55F08884.3010503@sero.name> <000601d0eb81$09d77c90$1d8675b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150910191452.GD3345@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:27:43AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Areivim wrote: : R' ZS: :> The Nachum in your story is too busy to think about HKBH, and that's not :> good, but OTOH HKBH Himself said "I wish they would forget me and keep my :> Torah", so this Nachum is better than someone who is constantly :> thinking about HKBH but doesn't keep mitzvos. But this is why Tanya :> (ch 41) says to interrupt ones learning once an hour to think about why one :> is learning. : This discussion reminds me that there's another step - not only to think : about Hashem, but to _know_ about Hashem, as in the old story (excerpted : from a piece I wrote for "A Daily Dose of Torah"): : R' Levi Yitzchok of Berditchev studied for an extended period of time with : the Maggid, R' Dov Ber of Mezeritch. When he returned, his father-in-law - : who did not approve of R' Levi Yitzchok's leanings towards chassidus - asked : him, "What did you learn there?" R' Levi Yitzchok answered, "I learned that : Hashem exists." His father-in-law, annoyed, protested that everyone knows : that, and to prove it, asked the maid, "Does Hashem exist?" She answered, : "Certainly!" : "She says it," R' Levi Yitzchok responded, "but I know it!" : Certainly pertinent to Malchiyos. I often quote something R/Prof Shalom Carmy wrote in (Aug '01): > [RGStudent: ] >> However, in his Al HaTeshuvah (pp. 195-201), R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik >> investigates what it means to "know" God. As he points out, it is >> impossible to know God. Rather, the Rambam means that we are obligated to >> constantly recognize God's existence. As it says in Mishlei (3:6), "In all >> your ways know Him." Cf. Rabbeinu Yonah's commentary to Mishlei, ad loc. > People who throw around big words on these subjects always seem to take > for granted things that I don't. > The people who keep insisting that it's necessary to prove things about > G-d, including His existence, seem to take it for granted that devising > these proofs is identical with knowing G-d. > Now if I know a human being personally the last thing I'd do, except as > a purely intellectual exercise, is prove his or her existence. RMYG's point is similar to that in the quote from RGS. There is a difference between knowing about Gcd and knowing Gcd. The latter is experiential, and doesn't demand proof. And IMHO more related to Malkhios. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:23:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:23:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150910192331.GA25852@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 04:56:04PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger: :> I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although :> there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, :> Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an :> obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. : "Mah ashiv laShem, kol tagmulohi alai?" I do not see obligation here. Rather, how can I possibly repay, given that everything I have is from Him. Even if voluntarily. Therefore (next pasuq), I will simply recognize what He gave me (kos yeshu'os esa) and that He was the One Who gave it (uvsheim H' eqra), follow through on what I already promised.... Do you see new obligations in this pereq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:47:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:47:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:02:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. : I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear as : ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) ... It's an intersting point, but relating it to RYBS's position just confuses the matter. You're using the word "ceremony" in nearly the opposite sense. And while you note that: : I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview it. : Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not : ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view This isnt' merely an answer, it's an indication that you're discussing two different topics. There is no question, just a miscommunication. Anyway, the contrast between the usages of the word "ceremony" interested me. You listed a number of cases where a halachic legality can be accomplished through something the lay-person considers meaningless ritual: pruzbul, mechiras chameitz, heter isqa, ha'aramos, etc.. RYBS made that statement about ceremony in the sense of ritual in which the person finds meaning, but lacks halachic structure. The two examples that most readily leap to mind are (1) his disparaging kiruv that focuses on white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos candelabra, and (2) his modifying the minhagim of the Three Weeks and Nine Days because leshitaso, the minhagim must follow the same forms as ones found in hilkhos aveilus. I posted about this in Aug '08 at . I also noted in 2011 that RYBS's position that minhag must mirror halachic structure is in opposition to the Brisker Rav's (his uncle's) shitah. RYZS holds that one makes berakhos on minhagim that have a cheftzah shel mitzvah (eg lighting a Chanukah menorah in shul), and that the Rambam and Rabbeinu Tam don't argue about that. What they do argue about is whether Chatzi Hallel is close enough to Hallel to qualify for a berakhah. However, leshitas RYBS, there are no such minhagim that wouldn't require a berakhah. If Chatzi Hallel didn't require a berakhah because it's not close enough to the cheftzah shel mitzvah, it would be "ceremony", and not a valid minhag. He therefore would have to reject his uncle's chiddush. Neo-Chassidus is basically a MO rebellion to this kind of Halakhic Man approach to Yahadus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 10:54:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:54:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle Message-ID: <20150910175503.5E910182948@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6500 Picture, if you will, the hallowed halls of almost any Yeshivah, almost anywhere in the world, on Rosh Hashanah morning. As the strains of Shiras Chanah conclude, followed by the post-Haftarah brachos, there suddenly is a loud bang on the Bimah and the Gabbai calls out "Kiddush!" Most of those assembled take a break for a quick Kiddush and then return for the day's main Mitzvah - the Tekiyas Shofar, the Blowing of the Shofar. The reciting of 'Lamnatzeach' soon reach a crescendo, not unlike a deafening roar, as the congregation eagerly anticipates and prepares for the Shofar Blowing. Although this is indeed the common custom in almost every Yeshivah, curiously, the idea of making Kiddush and eating prior to the main Mitzvah of the day is considered an anathema to some. In fact, the Matteh Efraim, who is considered the authority on issues relating to the Yomim Nora'im, writes that it is actually prohibited to eat before Tekiyas Shofar, barring if one is weak, and, even only then, a small 'Te'imah', tasting of food, in private, is allowed.[1] If so, why do so many make Kiddush[2] and eat before Tekiyas Shofar? To sum up the matter, and although this dilemma is quite complicated, one must ascertain from his knowledgeable halachic authority, as well as taking his personal situation, strength level, and minhag into account, as to what to do on Rosh Hashanah morning.[23] Postscript: One interesting upshot of this machlokes seems to be the recent proliferation of Vasikin Minyanim on Rosh Hashanah. In this way, it is possible to daven all of Shacharis and Mussaf and still be able to make Kiddush after completing davening but still before Chatzos, as well as gain all the spiritual benefits of 'Davening Haneitz'.[24] A seemingly excellent way to avoid spiritual conflict on the Day of Judgment, all the while literally fulfilling the Rambam's famous dictum (Hilchos Teshuvah Ch. 3: 4) of 'Uru Yesheinim Mi'shnascham, Wake up you slumberers, from your sleep', for the clarion call of the Shofar. See the above URL for more. ---------- Any one living in Flatbush is welcome to come to the YI of Ave J Haskama Minyan on RH morning. We start at 7:15 and davening will be over by 11:30 (with Musaf). Then there is plenty of time to go home and make kiddush before Chatzos. Davening is on the second floor in the Simcha Hall. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 08:46:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:46:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha responded to me: >> Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what >> can be seen? > How is the surface of a lung or brain more visible than the innards? > The only difference is how much cutting is required. And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an external tool is required in order to 'see' something. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 13:00:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:00:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:46:32AM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: : And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external : magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an : external tool is required in order to 'see' something. You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying glass. To me that seems obvious. But to articulate it, I find myself going to words like cheftzah, which is a bit too technical to be appropriate language for relaying why I find it self-evident. The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. The magnifying glass compensates for the fact that water bears and other microscopic beasties are not in the realm of experience. We aren't getting the situation right, we are compensating for something with the cheftzah itself. To put it another way, maggot eggs do not have halachic existence. Do tiny crustaceans cease to exist and come back into existence if you flip the light off or on? (This is just different kind of appeal to cheftzah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 13:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:19:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha noted: > You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. < I omitted the blown lightbulb because IMHO the level of required light is a murky subject (poor attempt at humor :)). > I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying glass. < And I am disagreeing: you need an external tool to reach that inside area. Since you're pushing your "kasuv hashelishi", you also need to define what level of light is "normal" -- surely you're not saying that a bug which can only be 'seen' when the level of light exceeds *olam-hazeh* norms (e.g. the lumen level exceeds that of the sun at its strongest) qualifies as visible? > The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. < I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:46:32AM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: > : And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external > : magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an > : external tool is required in order to 'see' something. > > You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen > by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. > > I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing > the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying > glass. > > To me that seems obvious. But to articulate it, I find myself going > to words like cheftzah, which is a bit too technical to be appropriate > language for relaying why I find it self-evident. > > The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, > the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside > the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an > aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is > within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. > > The magnifying glass compensates for the fact that water bears and > other microscopic beasties are not in the realm of experience. We aren't > getting the situation right, we are compensating for something with the > cheftzah itself. > > To put it another way, maggot eggs do not have halachic existence. > Do tiny crustaceans cease to exist and come back into existence if > you flip the light off or on? (This is just different kind of appeal > to cheftzah.) > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole > micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." > http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, > Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 17:40:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:40:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911004049.GA29555@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 05:20:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> The recent court to allow conversion of under bar/bat mitzvah children is :> controversial. The bone of contention is whether it is considred a zechut :> for children to become Jewish when they grow up in a non-religious setting. I thought we dissuade geirim (non-qetanim) in part because this is not true. Alternatively: How do the meiqilim justify this practice, particularly in venues (Golden Age of Spain, much of the world today) where there is comparatively little antisemisim? Rashi (Yevamos 74a, "de'amar) is concerned about the sinning convert's influence on other Jews. This being R' Chelbo's "qasheh ... kesapachas". Tosafos understand R' Chelbo as referring to the extra issurim of mistreating a geir, or that they make us look bad. The Semag (Lav 116, quoted by the BY YD 268) says we dissuade the ger to make sure he knows exactly what he is accepting, avoiding a "meqach ta'us" (my term). On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:27:59PM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious : Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also : for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for : reasons of Nationalism. Or, that being a Jew in Israel is so much better that zakhin le'adam shelo befanav applies. IOW, not by reasons of nationalism, but by taking nationalism into account as part of the metzi'us. Similar to those who rule that we do not dissuade a non-halachic convert, since they will be living among the Jews and their children will quite likely marry Jews either way. And in the latest volume of IM (vol 9, EhE 14), RMF similarly tells a BD to be proactive in convertain someone who thought until now they were Jewish. He even invoked the case of Timna, saying that to not do so would be to be repeating the avos' mistake. So we do see that facts on the ground about whether it is beneficial for the life they will be leading do matter. The bigger problem I have is qabbalas ol mitzvos. RnCL and I argued at length about whether the following qualifies as QOM, but whatever you want to call it.... Upon reaching adulthood, the geir has to affirm their acceptance of the mitzvos. While people pictures this means coming to BD on their 12th or 13th birthday, that is impossible -- the affirmation would have to be tokh kedei dibur of growing shenei sa'aros. Instead, BD sees if during that span of their lives they were observant, and if they were, we consider the geirus affirmed. This din is real enough that the gemara asks about a giyores from when she was less than 3, who is married of to a kohein as a qetana may be given terumah. After all, she might annull the geirus, in which case should would retroactively not have been an eishes kohein! The gemara answers based on rov (most children do not choose to convert out of the religion they were raised with), not that the affirmation is optional. So, what's going to happen to these qetanim when they reach adulthood? How can they be said to have effectively accepted ol mitzvos? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 17:20:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:20:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan >>> Agreed. But there still has to be rules, logic, framework. My original post was a request for help in identifying those rules. (And for now, Rav Asher Weiss' explanation seems quite plausible.). Example: If the streets in my town are a reshus harabim, there's no way to carry on Shabbos without actual walls. If the streets are merely karmelis, then we can make a haarama to say that the area is surrounded by a series of doorways. But they have got to be real halachic doorways; if even one lechi has the string on the side instead of above, forget it. So too here. I don't mind being moser to beis din, if only I was clear on what it is that I'm giving them, and how that happens, and what it accomplishes. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:04:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:04:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911010426.GA12008@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 08:20:47PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I actually thought pruzbul only works because : ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan >>> : : Agreed. But there still has to be rules, logic, framework... I was mostly dismissing your mentioning the lack of qinyan sudar. We can make a shaliach without one, for a ha'aramah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:25:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:25:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> References: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150911012558.GA18449@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:37:41AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: :> The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without :> necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> : I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem's love for His people: "If you : sin, even if you're not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, : here's a "ticket" of sorts that I'm giving you now to show my love for : you, that if you 'remind' me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate : that you see yourselves as close to me, and I'll give you some measure : of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah." But spending time demonstracting our desire for or actual closeness to HQBH is itself arguably a measure of teshuvah. And in any case avoids my problem with ascribing power to a sequence of syllables in and of themselves. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:29:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:29:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:23:44PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job : 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and : 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). : R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs... He argues that it's an auroachs. Calling any identification of this sort a "demonstration" is overly confident. Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we can use mythical creatures as metaphors. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 20:00:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:00:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I was mostly dismissing your mentioning the lack of qinyan sudar. We can make a shaliach without one, for a ha'aramah. >>> I presume you mean like how I can make the rav my shaliach for mechiras chometz without any kinyan. (In practice we do make a kinyan, but only as a chumrah.) So I don't need a kinyan at pruzbul either, and I can make the beis din a shliach without any kinyan. Okay. But if so, then exactly what is it that I'm making the beis din my shaliach FOR? What are they doing on my behalf? If I am making them my shaliach to collect my loans on my behalf, then that sounds like Rav Asher Weiss' explanation. Sure, beis din is patur from lo yigos, but it was a big chidush to me that that's enough to exempt me from being m'shamet a loan that I still own. (But if one wants to go with the Collection Agency idea, then shlichus is irrelevant - beis din would need to own the loan.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 20:51:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:51:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: <1a9316.271c37fb.4323a9c7@aol.com> In a message dated 9/10/2015 9:29:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, micha at aishdas.org writes: Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. >>> That is a fascinating and insightful point! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 02:00:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:00:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha In-Reply-To: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> References: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > Please elaborate BTW The Jewish Action had a recent article on the popularity of MO neo-chassidut. I went to a wedding this week where the chatan learns in a yeshiva from Ofra. To my sight it looked like a Breslov Yeshiva. Big white kippot with extreme dancing. The boys mostly has long peyot. The Rosh Yeshiva/mesader kedushin put on a tallit for the chuppa which I had never seen. He stressed that the chatan's tallit had techelet and he should make a shecheyanu but no bracha on the tallit since it was night, etc However, this was a RZ wedding with a bracha for the soldiers etc. On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:02:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > : RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. > : I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear > as > : ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) > ... > > It's an intersting point, but relating it to RYBS's position just > confuses the matter. You're using the word "ceremony" in nearly > the opposite sense. And while you note that: > : I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview > it. > : Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not > : ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view > > This isnt' merely an answer, it's an indication that you're discussing > two different topics. There is no question, just a miscommunication. > > Anyway, the contrast between the usages of the word "ceremony" interested > me. > > You listed a number of cases where a halachic legality can be accomplished > through something the lay-person considers meaningless ritual: pruzbul, > mechiras chameitz, heter isqa, ha'aramos, etc.. > > RYBS made that statement about ceremony in the sense of ritual in which > the person finds meaning, but lacks halachic structure. > > The two examples that most readily leap to mind are (1) his disparaging > kiruv that focuses on white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos candelabra, > and (2) his modifying the minhagim of the Three Weeks and Nine Days > because leshitaso, the minhagim must follow the same forms as ones found > in hilkhos aveilus. I posted about this in Aug '08 at > . > > I also noted in 2011 that RYBS's position that minhag must mirror halachic > structure is in opposition to the Brisker Rav's (his uncle's) shitah. RYZS > holds that one makes berakhos on minhagim that have a cheftzah shel > mitzvah (eg lighting a Chanukah menorah in shul), and that the Rambam > and Rabbeinu Tam don't argue about that. What they do argue about is > whether Chatzi Hallel is close enough to Hallel to qualify for a berakhah. > > However, leshitas RYBS, there are no such minhagim that wouldn't require > a berakhah. If Chatzi Hallel didn't require a berakhah because it's not > close enough to the cheftzah shel mitzvah, it would be "ceremony", and not > a valid minhag. He therefore would have to reject his uncle's chiddush. > > Neo-Chassidus is basically a MO rebellion to this kind of Halakhic > Man approach to Yahadus. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, > micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just > http://www.aishdas.org beginning. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 09:03:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:03:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> I have been asking this question to various people, and several have suggested that the answer is somewhere in the range of "hefker bes din" and "amiraso legavoah kimsiraso lahedyot". IOW, beis din doesn't need to make a kinyan; its inherent power is sufficient to take possession of your loans as soon as you verbally relinquish them. -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 08:02:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:02:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony Message-ID: <> It would seem that RYBS's definition of a ceremony is almost a tautology. If it is anything of religious significance then its not a ceremony. Otherwise who cares. It is only modern customs that present a difficulty because we don't establish new categories. In the old days customs like lighting the menorah in shul or havdala in shul became invested with religious significance because they were public customs Question minyana d-yoma Is the custom of "simanim" on RH a ceremony? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:53:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:53:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911175305.GC18449@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 06:02:04PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : It would seem that RYBS's definition of a ceremony is almost a tautology. : If it is anything of religious significance then its not a ceremony. If a ritual is of halachic significance then it's not a ceremony (as RYBS used the word in coining the aphorism we're discussing). Now, to Halakhic Man, one can say there is no Yahadus except halakhah, and therefore ceremony is not part of Yahadus. So, RYBS's position on ceremony is a natural consequence of Halakhic Man, but they aren't a tautology according to other derakhim. To other hashkafos, white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos licht may not define Shabbos, but they can for many help foster the atmosphere hilkhos Shabbos create. Which is why I mentioned the spread of Chavaquq-like Judaism in YU. Because Chassidus is big on ritual. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 05:49:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:49:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. >>> R' Michael Poppers responded: <<< I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. >>> The lungs of a *dead* cow are easily accessible if one has a knife; no super-vision is needed there. It is only the lungs of a *living* cow where one would need super-vision (especially if I need the cow to stay alive for more milk next week). Hmmm... Do we consider the lungs of a living cow as visible like a large insect, or as nonexistent like beitzei kinim? The nafka mina is the kashrus of that cow's milk. I would *like* to say that the lungs are invisible and inconsequential. But IIRC we can drink the milk because of rov - most lungs are kosher. There is a real possibility that the lungs are treif, and we deal with that possibility in a manner *other* than "lo nitna Torah l'malachei hashareis". Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 09:47:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:47:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] asmachta Message-ID: see point 5 , on the idea that could asmachta be a talmudic example of , well let the reader decide http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/09/artscroll-and-more.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:23:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:23:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? Message-ID: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, but again whatever Hashem does is good.) Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 11:06:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:06:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150911180646.GE18449@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 01:23:04PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" : (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever : Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the : year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, : but again whatever Hashem does is good.) >From my blog post at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov :-)BBii! -Micha Shetir'u baTov The Bostoner Rebbe (of Boston) commented once on the expression "Shanah tovah umsuqah - a good and sweet new year", which is related to the famous custom of having apple and honey on Rosh haShanah.What does "umsuqah -- and sweet" add, beyond the notion of "tovah -- good"? As Rabbi Aqiva often said, "All that the All Merciful does, He does for the good". An echo of the words of one of his rabbeim, Nachum ish Gamzu, who would greet events that would disappoint or depress most of us with "Gam zu letovah -- this too is for the best." So actually, wishing one another a good year could be thought of as being redundant. Everything is good, how could this year be any different? However, not everything I was told was "for my own good" was particularly pleasant. Therefore, the rebbe teaches, we wish that the year not only be tovah, good, but also be mesuqah, sweet to our perception as well. Along the same lines, I had a thought about a phrase in Shabbos and Yom Tov davening : Our L-rd, and the L-rd of our fathers, sanctify us bemitzvosekha (through Your mitzvos), and put our portion beSorasekha (in Your Torah), satisfy us mituvekha (from Your Goodness), and make us (or: our souls qua living force) biyshuasekha (in Your salvation)... The predicate prefix has an oddity: it says bemitzvosekha, beSorasekha, and later, beyshu'asekha. But by goodness, the prefix is "mituvekha" -- "from", not "be-" ("in" or "through") like by the others. The reason, I believe, is because we are asking for something inherently different. We can ask G-d to make us more holy by allowing us to do more mitzvos, or give us the opportunity to learn more Torah, or make us happier by saving us more often. This is "be-", we are asking for more of a gift by asking for more of the vehicle He uses to give it to us. Since everything G-d does is good, we can't be asking for G-d to give us more good, and thereby make us more satisfied. There is no more good for us to get. Rather, we are asking for more satisfaction with the goodness He already provides. This is why the "mi-" prefix is used. This is also in contrast to Rebbe's words (Berakhos 50a) about benching, that a wise person says "uvtuvo chayinu -- and through His good we live", and a boor, "umituvo chayinu -- and from His good, we live". Rebbe says that "umituvo" is incorrect because it says that we live through some of His Good, implying that Hashem gives meagerly. Perhaps it's different here, when we ask for happiness, because the truth is that if we had a full realization of even a small part of His Good would be enough to satisfy. Like the piyut we sing at the seider. We list fifteen things Hashem did for us when taking us out of Egypt. But had He done any one of those 15 alone, "Dayeinu"! R Shelomo Wolbe^zt"l would part someone's company wishing him "shetir'u batov -- may you see the good!" Because the tense of "tir'u" is ambiguous, this is both a berakhah and a mussar shmuess. Taken in the future tense, "May you see", it becomes a blessing that Hashem allow him to see all that's good in his life. In the imperative, the same work becomes "Look", advice to the person to take the initiative and seek out the good of every situation. To aspire to the middah of Nachum ish Gamzu and Rabbi Aqiva of realizing the Hand of G-d in everything, and looking to see how even the tragedies in our lives are necessary steps to something bigger which He has in store for us. The two together yields a profound combined meaning. Live is the product of a partnership between myself and G-d. It is the sum of my free-willed decisions and the hand Hashem deals me. "Shetir'u beTov" addresses both at the same time, by praying that Hashem show the person good, and that the person look to find it. A greeting that recognizes the fundamental covenant by which man is redeemed. It's a beautiful greeting, one worth adopting. Wishing others could taste the sweetness. Shetir'u baTov! (With thanks to RYGB for helping me find the gemara.) Like this: Like Loading... Related You may also like... * [13]3 [14]The Devastating Power of Leitznus ? ???? ???? - December 28, 2006 * [15]0 [16]The Desire to Desire ?? ????? ???? - August 28, 2007 * [17]0 [18]Nine Qavim at the Buffet ?? ????? ???? - March 27, 2008 2 Responses * [19]Comments1 * [20]Pingbacks1 1. Anonymous says: [21]? ????? ???? - September 29, 2006 at 1:25pm Possibly related - stolen waters are described as sweet, which tells us something unpleasant about the human condition. Perhaps what we are requesting is not only an objectively good year, but the ability to appreciate that goodness, similar to the way in which we regrettably now enjoy the prohibited. - Moishe Potemkin [22]Reply 1. [23]Aspaqlaria ? Blog Archive ? ?? ???? ???"? ?? ????? ???? - September 5, 2007 [...] berakhos for a Shanah tovah umsuqah, as the Bostoner Rebbe put it, a year that is we not only conceptually know to be good, but has a sweetness we can taste and [...] And your thoughts...? [24]Cancel reply IFRAME: [25]jetpack_remote_comment Follow: * * * * * [26]Next story Sweet Charoses * [27]Previous story Nine Qavim at the Buffet ____________________ Subscribe Name: ____________________ email: ____________________ * [28]Entries * [29]Comments * [30]PodCast New & Popular * [31]Recent Posts * [32]Popular Posts * [33]Recent Comments * [34]My Life as a Pendulum ? ????? ???? - September 3, 2015 * [35]Copyright ?? ??? ???? - August 13, 2015 * [36]What does Hashem ask of you? ?? ??? ???? - August 7, 2015 * [37]?? ?????? ???? ? ??? ???? - July 23, 2015 * [38]Gratitude and Thankfulness ?? ????? ???? - July 16, 2015 * [39]Emunah Peshutah vs Machashavah ?? ????? ???? - November 30, 2004 * [40]Balancing Simplicity and Authenticity ? ????? ??? - July 1, 2010 * [41]The Kuzari Proof, part I ?? ???? ???? - December 22, 2004 * [42]What is Frumkeit? ? ???? ? ???? - February 9, 2014 * [43]The Curriculum at Volozhin ? ????? ???? - May 23, 2012 * David Zalkin says: [44]Regarding giving precedence to the Aruch HaShulchan over the MB, my... * Eliezer Eisenberg says: [45]Excellent. Thanks for sharing. * Ilana Sober Elzufon says: [46]Intriguing. I really value the all-women's spaces that Orthodox Judaism provides,... * micha says: [47]You're right. A poor choice of words. Correcting.Thank you. * Dr. Yitzchok Levine says: [48]You wrote, "Shul looks like a boy's club because it was... Aspaqlaria ? 2015. All Rights Reserved. Powered by [49]WordPress. Theme by [50]Alx. * * * * IFRAME: [51]likes-master %d bloggers like this: References Visible links 1. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/feed 2. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/comments/feed 3. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov/feed 4. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 5. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/sweet-charoses 6. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ 7. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/category/mussar/middos 8. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#comments 9. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/author/admin 10. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#stbt 11. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/01/vetaheir-libeinu.shtml 12. http://www.aishdas.org/rygb 13. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus#comments 14. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus 15. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire#comments 16. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire 17. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet#comments 18. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 19. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#commentlist-container 20. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#pinglist-container 21. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov/comment-page-1#comment-72 22. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov?replytocom=72#respond 23. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/09/%d7%9b%d7%92-%d7%90%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%9c-%d7%aa%d7%a9%d7%9e%d7%90.shtml 24. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#respond 25. http://jetpack.wordpress.com/jetpack-comment/?blogid=11004584&postid=134&comment_registration=0&require_name_email=1&stc_enabled=1&stb_enabled=1&show_avatars=1&avatar_default=identicon&greeting=And+your+thoughts...%3F&greeting_reply=Leave+a+Reply+to+%25s&color_scheme=light&lang=en-US&jetpack_version=3.7&sig=04e58004b358ee700890b798c328f7cfd8e7fee6#parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aishdas.org%2Fasp%2Ftireh-betov 26. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/sweet-charoses 27. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 28. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/feed 29. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/comments/feed 30. http://feeds.feedburner.com/AspPodCast 31. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-recent 32. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-popular 33. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-comments 34. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/my-life-as-pendulum 35. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/copyright 36. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask 37. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/%d7%91%d7%9f-%d7%97%d7%9e%d7%99%d7%a9%d7%99%d7%9d-%d7%9c%d7%a2%d7%a6%d7%94 38. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gratitude-thankfulness 39. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/emunah-peshutah-vs-machashavah 40. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/balancing-simplicity-and-authenticity 41. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/kuzari-proof-part-i 42. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-is-frumkeit 43. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-curriculum-at-volozhin 44. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/textualism-mb/comment-page-1#comment-60227 45. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask/comment-page-1#comment-60184 46. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60105 47. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60102 48. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60101 49. http://wordpress.org/ 50. http://alxmedia.se/ 51. http://widgets.wp.com/likes/master.html?ver=20141028#ver=20141028 Hidden links: 53. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus 54. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire 55. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 56. http://www.facebook.com/micha.berger 57. http://www.linkedin.com/in/rmsberger 58. https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MichaBerger 59. http://www.twitter.com/aishdas 60. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/textualism-mb/comment-page-1#comment-60227 61. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask/comment-page-1#comment-60184 62. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60105 63. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60102 64. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60101 65. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov 66. http://www.facebook.com/micha.berger 67. http://www.linkedin.com/in/rmsberger 68. https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MichaBerger 69. http://www.twitter.com/aishdas From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:01:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:01:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> Message-ID: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when shmitta is d'Orayta again? On 9/11/2015 7:03 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > I have been asking this question to various people, and several have > suggested that the answer is somewhere in the range of "hefker bes din" > and "amiraso legavoah kimsiraso lahedyot". IOW, beis din doesn't need > to make a kinyan; its inherent power is sufficient to take possession > of your loans as soon as you verbally relinquish them. > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:05:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:05:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F56682.4070005@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 04:01 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when > shmitta is d'Orayta again? Why wouldn't it? Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din declares it unethical. And I don't think that will happen, because such a declaration wouldn't stop it, it would just drive it to the disreputable batei din. Now that everyone knows about it you can't make people forget it; Hillel uncorked the idea and it can't be pushed back into the bottle. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:05:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:05:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> On 9/11/2015 4:29 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:23:44PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: > : According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job > : 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and > : 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). > > : R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs... > > He argues that it's an auroachs. Calling any identification of this sort a > "demonstration" is overly confident. Agreed. > Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever > sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim > who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we > can use mythical creatures as metaphors. How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty plural to me. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:02:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:02:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you won't experience that as a good thing. On 9/11/2015 8:23 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A > good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever > Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the > year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, > but again whatever Hashem does is good.) > > Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." > > Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. > > YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 02:22:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 05:22:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:02 AM 9/13/2015, you wrote: >On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But if >you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you won't >experience that as a good thing. Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries. If your injuries are not severe, and you collect a hefty sum from the driver's insurance company, then you may indeed view it as a good thing! All things have to be considered in context. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:57:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:57:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 05:22:08AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: :> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But :> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you :> won't experience that as a good thing. : Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries... We're getting off point. I believe Lisa's reponse was similar to my repeating the distinction between "shanah tovah" and "umsuqah", without leading to the problem of the "wrong" word being used in "Leshanah tovah tekhaseivu". We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- what ra? I thought there is no ra? It would seem we often speak of tov vara in terms of how they're experienced, rather than some abstract reality in which we know (or should know) "gam zu letovah". Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:57:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:57:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 05:22:08AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: :> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But :> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you :> won't experience that as a good thing. : Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries... We're getting off point. I believe Lisa's reponse was similar to my repeating the distinction between "shanah tovah" and "umsuqah", without leading to the problem of the "wrong" word being used in "Leshanah tovah tekhaseivu". We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- what ra? I thought there is no ra? It would seem we often speak of tov vara in terms of how they're experienced, rather than some abstract reality in which we know (or should know) "gam zu letovah". Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 06:39:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:39:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. In RM's opinion, shmitta won't be d'Orayata again until the Messiah comes. Ben On 9/13/2015 10:01 AM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when > shmitta is d'Orayta again? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:46:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:46:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: <<< Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din declares it unethical. >>> Perhaps. But I would think that the impropriety of using pruzbul in a d'Oraisa time was pretty implicit (perhaps even explicit) in how Hillel promoted it, and there is no need for a future beis din to point it out. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 06:41:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 09:41:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor Message-ID: <09a801d0ee29$ef34d030$cd9e7090$@com> The sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor is avail for free download at - http://hebrewbooks.org/53838 review of sefer - http://seforim.blogspot.ca/2015/09/review-of-dovid-bashevkins-sefer.html Review of Dovid Bashevkin's Sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor By Rabbi Yitzchok Oratz Rabbi Yitzchok Oratz, a musmach of Beth Medrash Govoha, is the Rabbi and Director of the Monmouth Torah Links community in Marlboro, NJ. God knows the nature of every generation, Rabbi Dovid Bashevkin has written a Sefer uniquely appropriate for the nature of ours[1]. Take a trip to your local Jewish bookseller during this time period, and you will find numerous seforim, old[2] and new[3], on the themes of sin and repentance. Although they certainly vary in style and quality, a common denominator among many is the heavy reliance on Rambam's Hilchos Teshuva and Sha'arey Teshuva of Rabbeinu Yonah of Gerondi[4]. And this is to be expected. Timeless classics, these works of the great Rishonim are unmatched in their systematic and detailed discussion of sin and punishment, free will[5] and repentance, and are a prerequisite study for any serious discussion of Teshuva. But therein lays the dilemma. For although Rabbeinu Yonah maps out the exalted levels of Teshuva that one should certainly strive for, they seem not to be for the faint of heart. Is our generation really up to the task of embracing the sorrow, suffering, and worry, the humbling and lowering oneself[6], without allowing for the concomitant sense of despair[7] and despondence[8]? And how many of us can honestly stand before the Creator, and proclaim that we will "never return" to our negative actions, to the extent that God Himself will testify that this is the case[9]? If confession without sincere commitment to change is worthless[10], does repeating last year's failed commitments not require choosing between giving up and fooling ourselves? This is where B'Rogez Rachem Tizkor comes in. Based heavily on the thought of Izbica in general, and Reb Tzadok ha-Kohen of Lublin in particular, it discusses the value of spiritual struggle, the interplay between determinism and free will, the redemptive potential of sin, and the status of those who have not yet arisen from their fall. Overall, the sefer is a good introduction to R' Tzadok for those who are not familiar with his thought, and offers many insightful and fascinating comments even for those who are. My main critiques are that some of the discussion of the more controversial statements of Izbica required more elaboration[14], the lack thereof leads to a seeming conflating of two similar, yet far from identical, concepts, and more contrasting and supporting texts (both from within Izbica and R' Tzadok's thought and without) would have made for a stronger case and deeper understanding. My hope is to fill in these gaps in some small measure. Hopefully it will further enlighten those whose appetite was whet by this fine work. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:05:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:05:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F59EAF.30104@sero.name> See Tanya chapter 26. There is really no such thing as bad; there is merely the good that we can see and the good that we can't see. But we'd much prefer the kind that we can see, and we ask Hashem to give us that kind of good rather than the other kind. http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7905/jewish/Chapter-26.htm -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:11:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:11:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F5A021.4040809@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 08:46 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The >> only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right >> to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when >> shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din >> declares it unethical. > > Perhaps. But I would think that the impropriety of using pruzbul in a > d'Oraisa time was pretty implicit (perhaps even explicit) in how > Hillel promoted it, and there is no need for a future beis din to > point it out. How so? He didn't say anything about it being improper when shmita is de'oraisa, he merely said here is a solution we can use. The question is why nobody did it before, and the answer is because batei din considered it unethical. Now when were these batei din considering it unethical? In the time of Bayit Rishon?! No, it was in Hillel's day, which is why he needed to make his takanah. And in his day it was already derabbanan. The only relevance of it being derabanan is that had it been deoraisa in Hillel's day, he would not have felt he had the right to promote a way around it, no matter how great the need he saw. But since it was derabanan, and he saw a problem that needed fixing, he was bold and publicised this trick, and declared that nobody should feel guilty about using it. There's no indication that he mentioned shmita's drabanan status at all. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 08:52:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:52:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In Avodah V33n123, RAkivaM responded to me: >> I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. << > The lungs of a *dead* cow are easily accessible if one has a knife; no super-vision is needed there. It is only the lungs of a *living* cow where one would need super-vision (especially if I need the cow to stay alive for more milk next week). < A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the human eye without opening it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 11:55:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:55:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150913185550.GC10636@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 08:57:35AM -0400, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: ::> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But ::> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you ::> won't experience that as a good thing. ... : We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- : what ra? I thought there is no ra? Addenda in response to private email: Well, I didn't mean to get all Izhbitz... I meant the evil we experience, the tragic, and not the evil that we do, the wrong.. But I did buy into more univeralistic models of hashgachah peratis, that at least every person's fate is subject to HP (pace the Rambam or Or haChaim), and thus the tragic has a point. If not itself tovsh, it is letovah. Which still leaves us with R/Prof Levine's original question sbout blessing others with shanah tovah. ... : Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be : experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even : that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) But even the evil that we do is more like a missed opposrtunity for good than a beryah. Much the way Yeshaiah pairs evil with darkness "yotzeir or uvorei choshekh ... uvorei es hara." Althouh it's possible that Yeshiah considered darkness to be a beryah, the way Chazal talk about the thick darkness of makas choshekh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 12:00:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:00:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:52:48AM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the : human eye without opening it. The sun is also an external tool. This is wh I think we need more nuance here. It might depend on whether a hollow inside the lung is judged as a lung that is defective in a way we can't see without a knife, or the hole is a mum that we could be able to see ourselves if the ourside of the lung weren't in the way. But in either case, I still csn't articulste what seems to me to be a obvious difference. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 07:07:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 10:07:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akeidah of the Mind Message-ID: <20150913140741.CE67A180E46@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from pages 588 - 590 of Rav Schwab on Chumash. Please note the words "Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave the human being a mind to understand Him. Whatever one studies in the world, be it science, history, economics, mathematics, or anything else, it is actually the study of the revelations of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Our mind is given to us to enable us to understand as much about C-d as is humanly possible. This is borne out in many places throughout Torah and Nach ... This means that we are not merely to accept that which our forefathers have taught us about C-d but we are to attempt to know, to understand as much as we can about Hashem ... The Rav (Rav Shimon Schwab, ZT"L) was firmly convinced that since Moshe emes v'Toraso emes, the Torah and our Rabbinic mesorah are inviolable and, one day, answers would be found answers these questions. He would say that sometimes one must offer his mind as an "akeidah" to Hakadosh Baruch Hu where human reasoning has not yet found answers to apparent contradictions between the inviolable eternal truth of the Torah, the truthful writing (Daniel 10:21), and historical or scientific finds which are subject to change. In his lectures on Iyov, he offered the following comments on this subject. "... By accepting C-d's command, Avraham Avinu had sacrificed his own mind to comply with the will of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. While Avraham attempts to understand C-d, nevertheless, when C-d1s command contradicts that understanding, Avraham sacrifices his mind to the will of C-d, just as one would forfeit his life if the halachah required it, rather than violate the three cardinal sins. "Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave the human being a mind to understand Him. Whatever one studies in the world, be it science, history, economics, mathematics, or anything else, it is actually the study of the revelations of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Our mind is given to us to enable us to understand as much about C-d as is humanly possible. This is borne out in many places throughout Torah and Nach ... This means that we are not merely to accept that which our forefathers have taught us about C-d but we are to attempt to know, to understand as much as we can about Hashem ... "... This is why the mitzvah of learning Torah is so important; in fact it is our most important mitzvah. When we learn Torah, we employ our mind in the service of Hakadosh Baruch Hu by studying C-d's will as revealed to us in the Torah. And if we have questions or contradictions, we must use our mind to the best of our capacity to attempt to resolve them within the parameters of Torah study. "... So, while we are encouraged to use our mind, as much as reason allows, to serve C-d, to understand Him, and to answer questions, nevertheless, when all reason fails us, and we cannot go any further with human understanding, when our mind is staggered, we must be prepared to I/sacrifice our mind/I to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. We must throw up our hands and say that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is right whether we understand it or not. One could call this 'the akeidah of the mind.' "When science poses questions which seemingly contradict our basic truths, we must make an effort to answer these questions. But if the answers are elusive, we must sacrifice our mind and subjugate it to the revealed truths of the Torah. Fortunately, baruch Hashem, as yet, I have not found any questions of this sort- for instance, regarding the age of the universe, evolution, ancient civilizations- for which I have not found possible answers. But it could happen, and one has to be ready for it. If suddenly a scientific discovery were to arise which clearly seems to contradict the Torah, we would then have to admit that the question is excellent but nevertheless, the Torah is right because it is the revealed wisdom of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. It is "Toras Emes, 11 absolute truth, all questions notwithstanding. Answers will no doubt eventually be found to such contradictions, but in the meantime, by accepting the veracity of the Torah without reservations, we will have offered our mind as an 'akeidah' to Hakadosh Baruch Hu.'' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 11:36:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:36:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? Message-ID: <1f9d87.3cc2b5a7.43271c34@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, but again whatever Hashem does is good.) Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. YL >>>>> When others wish you well you should wish them well too, mipnei darkei shalom. A long philosophical treatise about how even illness, accidents and financial losses are actually all good things will not endear you to anyone. Another answer to your question is: we wish our friends (and ourselves) brachos from the Ribono Shel Olam that are sweet and obvious even to our limited human eyes, and not the other kind. Certainly we appreciate that the dentist's drill or the surgeon's knife is doing us a favor and repairing what needs repairing, but we prefer not to have the cavity and not to need the surgery in the first place. However if you simply cannot bring yourself to utter a blessing that seems philosophically dubious to you, I would suggest that you overcome that feeling, bentsh your fellow Jews anyway, and may Hashem in turn overcome His philosophical doubts and bless you and all of us in kind. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 07:15:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (RCK via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 17:15:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty > plural to me. >Lisa Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book *Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew * [image: Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] [image: Academia.edu] [image: Google Scholar] [image: LinkedIN] [image: Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:00:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:00:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F59DB4.6080103@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 04:05 AM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >> Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever >> sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim >> who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we >> can use mythical creatures as metaphors. > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty > plural to me. Because Yosef is a shor, not a re'em, even if each of his horns is that of a re'em. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 12:29:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:29:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 10:15 AM, RCK via Avodah wrote: > Lisa wrote: >> How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty >> plural to me. > Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=11650&pgnum=227 I don't understand the Bachur's comment. Surely the Radak explicitly addressed his objection, so why does he still raise it? (Unless these notes were not written on the Shorashim at all, and some printer decided to mash them together at random.) -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 13:59:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 16:59:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> References: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha replied: > The sun is also an external tool. < Which is why I previously differentiated between the sun _or_ a substitute light source no brighter than it and between what I call "external tools." > This is wh I think we need more nuance here. < My theory is that anything we, a 6th-Day "creation", can see with the tools provided as part of the *b'riyah* (or, again, a fair substitute) is within our Halachic field of vision. Best wishes for a *shanah tovah umsuqah* from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:52:48AM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: > : A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the > : human eye without opening it. > > The sun is also an external tool. > > This is wh I think we need more nuance here. > > It might depend on whether a hollow inside the lung is judged as a lung > that is defective in a way we can't see without a knife, or the hole is > a mum that we could be able to see ourselves if the ourside of the lung > weren't in the way. > > But in either case, I still csn't articulste what seems to me to be > a obvious difference. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea > micha at aishdas.org of instincts. > http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter > Fax: (270) 514-1507 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 15 10:01:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (RCK via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:01:11 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> References: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> Message-ID: It's a good question, in fact, the Bayis HaGadol (also known as Biur) on Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer (end of ch. 19) asks this on HaBachur. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book *Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew * [image: Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] [image: Academia.edu] [image: Google Scholar] [image: LinkedIN] [image: Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/13/2015 10:15 AM, RCK via Avodah wrote: > >> Lisa wrote: >> > > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty >>> plural to me. >>> >> > Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. >> > > http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=11650&pgnum=227 > > I don't understand the Bachur's comment. Surely the Radak explicitly > addressed his objection, so why does he still raise it? (Unless these > notes were not written on the Shorashim at all, and some printer decided > to mash them together at random.) > > -- > Zev Sero KvChT > zev at sero.name > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 15 17:45:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:45:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150916004501.GA21666@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 04:59:29PM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: :> This is wh I think we need more nuance here. : My theory is that anything we, a 6th-Day "creation", can see with the tools : provided as part of the *b'riyah* (or, again, a fair substitute) is within : our Halachic field of vision. You mean, like a sharp rock? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 01:43:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:43:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: R' MYG wrote: "I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem?s love for His people: ?If you sin, even if you?re not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here?s a ?ticket? of sorts that I?m giving you _now_ to show my love for you, that if you ?remind? me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate that you see yourselves as close to me, and I?ll give you some measure of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah.? The best Mashal I could think of for this is a PBA placard ? you buy it and put it in your car, and when the cop pulls you over for speeding, you show it to him and he goes easy on you, because he sees that you?re really a friend of the police. NOT because you demonstrated regret for speeding, necessarily. Does that make sense?" Not really, Hashem is perfect and all knowing, you can't bribe him. Why should you need to remind him of anything? Hashem knows exactly who you are and how close you are to him. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 02:35:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:35:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916093543.GA10685@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:43:35AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Not really, Hashem is perfect and all knowing, you can't bribe him. Why : should you need to remind him of anything? Hashem knows exactly who you are : and how close you are to him. That's ust an inherent limitation in the mashal. (Any mashal where the nimshal is G-d, is going to be limited for the same reason you give.) Lemaaseh, He may Remember everything, but I don't. Going through the exercises keep my own beliefs more conscious and reinforces them. Setting up a pointless reminder to remind Him has function in that it reminds me. Which is how I understood RMYG's original answer: that reciting the 13 middoes is "more of a symbol of Hashem's love for His people: 'If you sin, even if you're not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here's a 'ticket' of sorts that I'm giving you _now_ to show my love for you...'" We need to remember the closeness, to keep it real in our minds, which then deepens our belief in it. Which is why I then said that this in itself is a minimal teshuvah, and not merely reciting words. IOW, if someone said the 13 Middos and didn't even think "these are G-d's 13 Middos of lovingkindness that He gave us", would they still be guaranteed not to leave empty-handed? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 01:58:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:58:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > There's no indication that he mentioned shmita's drabanan status at all. The simple reading of the Gemara in Gittin 36a-b which is the source of pruzbul says that pruzbul only works when shemitta is d'rabbanan and in fact this is how the Rambam understands the Gemara and how he paskens. The Gemara first states that Hillel was mesaken pruzbul and then asks how could Hillel be mesaken pruzbul and say that loans are not cancelled when the Torah says that they are? Abaye answers shemitta nowadays is derabban. The Gemara then asks how could the Chachamim be mesaken shemittas kesafim medrabban (and cancel loans) and Rava answers hefker beit din hefker. The simple reading of the Gemara is that the whole takana of pruzbul only works when shemitta is derabbanan. Rashi and the Raavad however understand the Gemara that Rava's answer also answers the first question of how could Hillel be mesaken pruzbul when the Torah cancels loans based on hefker beis din hefker and that pruzbul works even when shemmita is d'oraysa. [Email #2] R"n Lisa Liel asked: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when shmitta > is d'Orayta again? and R' Zev Sero asked why wouldn't it? Actually this is an explicit machlokes the Rambam and the Raavad and Rashi and Tosafos (Gittin 36a-b). The Rambam writes in Hilchos Shemitta V'Yovel (chapter 9) v'ein haprozbul moeel ela b'shmitas kesafim shehee midvrei sofrim aval shemitta shel torah ayn haprozbul moeel bo The Raavad there argues that prozbul will work even when shemmita is d'oraysa based on his understanding of Rava's answer of hefker beis din hefker (like Rashi in Gittin). From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 02:50:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:50:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916095007.GD14423@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:00:56PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : If I am making them my shaliach to collect my loans on my behalf, then that : sounds like Rav Asher Weiss' explanation. Sure, beis din is patur from lo : yigos, but it was a big chidush to me that that's enough to exempt me from : being m'shamet a loan that I still own. (But if one wants to go with the : Collection Agency idea, then shlichus is irrelevant - beis din would need : to own the loan.) The big problem is that the difference in sevaros may make a particular pruzbul text valid or not. For example, how does hefqer BD hefqer work today, when courts do not have a central Sanhedrin organizing them? I am giving the loan to three hedyotos. Which 3? The three I named? (Are we invoking Beis Shammai's notion that one can be mafqir only to a given person or set of people? [Ymi Pei'ah 6:1 19b]) Then how is it HBDH and not a simple matanah? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 03:09:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:09:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20150916100941.GE14423@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 03:39:14PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey : wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of : Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all : those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the : number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. : : In RM's opinion, shmitta won't be d'Orayata again until the Messiah comes. Also, the machloqes Rashi and Tosafos as to whether "kol yosheveha aleha" is by sheivet. I don't know what Tosafos do with the machloqes (Sanhedring 110b) about whether the lost shevatim will ever be restored. If they hold like R' Aqiva, this would have to refer to the descendents of those refugees from Malkhus Yisrael who fled to Malkhus Yehudah. Or, is that in itself enough reestablishment of the shevatim to contradict R' Aqiva? The masqanah of the gemara appears to be Rabba bb Chana (citing R' Yochanan) refuting R' Aqiva's position in favor of R' Eliezer -- that the missing shevatim will be restored (quoting Yirmiyahu 3:!2). Maybe they just consider the question closed. The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority of Benei Yisrael. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 05:08:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:08:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: from wikipedia Thus, if one would agree that shmita does not apply when Israelites are dispersed,[6] Hillel, great as he was, would not have changed a law of the Torah in order to fit the needs of his time. He and his beth din would have enacted a rabbinic exception to a rabbinic law. As the Rambam notes in Shmita V'Yovel chapter 9, when most Jews again live in the Land of Israel and the observance of the sabbatical and jubilee years are Toraitic commandments, the prozbul will no longer be able to be used. According to this theory, Prozbul, like `eruv , is a rabbinic exception to a rabbinic enactment. Prozbul cannot be used to get around the Torah commanded shmita and yovel, just as `eruv cannot be used to get around the fact that Torah prohibited carrying in the public domain. I recently saw the opposite question: There are many ways to avoid the problem of shmitta annulling laws without resorting to prozbul. One simple example is to make the loan end immediately after RH of this year. There are many other options. So the question is why the need for prozbul The only answer I saw was that the general population was not aware of the alternatives or else they were too cumbersome [Email #2] > In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench > that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the > true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people > who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is > much higher than we believe it to be. I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even for direct maternal descendants. i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. I would assume that a descendant of annusim would be Jewish since they kept their Jewish identification through various customs -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:40:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:40:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:36:20PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were :> exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on :> Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority :> of Benei Yisrael. : How do you know? (I assume you mean the reisha about yovel and therefore shemittah de'oraisa ending when eiver hayardein was conquered, not my last sentence.) Eirachin 32b Rambam, Hil Shemitah veYovel 10:8. GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 09:36:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:36:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> On 9/13/2015 4:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey > wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of > Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all > those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the > number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. On the contrary. The number of people who identify as "Jewish" in polls who are actually non-halakhic "converts" or children of non-Jewish mothers is vast, so the number of Jews is much *lower* than we believe it to be. [Email #2] On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were > exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on > Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority > of Benei Yisrael. How do you know? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:40:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:40:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F9A97D.2080405@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 08:08 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> >In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench >> >that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the >> >true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people >> >who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is >> >much higher than we believe it to be. > I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that > once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with > yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even > for direct maternal descendants. > > i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim > through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. That is an extreme daat yachid, with a very tenuous basis. Nobody else agrees with him, so there's no reason to expect R Melamed to take this view into account, or even to be aware of it. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:49:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:49:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Moderator Vacation Message-ID: <20150916174900.GC6146@aishdas.org> While Areivim has a team of mods, Avodah is still entirely dependent on me. Which makes me feel an obligation to forewarn y'all before I go on vacation. Tomorrow I will be leaving for 3 weeks in Yerushalayim ih"q. (Barring messianic intervention, to leave again the day after chutznik Simchas Torah.) I do not know what my internet access will be like, but it's quite likely moderation approval delays will increase. Please be patient. Yerushalayim crew: Avodah/Areivim Simchas Beis haSho'eivah anyone? Discussion on Areivim...) GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 11:30:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:30:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916183023.GD6146@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 03:08:53PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that : once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with : yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even : for direct maternal descendants. This was his famous teshuvah on the Brother Daniel case. That there are limits even on maternal descent. I found a nice summary by R/Dr Judah Goldberg : i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim : through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. >From there, RAL's meqoros in shas: In Yevamot 16b, Rav Assi states that if a gentile betroths a Jewess, we cannot dismiss the validity of the marriage, for perhaps he descends from one of the ten lost tribes. When Shmuel heard this ruling, however, he responded, "They did not move from that place until they made [the descendants of the lost tribes] into absolute gentiles, as it says, 'They have betrayed God, for they have begotten alien children' (Hoshea 5:7)" (17a). Similarly, Chullin 6a tells how Rav Ami and Rav Assi discovered that the Samaritan community, which had long been suspected of engaging in pagan worship, was no longer observing Jewish law at all. In response, They did not move from that place until they made [the Samaritans] into absolute gentiles. He cites three shitos from rishonim, although the Rambam's pesaq is as explacated by R' Chaim Brisker. 1- Rashba: The Samaritan's conversion was annulled, not that one can stop being a Jew. R Pinchas Horowitz (Sefer Ha-mikna) applies parallel reasoning to the 10 shevatim -- they didn't stop being Jews, they are just an ignorable mi'ut that only a derabbanan kept us from ignoring. And that was repealed. 2- A mi'ut hold that the geir who stops believing ceases being a geir, but we have to worry about what's really going on in his head, so lechumerah we have to acknowledge his marriage. 3- The Rambam as explained by RCB (contrasting Ishus 4:15 with peirush on Niddah 7:4, where he says a dead Samaritan is not metamei tum'as ohel) that someone who gives up his self-identity as a Jew and acts on it is But in either case, the hypothetical Ephramite is a machloqes amoraim. Unless you agree with the author of the Hafla'ah that it's just an issue of mi'ut, and therefore the one who could prove he is in the mi'ut would be Jewish. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless micha at aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 13:39:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:39:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Moderator Vacation In-Reply-To: <55F9B9EA.70600@sero.name> References: <20150916174900.GC6146@aishdas.org> <55F9B9EA.70600@sero.name> Message-ID: <43db8966934f6c727f16a67e6896f9cb@aishdas.org> It is much easier when my mechutan's work address is "1 Kotel Plaza" -- Yeshivat Netiv Aryeh. Thanks for the _berakhos_. _Gemar chasimah tovah_! On 2015-09-16 2:50 pm, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/16/2015 01:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > >> Tomorrow I will be leaving for 3 weeks in Yerushalayim ih"q. > > Mazal tov. Even if Moshiach doesn't come in the next week or so, > you can still fulfil a zecher to hakhel. I was there 14 years > ago at the "hakhel" rally at the kotel, but unfortunately I was > unable to be there 7 years ago, and barring either Moshiach (and > the real hakhel) or a lottery win I will not be able to be there > this year either. > > (Actually I'm not aware of any source that Moshiach will provide > transportation, so even if he comes today it may be impossible > for everyone to get there in time for hakhel.) _Tir'u baTov_! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 11:54:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:54:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> On 9/16/2015 8:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:36:20PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: > : On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were > :> exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on > :> Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority > :> of Benei Yisrael. > > : How do you know? > > (I assume you mean the reisha about yovel and therefore shemittah de'oraisa > ending when eiver hayardein was conquered, not my last sentence.) Actually, I meant your last sentence. How do you know that the area of the 2.5 shvatim didn't include a majority of Bnei Yisrael? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:47:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:47:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 09:54:59PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : Actually, I meant your last sentence. How do you know that the area : of the 2.5 shvatim didn't include a majority of Bnei Yisrael? Because the gemara has to explain why 2-1/2 shevatim needed as many arei miqlat as the rest of BY. And the answer is because those who settled for land on that side of the Yardein built a more careless culture. (See Rashi Bamidbar 35:14 which is based on Abayei Makos 10a, and the Maharal on the Rashi to explain that Rashi [and Abayei] assume that the number who need galus will be greater whent he number of murderers does.) Notice the answer was NOT "because HQBH knew there would be at least as many people Mei'eiver haYardein before bayis rishon ended". It would also take a notable statistical anomaly for the largest population to grow out of a small initial state, and yet never get a navi telling them anything, etc... GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your micha at aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender, Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:41:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:41:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question Message-ID: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: > Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking around at books and online. I see no > discussion whatsoever on whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, e.g. books > I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an > obligation to return a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? Thanks, Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:54:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:54:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F9E518.5090701@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 05:47 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Because the gemara has to explain why 2-1/2 shevatim needed as many arei > miqlat as the rest of BY. And the answer is because those who settled > for land on that side of the Yardein built a more careless culture. Do you understand that question and answer? How do the population *or* the number of manslaughterers affect the number of arei miklat needed? Surely the only determinant is geography. A manslaughterer has to cover the same distance regardless of how sparse the population, or how careful they are. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 12:37:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:37:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: I was asked to provide a list of (me-possible) mitzvaot which were considered kiyumit. Does anyone know of such a list? GCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 15:07:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:07:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 05:41 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: > >> Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking >> around at books and online. I see no discussion whatsoever on >> whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, >> e.g. books I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that >> addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an obligation to return >> a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? > I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? Shemita applies only to halva'ah, not to she'elah. English uses the same word, but they are very different transactions. It's actually strange that English, which is usually the most precise language, does not distinguish them. A book is a she'elah; the book remains her property, and she expects the borrower to return it. Thus it is not at all affected by shemita. It is also not subject to the prohibition on ribbis; not only is there absolutely nothing wrong with charging people to borrow your stuff, the Torah explicitly endorses it as one of the four forms of shemirah. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 15:29:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:29:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Li Nir'eh Message-ID: <20150916222914.GE26081@aishdas.org> In AhS YD 39:48, RYME draws a conclusion from the fact that the Rama in Darkhei Moshe says "nir'eh li" rather than "veli nir'eh". "Veli nir'eh" implies he is choleiq with the BY? Anyone hear before of a distinction between the two idioms? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 16:20:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:20:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:06:16AM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> I intend to write a post on the meaning of the word "mesorah" as developed :> in RYBS's and RHS's thought as the start of its own thread. See http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/what-does-masorah-mean : And this is where this slide from discussing one slice of the mesorah - what : to do in Yeshiva, to a much wider slice of the mesorah becomes problematic, : because of the implication you have just made which is that what is true of : the section applies to the whole... Well, that's sort of it, isn't it? You're making a distinction between learning in a semichah shiur and learning how to pasqen. I don't think RYBS would. IOW, his whole point about needing mesorah is because he denies your premise. Leshitaso, you pasqen more from lomdus than from codes; or to put it more clearly -- you need a Rashi and a Tosafos to teach you how to fill in between the data points of a Yad or SA. For that matter, this is clearly the AhS's approach to pesaq. And the entire school which runs from Gemara to Rambam vs Rosh (at al) to Tur, BY, SA, Rama, Shach, Taz (et al)... This is how pesaq comes to be. Not from deciding between codes but from using the flow of mesorah to decide between them. Otherwise, shu"t would read like surveys; and even ROY doesn't end with his survey. : RGS comments that he and his father tried to learn meseches Nedarim just : using the meforash, in the absence of Rashi, and were not able to do so : (they were then only able to do it using the Ran, a much later commentary) - : thus demonstrating the point of the post, which is, without Rashi, most of : the Talmud Bavli would be a closed book to most people of average, and even : above average, intelligence (like the Talmud Yerushalmi). Actually, RYBS said that. : This is unquestionably true. : : The Rambam was also aware of this problem (after all he learned all of : Talmud Bavli without Rashi and everybody he knew either did so or tried to : do so). His solution to RGS's problem was to tell RGS and his father, and : people like him, not to try and learn Talmud Bavli, but to learn his, the : Rambam's, Code instead... Not really. His code is mishnah, not gemara. He tells beginners to do their shelish bemiqra in his code. And then you should be able to graduate from it, and from the whole need to divide one's time into thirds. ... : Our mesorah is like Rashi in this regard and not the Rambam (except when it : comes to smicha students). We open up the Talmud Bavli even to children : using Rashi and hundreds of thousands are sitting in yeshiva following : Rashi. Huh? Rashi didn't expect kids to start with Tanakh? Where does this come into the whole discussion? : The problem is that people (it would appear including you) then generalise : from "how we learn" to "how we posken" - which is what really is involved in : the discussion regarding Open O and feminism. And they are not the same : thing at all. Indeed, the fact that smicha students (those that are being : set up to posken) are taught in a totally different way to the more general : way of learning in yeshiva, and one that owes far more to the Rambam than to : Rashi and Tosphos should alert you to that. I do not believe the closing sentence. RYBS was giving one shiur to cover both. But that's RYBS, not my own leanings. I do see lomdus, in which the goal is to justify every opinion, and pesaq, in which the goal is to decide which opinion is most justified, to be different. But again, one doesn't pasqen from codes without the tools learned from lomdus. For that matter, if it's a halakhah pesuqah, one isn't pasqening at all. : What Rashi did was to provide a clear and simple explanation of the words on : the page. : What Tosphos did ... And the Me'iri opened the gemara in a third way. That seems to be a pretty complete taxonomy of parshanim. Then there are codes. Then there is shu"t. And most recently, encyclopedias / collections. ... : On the other hand, RET is correct: :> Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against :> the concept. :> Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own :> interpretation and not rely or be bound by any text. : Although I would modify that statement not to say "and not be bound by any : text", as most at that point agreed that they should be bound by the gemora : (and the Tanach as understood by the mishna/gemora), just not beyond that. The Maharal's actual objection: To decide halakhic questions from the codes without knowing the logic of the ruling was not the intent of these authors [Rambam, Tur, SA, et al]. Had they known that their works would lead to the abandonment of Talmud, they would not have written them. It is better for one to decide on thebasis of the Talmud even though he might err, for a scholar must depend solely on his understanding. As such, he is beloved of God, and preferable tothe one who rules from a code but does not know thereason for the ruling; such a one walks like a blind person. See Nesivos Olam, Nesiv haTorah ch 15. (I invoked the above thought about shelish bemishnah only being for beginners [from Hil TT] and the MT only being a replacement for the hoi palloi to justify the Maharal's statement WRT the Rambam. See RMRabi's and my months-long discussion.) Actually, what I think won the day for the SA was that the SA stopped being a code when they started publishing everyone on the sides. That's what it seems from the Maharal. Presumably his brother, the Yam shel Shelomo, would agree. ... : And RMB replied: :> Actualy, it's only those who have an eye on common practice. After all, we :> discuss machloqesin between Rashi and the Rambam in halakhah lemasseh :> contexts all the time. And if Ashkenazim accepted Rashi's ruling, or one :> found in Tosafos, the Rama has no problem limiting his pesaq to that rather :> than that of the Rif, Rambam or Tur. And had there not been a Rama, then :> some shu"t or parshan could as well. : : But neither Rashi nor Tosphos gave us any method of limiting where psak : went, and indeed the Ri can hold one thing and Rabbanu Tam another within : the same Tosphos. The Codes are far less open... But they only cover specific cases. They don't teach how to extent beyond those cases. So in general, the codes are more open than Rashi, the Ri or Rabbeinu Tam who help you by providing a why that tells you how far to take the point. A code is way open except for the cases they covered. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 16:38:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:38:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: References: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150916233829.GA3601@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 08:01:11PM +0300, RCK via Avodah wrote: : It's a good question, in fact, the Bayis HaGadol (also known as Biur) on : Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer (end of ch. 19) asks this on HaBachur. Since you clearly saw it, and some of us are kind of busy (and about to take leave of my library), could you please summarize the discussion there? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 18:31:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:31:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55FA17E2.6020200@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 07:20 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > That's > what it seems from the Maharal. Presumably his brother, the Yam shel > Shelomo, would agree. The Maharshal was not a brother of the Maharal! AFAIK they were not related. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 19:19:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:19:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel quoted Wikipedia: > ...According to this theory, Prozbul, like > `eruv , is a rabbinic exception > to a rabbinic enactment. Prozbul cannot be used to get around the > Torah commanded shmita and yovel, just as `eruv cannot be used to get > around the fact that Torah prohibited carrying in the public domain. As few days ago, I was thinking about comparisons between Prozbul and Eruv, and it seems clear to me that while Eruv *is* an exception to an enactment, Prozbul is a whole 'nother thing. I think it makes no sense for Prozbul to be "an exception to an enactment", because "why bother?" If the agricultural Shemitta stops being d'Oraisa, then Chazal can certainly enact it on a d'rabanan level. But to do that for Shemitas Kesafim means to legislate the following three things simultaneously: 1) Enact a law requiring cancellation of loans 2) Loans are exempt from cancellation if Prozbul is done 3) For the benefit of both poor and wealthy, everyone should do a Prozbul Why enact such a set of laws? Wouldn't it be far simpler to just let Shmitas Kesafim lapse, and NOT be enacted on a d'rabanan level? Regardless of whether one holds Prozbul to work on a d'Oraisa level, I think everyone can agree that Prozbul was enacted specifically because (as the Torah feared) too many people refrained from lending money as Shmitta got near. Therefore, it seems clear to me that IF Shmitas Kesafim was enacted as a d'rabanan, THEN Prozbul was enacted LATER, and not at the same time. In sharp contrast, I understand that Eruvin was a real "exception to an enactment": Simultaneously to the new law which prohibited carrying in a karmelis, an exception was included exempting certain areas under certain condiitons, allowing the carrying there. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 20:25:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:25:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55FA328E.1080708@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 10:19 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > In sharp contrast, I understand that Eruvin was a real "exception to > an enactment": Simultaneously to the new law which prohibited > carrying in a karmelis, an exception was included exempting certain > areas under certain condiitons, allowing the carrying there. An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. I don't know who prohibited carrying in a karmelis, but there's no reason to suppose it was Shlomo. Shlomo prohibited carrying in a *reshus hayachid with multiple owners*, and instituted eruv as a way around that prohibition. (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 05:01:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:01:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and > thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. My language was not precise. I apologize. What I meant was that prior to the establishment of these d'rabanans, one was allowed to carry from an unwalled non-thoroughfare to either a walled area or to a major thoroughfare. But it was easy to get confused between the general outdoors and a main road, so the general outdoors was made into a Reshus Harabim D'rabanan, with the following exception: Whereas a Reshus Harabim d'Oraisa requires actual walls to allow carrying, for a Reshus Harabim d'Rabanan it is sufficient to surround an area with doorways (tzuras hapesach). > I don't know who prohibited carrying in a karmelis, > but there's no reason to suppose it was Shlomo. Shlomo > prohibited carrying in a *reshus hayachid with multiple > owners*, and instituted eruv as a way around that > prohibition. I'm fuzzy on the history too. The law as I described it above may or may not have been part of the same legislation that RZS described here. What we have here are two distinct - but easily and often confused - d'rabanans within the melacha of hotzaa. It doesn't really matter which came first, or if they came together. My point was that they are excellent examples of an exception being built into the law from the very beginning, as opposed to Prozbul, which (if shmitas kesafim is d'rabanan) was a separate enactment from shmitas kesafim (because if they were done at the same time, the goal of Prozbul could have been acheived even more easily by simply not enacting shmitas kesafim). > (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an > eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple > owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) I'm not sure if there is a rigorous definition of "loophole". (The wikipedia article is a great place to start.) I tend to think that it is a general pejorative to describe any leniency that one has an emotional objection to. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 05:17:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150917121734.GA8567@aishdas.org> Li nir'eh the difference is that by eruv, it was all done in one sitting of beis din -- when they assered a karmeelis, they also promulgated the idea of eruv. IOW, explicitly they only assured a karmelis that didn't have an eruv. (A conscious exemption more than a loophole, as I would use the terms.) Pruzbul was a loophole in an earlier taqanah and that was and promulgated by a later beis di GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 09:58:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:58:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55FAF148.5080904@sero.name> On 09/17/2015 08:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and >> thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. > My language was not precise. I apologize. > > What I meant was that prior to the establishment of these d'rabanans, > one was allowed to carry from an unwalled non-thoroughfare to either > a walled area or to a major thoroughfare. But it was easy to get > confused between the general outdoors and a main road, so the general > outdoors was made into a Reshus Harabim D'rabanan, with the following > exception: Whereas a Reshus Harabim d'Oraisa requires actual walls to > allow carrying, for a Reshus Harabim d'Rabanan it is sufficient to > surround an area with doorways (tzuras hapesach). Mid'oraisa a set of four tzuros hapesach works in reshus harabim too. It was the rabanan who said "ein me'arvim reshus harabim bekach", and only allowed it in a karmelis. Whether they did this at the same time that they forbade carrying in a karmelis, I don't know. My impression is that it was later, because the first we hear of it is in a braisa, and it's subject to machlokes, whereas the concept of karmelis is taken for granted by all. > My point was that they are excellent examples of an exception being > built into the law from the very beginning, as opposed to Prozbul, > which (if shmitas kesafim is d'rabanan) was a separate enactment from > shmitas kesafim Yes, this is clear. > (because if they were done at the same time, the goal of Prozbul > could have been acheived even more easily by simply not enacting > shmitas kesafim). You don't need to go there. It's obvious that shmitas kesafim midrabanan preceded Hillel, because if it hadn't then how could he have observed the problem that resulted? Clearly it long predated him, presumably all the way back to the end of shmita d'oraisa, or at least to the return from Bavel. But the *efficacy* of pruzbul is not Hillel's takana at all. It's de'oraisa (Sifri, quoted by Tosfos Gittin 36a dh Mi Ika Midi) >> (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an >> eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple >> owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) > I'm not sure if there is a rigorous definition of "loophole". > (The wikipedia article is a great place to start.) I tend to > think that it is a general pejorative to describe any leniency > that one has an emotional objection to. The WP article is seriously defective (WP:OR for one thing) and needs to extensive a rewrite for me to bother with. A loophole is built into a wall; it's *meant* to be there. There's nothing pejorative about it. An exception to a law is a case where the law doesn't apply; a loophole is where the law *does* apply, and this is how it applies. It's not that an eruv permits one to carry in a RHY with multiple owners, it's that an eruv turns it (for this purpose) into a RHY with a single owner. Similarly eruv techumin doesn't allow you to walk more than 2000 amos from your residence, it merely moves your residence. That's not an exception, it's a loophole. If you want an example of an exception, look to eruv tavshilin. The chachamim, whether because of kevod shabbos or kevod yomtov, forbade the ha'arama of cooking for guests whom you aren't really expecting, *unless* you make an eruv. The eruv is an exception built into the original takana. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 03:33:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 13:33:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "I think it makes no sense for Prozbul to be "an exception to an enactment", because "why bother?" If the agricultural Shemitta stops being d'Oraisa, then Chazal can certainly enact it on a d'rabanan level. But to do that for Shemitas Kesafim means to legislate the following three things simultaneously: 1) Enact a law requiring cancellation of loans 2) Loans are exempt from cancellation if Prozbul is done 3) For the benefit of both poor and wealthy, everyone should do a Prozbul Why enact such a set of laws? Wouldn't it be far simpler to just let Shmitas Kesafim lapse, and NOT be enacted on a d'rabanan level?" If you look at the sugya of pruzbul (Gittin 36a-b) these points are all addressed: The Gemara starts out with the fact that Hillel was mesaken pruzbul. Then the Gemara asks how could he do that if the Torah (shemitas kesafim) cancels the loan? Abaye answers that Hillel only made his takana of pruzbul when shemittas kesafim was derabbanon. The Gemara then asks how could the Chachamim be mesaken shemmitas kesafim derabbanon if min hatorah the lender has to pay back the loan? Rava answers hefker beis din hefker. We see clearly from the Gemara that the historical progression was 1. Shemmita ceased being min hatorah 2. Chachamim were mesaken shemitta miderabbonon including shemittas kesafim 3. After shemitta derabbonon was already established Hillel saw that people were not lending money and therefore was mesaken pruzbul In other words these things did not happen simultaneously, pruzbul was enacted after shemmitas kesafim was already established. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 06:03:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 09:03:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] An Important Clarification Regarding Some Relevant Halachos for Yom Kippur Message-ID: <20150921130412.485F3183A12@nexus.stevens.edu> [] Some Relevant Halachos for Yom Kippur: A Clarification The following is an excerpt from the article on selected halachos relative to Yom Kippur: "At the conclusion of Yom Kippur, one may not do melachah (labor prohibited on Shabbos/ Yom Kippur) until one recites (or hears) Havdalah over wine (or the equivalent) or recites A ttah Chonantanu in Ma'ariv, or says Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol. Although reciting any of these allows one to do melachah, one may not eat until after reciting (or hearing) Havdalah over wine (or the equivalent). Accordingly, married men should hurry home after Ma'ariv on Motza'ei Yom Kippur to recite Havdalah so that their wives will be able to eat." Clarification : Following the conclusion of Yom Kippur, after one recites Attah Chonantanu in Ma'ariv or says Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol, one may drink water even before reciting (or hearing) Havdalah. Thus (for example), a woman whose husband is delayed in coming home after Ma'ariv on Motza'ei Yom Kippur may recite Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol after nightfall and drink water before hearing Havdalah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 15:18:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 23:18:00 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> Message-ID: A summary of Pruzbul I have in front of me (written by Rabbi D Tugendhaft, London) says: "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" On 16 September 2015 at 23:07, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 09/16/2015 05:41 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > >> A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: >> >> Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking >>> around at books and online. I see no discussion whatsoever on >>> whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, >>> e.g. books I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that >>> addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an obligation to return >>> a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? >>> >> > I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? >> > > > Shemita applies only to halva'ah, not to she'elah. English uses the > same word, but they are very different transactions. It's actually > strange that English, which is usually the most precise language, does > not distinguish them. > > A book is a she'elah; the book remains her property, and she expects > the borrower to return it. Thus it is not at all affected by shemita. > It is also not subject to the prohibition on ribbis; not only is there > absolutely nothing wrong with charging people to borrow your stuff, > the Torah explicitly endorses it as one of the four forms of shemirah. > > -- > Zev Sero GChT > zev at sero.name > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 06:53:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:53:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Haqeil Message-ID: <55FC174B.6090900@zahav.net.il> Anyone here understand sound? Assuming best case scenarios (loud voices, no background noise, good hearing), how many people could possibly hear the king read at Haqeil? It would seem that there is no way the king could project his voice so that most could hear him (????). If few actually came to the tekes, OK, but if most people came how could it possibly work? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 07:57:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:57:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] From Medieval Ashkenaz Techinah Supplication to Iconic Segulah: The Chasidic Transformation of G-d of Abraham Message-ID: <20150918145828.8F30C183A9B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/pwg839c From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 10:20:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 20:20:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] vort on teshuvah Message-ID: 1) Rambam in hlichot teshuva (7:6) discusses the effect of teshuva yesterday (emesh) i was far from G-d hated ... and now I am beloved RYBS asks why the Rambam here uses such poetic language in particular using "emesh" instead of "etmol" . He asnwers that "etmol" indicates a 24 hour period while "emesh" can be a fraction of second between being hated by G-d and being loved by G-d 2) Someone who marries on a woman on condition that he is a Tzaddik the marriage is valid even if it is known that he is a rasha perhaps (shema) he did teshuva. Someone in the shiur noted that "shema" read backwards is "emesh" . Meaning that rasha who proposed marriage did teshuva a fraction of a second before the proposal -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 10:15:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 13:15:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reciting 100 Brochos Daily Message-ID: <20150918171648.24C57181A25@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/njmnbgn From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 15:12:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shmuel Weidberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:12:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? Message-ID: Hello everybody. I haven't been active on this list in a long time. I just had a look around the internet to see if there was anything new with the Kosher Switch, and I remembered an issue with it that I haven't seen discussed anywhere. The makers say that there is a certain amount of randomization involved in whether the light flashes into the detector and whether the detector detects the light. There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create random numbers. They create pseudo-random numbers which means they take a seed number and perform a complex calculation on it to get the next number, which looks like it bears no relation to the first number, but which in fact is completely determined by the first number. Computer can get real random numbers, by generating the seed by looking at actions that take place that the computer cannot predict such as when somebody presses a key on a keyboard, or when some other sensor is activated. Alternatively, they can get random numbers from a special piece of hardware that is designed to physically make random numbers. However, I believe such pieces of hardware are quite specialized and if there actually was one in the switch it would be advertised. In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. Regards, Shmuel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 10:59:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:59:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> Message-ID: <56004574.4040004@sero.name> On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour > because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in > its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to she'elah. Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 11:29:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:29:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. ------------------------------- Yes, much as a complete understanding of the physics involved would determine the roll of the dice as it left one?s hand. Yet we call this ?random? (and iirc statisticians can?t prove any set of numbers was truly random, only that they appear likely so. Gct 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 22:35:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 01:35:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <063901d0f4f8$8c2cd700$a4868500$@gmail.com> R? Shmuel Weidberg: The makers say that there is a certain amount of randomization involved in whether the light flashes into the detector and whether the detector detects the light. There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create random numbers. They create pseudo-random numbers which means they take a seed number and perform a complex calculation on it to get the next number, which looks like it bears no relation to the first number, but which in fact is completely determined by the first number. In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. --------------------------- Isn?t the lomdus of their approach that you, the person flicking the switch, doesn?t DO anything because you?re only covering a light pulse without knowing when it will come next? So it doesn?t really matter if it?s random, it matters that you don?t know when it will next illuminate. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 07:04:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:04:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56004574.4040004@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> Message-ID: <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. On 9/21/2015 8:59 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > >> "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour >> because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in >> its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" > > Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to > she'elah. > Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 11:00:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:00:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> Message-ID: <56019748.5060907@sero.name> On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 9/21/2015 8:59 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: >>> "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour >>> because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in >>> its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" >> Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to she'elah. >> Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. > But a book, you return the same one. Usually. Not usually, always. There are two utterly different kinds of transaction for which the English language uses the same words: loan, borrow, lend. This is surprising, since usually English is a more precise language than most, but it is so. She'elah: I give you my property, with permission to use it. It remains my property, and you must return it on the agreed-upon date, or when I ask for it, in reasonable shape given the time you had it and the use to which you put it. In other words, in slightly worse shape than when I gave it to you. I may do this as a favour, but there is no mitzvah for me to do so. I am entitled to charge you for it, in which case the transaction is called "sechirus", or in English, "rental". Shemitah does not apply to this transaction. Common examples: a book, a car, a tool, a pen. Halva'ah: I give you my property, and it becomes yours. I do not expect it back, ever. On the agreed-upon date, or when I ask, you must give me something exactly like what I gave you. Since you are a Jew, I have a mitzvah to do this as a favour for you, and am forbidden from charging you anything for it, and you are forbidden from paying me anything for it, in any form. Shemitah applies. Common examples: $100, a cup of sugar, a rubber band. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 12:48:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 22:48:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56019748.5060907@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> <56019748.5060907@sero.name> Message-ID: <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > >> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. > > Not usually, always. Several years ago, we borrowed a book from my brother-in-law. A while later, we wanted to return it, but we couldn't find it. So we bought another identical copy and returned that in its place. So I'm going to stick with "usually." Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 19:11:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 22:11:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> <56019748.5060907@sero.name> <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> Message-ID: <56035BCF.7000400@sero.name> On 09/23/2015 03:48 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> >>> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. >> >> Not usually, always. > > Several years ago, we borrowed a book from my brother-in-law. A while > later, we wanted to return it, but we couldn't find it. So we bought > another identical copy and returned that in its place. So I'm going > to stick with "usually." Your obligation was to return the exact same book. Once that became impossible, you became liable as a shomer; a shomer sachar and a socher are liable for geneiva va'aveida, so at that point you became liable to pay the value of the lost book, and that sum became a milveh, and thus subject to shemitah and ribbis. -- Zev Sero Gut Yomtov zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 12:09:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:09:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a > random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the > time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it > simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. Do you know whether the Star-K-certified "Sabbath mode" ovens use pseudo-random numbers or true random numbers? (Thermal noise would do fine; and many processors, even some embedded ones, have such a random number source.) --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 12:03:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 15:03:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150924190308.GA28981@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 06:12:07PM -0400, Shmuel Weidberg via Avodah wrote: : I just had a look around the internet to see if there was anything new with : the Kosher Switch... : There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't : computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create : random numbers... I don't think this particular distinction makes a halachic difference. The question is whether the person doing the action has a reasonable chance of predicting the outcome. Actual mathematical randomness might not be at issue. As long as I can't know what my flipping the switch would do, I would think it should all be the same. (Think of it as a first cousin to ignoring water bears and other zooplankton that can only be seen with a magnifying glass when drinking water.) ... : Computer can get real random numbers, by generating the seed by looking at : actions that take place that the computer cannot predict such as when : somebody presses a key on a keyboard, or when some other sensor is : activated... Actually, that's not really random, just less predictable because the seed generation is outside the machine. A specially designed can get truly random numbers by using quantum effects. Such as picking up on the brownian motion of molecules due to heat. But really, I don't think we have to worry about the difference between "random" and "not humanly predictable". Also a side note: I might point out that there are numerous hashkafos in which every event, or at least every event that impacts a human being, is subject to hashgachah peratis. And thus, nothing we ever experience is actually random. Or alternatively, that the word "random" needs a different translation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 14:20:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:20:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shemittah beyond Shemittah Message-ID: <20150924212050.B6B10182CED@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://cor.ca/view/720/shemittah_beyond_shemittah.html From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 14:37:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:37:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shemitta Sheilos: Using Arbah Minim of Sheviis - Parts I and II Message-ID: <20150924213723.28661183A0D@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://ohr.edu/6522 and http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6527 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 25 00:32:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:32:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Buying minim from a child Message-ID: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> When I was in yeshiva, we were told to refrain from buying any of the four minim from a child. If the product was stolen, a child can't take possession via shinu reshut or ma'aseh. Therefore the theft falls on the buyer and his minim are pasul. Thinking about during my jog, I had a few questions: 1) Is this a real chashash or simply are we trying to cover all halachik corners? Meaning, if I do buy from a child do I really have anything to worry about? And if it isn't a real concern, then why am I not being oveir on "chosheid b'kesheirim"? 2) If it is a real chashash (the presence of stolen minim in the market) than why buy from an adult? Buying stolen goods is also a sin. At the very least, one can only buy from a place with a heksher. 3) Or can one? Can we assume that the kashrut agencies really check were their minim come from? 4) Who determines if there is a significant presence of stolen goods in the market every year? I assume that the amount of stolen goods has to be above a certain minimum for there to be a real issue? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 21:44:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 00:44:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur Message-ID: In the case where an ill person is eating on Yom Kippur, the Magen Avraham 618:10 brings varying views on whether he needs Lechem Mishne, whether he includes Yaaleh V'yavo in bentching, and whether he must make Kiddush. Kaf Hachaim 618:60 repeats much of that, with some changes and additions, and in 618:61 he points out that the same would apply to children and women who have recently given birth. Similar things appear in the other nosei keilim on that se'if. I got the impression that the pros and cons on these questions were based mostly on practical and halachic concerns, such as whether or not these halachos were ever enacted for Yom Kippur. I'd like to know if the *historical* side is discussed anywhere. I'm focusing now specifically on Lechem Mishne, and I'm now ignoring Kiddush and Birkas Hamazon. Here are my questions of historical fact: During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the children eat? There are several possible answers I can think of: Perhaps mon fell on Yom Kippur, but only at the homes where where children or yoldos live. Perhaps mon did not fall on Yom Kippur, but those homes got a double portion on Erev Yom Kippur. Perhaps neither of the above happened, and the children and yoldos had to make do with whatever other food might have been available. (This possibility seems odd to me, as it throws a curve ball into the whole "40 years of miracles" idea: Exactly once each year, the children had no choice but to eat non-miraculous food, and the day for this chinuch was Yom Kippur.) I suppose I should also include another possibility, which is that everyone received their normal supply of mon on Yom Kippur just like on every other day, but that seems like quite a waste. Perhaps they ate it on Motzaei Yom Kippur. In which case I'd wonder if only a half-portion might have fallen that morning. I also question whether Hashem would have placed such a michshol at the doorways, leaving their mon in the reshus harabim. Does anyone know of any Midrashim or other sources that might talk about this? Akiva Miller (PS: I only asked about children and yoldos in the midbar, and I did not ask about other cholim. That's because I think that in the miraculous Midbar, no one was ever sick, and no one died except on the night of Tisha B'Av. If anyone wants to discuss this, please begin a new thread.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 20:33:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ken Bloom via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 23:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? Message-ID: Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in depth than Sefer HaToda'ah. Does anyone know of something analgous to how the Maharal's Gevurot Hashem explains Pesach, or have other recommendations about the holiday? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 22:19:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 01:19:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: : Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better : understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully : understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in : depth than Sefer HaToda'ah. Does anyone know of something analgous to how : the Maharal's Gevurot Hashem explains Pesach, or have other recommendations : about the holiday? RYHutner's Pachad Yitzchaq. (Although the volumes are arranged around Shabbos & YT, and thus would seem particular to those topics, I would consider it one of the canonical Jewish philoosphy works of the 20th cent. Not to be skipped by anyone serious about learning hashkafah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 30 12:53:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:53:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Whole Hallel on Sukkos Message-ID: <20150930195335.GA18194@aishdas.org> I just noticed something that is likely to be meaningful. We say whole Hallel every day of Sukkos because the qorban mussaf differs each day. The mussaf differs by the number of cows, which total 70 across the YT. The 70 cows are keneged the 70 nations. Among the things we would have otherwise skipped was "Lamah yomeru hagoyim..." So... Because we bring qorbanos on behalf of the 70 nations over the course of Sukkos, we pray for their abandonment of AZ on each day of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 30 13:03:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:03:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Buying minim from a child In-Reply-To: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> References: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <560C400E.6080206@sero.name> On 09/25/2015 03:32 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > When I was in yeshiva, we were told to refrain from buying any of the > four minim from a child. If the product was stolen, a child can't > take possession via shinu reshut or ma'aseh. Therefore the theft > falls on the buyer and his minim are pasul. > > Thinking about during my jog, I had a few questions: > > 1) Is this a real chashash or simply are we trying to cover all > halachik corners? Meaning, if I do buy from a child do I really have > anything to worry about? And if it isn't a real concern, then why am > I not being oveir on "chosheid b'kesheirim"? > > 2) If it is a real chashash (the presence of stolen minim in the > market) than why buy from an adult? Buying stolen goods is also a > sin. At the very least, one can only buy from a place with a heksher. > > 3) Or can one? Can we assume that the kashrut agencies really check > were their minim come from? > > 4) Who determines if there is a significant presence of stolen goods > in the market every year? I assume that the amount of stolen goods > has to be above a certain minimum for there to be a real issue? The chashash is not for actually stolen goods, but that the land on which the minim were grown was stolen hundreds or thousands of years ago, and since karka eina nigzeles it still belongs to the rightful heirs of the original owner. Thus the person who harvests the minim is technically the gazlan, ye'ush happened a long time ago, so we need a shinuy reshus, which happens when you buy from the "gazlan", but not if he's a katan. If he bought it from someone else then this problem doesn't exist, but there's another problem: it won't be shelachem, which it needs to be for the first day. This is also why one should not use minim one cut oneself, but rather sell those and buy ones that someone else cut. All of this only applies in countries where land title is uncertain; where it can be traced directly back to a valid kibush milchama, there is no problem. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 07:15:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 10:15:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <5593124A.2040905@sero.name> References: <20150630.152626.19374.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> <5593124A.2040905@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150701141526.GB24797@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 06:03:54PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/30/2015 03:26 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : >>From what I've seen, it is NOT said even if a minyan says Birkas Hamazon, : : Why would it? When a minyan says Birkhas haMazon, the zimun changes, it creates a minyan one may not break (by benching on their own or with a normal zimun), but no Qaddish. When a minyan says Pesuqei deZimra, nothing changes, there is no specific issur on leaving in the middle, and yet it is closed with Qaddish (even if you lose the minyan during PdZ). I think RAM's question why is quite fair. It would be nice to think the minhag follows some well-defined rule. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 05:35:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:35:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bio of RSRH Message-ID: <20150701123548.93E2D182CC3@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/p5h866u From this URL. When Rav Yisroel Salanter read a copy of The Nineteen Letters in 1873, he said that it should be translated into Russian and Hebrew. He also remarked, "Is there a Gan Eden big enough for Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch?" See the above URL for more. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 14:33:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:33:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakarat Hatov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 03:56:25PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Does Hakarat Hatov engender a measurable "liability" (e.g. require a : marginally greater action) between the recipient and the provider of the : "Tov", or is saying "Thank you, I appreciate it" the only requirement? Moshe isn't the trigger for the first makkos because he "owed" the Ye'or and the sand for saving him in the past. As Chazal put it (BQ 92b) WRT "velo sesaeiv Mitzri ki ger hayisa ve'artzo", it justified the common saying "bira deshasis mineih, lo tashdi beih kala" (into a well from which you once drank, don't throw clods of dirt). That said, I don't think reducing gratitude to *nothing more than* a favor-economics is healthy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness, micha at aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom. http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 14:37:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:37:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakarat Hatov In-Reply-To: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> References: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150701213753.GA24874@aishdas.org> PS: I started with the aggadic story and didn't say why I opened with a medrash rather than a gemara. The Nile and the sand wasn't actors. Moshe didn't really owe them anything. It's like "not embarassing" the challah by covering it. Apparently the notion of repaying a favor is so important, HQBH expects us to practice it for a middah exercise even when the other side isn't a real 2nd party. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 12:08:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 15:08:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish with mixed seating Message-ID: Following up upon my earlier post about the permissibility of saying the *kaddish *of a *siyyum* at a dinner with mixed seating. I spoke to RIETS RY last week and he said that we only require *mechitzah* in a *Shul*, based upon the *Gemara* in *Succos*, which requires separate seating at a *shul*. This is clear from the original textual source of mechitzah, the Gemara in the fifth perek of Succos, that the basis of *mechitzah* is the *Bais ha-Mikdash*. As our Synagogues are modeled after the Bais ha-Mikdash, we apply the principals underlying the *Gemara* in Succos to our Shuls. (Similarly, *Tosfos* justifies the practice of bringing children to Shul using the model of *Hakhel*.) As the Kaddish for a Siyyum has nothing do to with a Shul there is no need for separate seating. I also spoke to one of the Dayanim in our community he did not even think that saying *kaddish* with mixed seating was an issue as he thought that mixed seating was only an issue in a *Shul*. Others told me the same (i.e. that only a *shul* requires separation) in the name of Rav Schachter *shlit?a* . However, I saw Rav Herschel Schachter *shlit?a* at shacharis this week so I asked him my question. He responded that it would be better if they would have the *siyyum* before the dinner. I asked why and he responded ?*Davar She?bekedushah*?. I asked him so why do people recite *Kedushah* after a *siyyum* with mixed seating. And he responded, ?Nu, Nu?. (Which is a common response from Rav Schachter to questions of that sort.) Interestingly enough the Gemara in Succos brings a ?proof? for separation of men and women from a non-?*Davar She?bekedushah*? the funeral in *Zecharyah*. Of course we are not discussing whether a particular practice is good or bad or even ?best practices?, but rather whether it is required or not. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 08:32:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 11:32:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] From Succot to Moshiach Message-ID: Ma tovu ohalecha: ?Tents? are temporary and refer to olam hazeh ?.mishk?nosecha: ?Dwelling places? refers to olam haba. In other words, we are first in the antechamber, the temporary abode, which tents symbolize; then, once we leave our temporary homes, we hopefully ascend to our permanent ?dwelling place.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 14:44:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 17:44:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Historical Bil'am Message-ID: <20150703214448.GA32213@aishdas.org> H/T RYGB, see http://www.livius.org/source-content/deir-alla-inscription He asks on his blog: Why isn't this more widely known? The full article includes an image of the instription and a complete translation. This is just the opening. :-)BBii! -Micha Livius.org Articles on ancient history Deir 'Alla Inscription Deir 'Alla Inscription: inscription, found in the Iron Age town of Deir 'Alla, mentioning the Biblical prophet Balaam. Deir 'Alla is situated in western Jordan, about eight kilometers east of the river Jordan, and about a kilometer north of the Jabbok. The excavators found a very large Bronze Age sanctuary that had suffered in the period of wide-spread destruction in the thirteenth/twelfth centuries. Unlike other settlements, which were abandoned, Deir 'Alla remained in use well into the fifth century BCE. That is remarkable. Even more remarkable, however, was the discovery of a painted text that contained a prophecy by Balaam... (The site of Deir 'Alla is, technically, on the [11]Ammonite side of the river Jabbok.) The text refers to divine visions and signs of future destruction, in a language that is close to that of the Bible. For example, we read about the "Shaddai gods", an expression that is close to the Biblical El Shaddai, "God Almighty". On the other hand, the setting is not monotheistic: we read, for instance, about a gathering of a group of gods. The word elohim, which in the Bible (although plural) refers to one God, refers to more than one god in the Deir 'Alla text. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 15:16:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 18:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> In a recent blog post, R' Aryeh Klapper (Cc-ed) writes http://moderntoraleadership.wordpress.com/2015/07/03/chok-mishpat-and-obergefell Imagine pre-snake Adam and Eve walking into the Jewish camp. They would not praise the Jews for their modesty, and they would have no idea why the tents' openings did not face each other. For Bilaam to praise the Jews' virtue, even in the context of his deep and unremitting hatred, he had to be capable of understanding that modesty was a relevant evaluative category. What would it take for Bilaam to have this capacity? Unlike the prelapsarian original couple, he would have to be conscious of his own sexuality, and experientially aware that sexuality could be associated with shame. He might nonetheless choose exhibitionism for himself, and for his culture. He might decide that sexual shame is the root of neurosis and dedicate himself to its cultural eradication. But he would understand what he was eradicating. Perhaps there would even be moments when he regretted his victory. My tentative suggestion is that the Torah teaches us here that there is a value in making our moral premises intelligible even to our enemies; this is part of our mission to be the light of the nations. I want to be clear that this value is not pragmatic, and that we are not safer, or less likely to be hated, if we are understood. Like Bilaam, the world may use its understanding of our virtue to learn how best to undermine us. It is simply part of our job to enable as much as we can of humanity to make informed moral choices. I suggest further that perhaps we can understand the Seven Noachide Commandments as intended not to provide a formal code of behavior, but rather to identify a set of moral premises. Perhaps our mission is particularly to make those premises universally intelligible. Making premises intelligible is not accomplished through rational argumentation. Rational arguments depend on mutually intelligible premises. ... One core premise: let us identify it with the Noachide commandment against forbidden sexual relationships, or arayot -- that is no longer intelligible to many Americans is that sexuality can be evaluated in nonutilitarian terms, that a sexual act can be wrong even if no one gets hurt. We have replaced sexual morality with sexual ethics. Conversations on topics such as chastity, masturbation, and adultery are wholly changed from what they were even two decades ago, and tracts from back then can seem less contemporary than prehistoric cave art. There are many reasons that traditional rationales in the area of sexuality have moved rapidly from self-evident to unintelligible. Here are two: (1) Effective birth control and in vitro fertilization have broken the connection between intercourse and procreation. It is no longer self-evident to speak of intercourse as potential recreation, or as inevitably associated with the risk of pregnancy. (2) Many human beings with homosexual orientations have told compelling personal stories of pain and alienation. In the secular world, the natural reaction to a premise's social unintelligibility is the repeal of any laws that depend on it. In the Orthodox world, where immediate repeal is rarely a viable option, one reasonable reaction is what I call "chokification," or the declaration that laws that once depended on the now-unintelligible premise should be regarded as either beyond human comprehension or else as arbitrary rules intended to train us to obedience. Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. I utilized the following "Lonely Man of Faith" based idea to open "The Talk" with my sons.I wanted them to understand the sanctity of sex, so before getting into the mechanics of it, I tried to open by setting a religious context. As far as I can tell, the Torah gives two purposes for marriage: 1- In Genesis 1, the goal is to procreate and raise children. This is Adam I's drive "to fill the earth and conqure it", his place at the end of a sequence of creation -- above the animals, but more quatitatively than qualitatively. 2- In Genesis 2, the goal is to reunite the two halves, Adam and Eve, who were originally created as a single unit. Adam II seeks redemption through community. In this case, romantic love. Sex in its role of making a bond between people. And therefore a problem of premarital sex is that one thereby learns to minimize the bond thereby created. It weakens that function of sex, so it won't be as effective once you are married. Either alone -- procreation or the romantic reunification of the two halves of the original Adam (which again, I mean psychologically, not mystically) would be sufficient reason to justify sexual intimacy. But without either, it's the pursuit of our mamalian drives for insufficient reason. The objectification (or at least animalization) of the self. In order to buy into #2, one needs to believe that gender (as opposed to biological sex) is an innate set of existential and psychological differences, and not just a role imposed by convention. And therefore Adam and Eve are distinct and different halves of a whole. That this is an existential and deep-psychological truth, which will hold no matter how much society attempts to change those roles and bury gender differences. Notice that despite the social trends that brought the Supreme Court to conclude last week that traditional sexual morality (in contrast to sexual ethics) is irrational and thus prejudicial bias, the above implies that the Torah's ban on homosexuality can be explained in mishpat terms. On a different note, the shift from morality to ethics is typical for postmodernism. When all narratives are equally valid there is no way to insist there is an absolute moral code. Never mind determine what it contains. Therefore, one encourages a freedom to act as an end itself, rather than as a means to greatness. (Which is a logical progression from the American legal system, the concept of rights-based law taken to its extreme. It's notable that a society that values a "maavir al midosav" would not laud taking rights as far as all that. As a legal philosphy, though, it is the best we've come up with to avoid "ish es rei'eihu chaim bal'o", which is the central role of a secular gov't, no?) However, the lack of establishment of a common moral code is itself damaging to society. No one private violation of moral code, whatever the society holds it to be, will necessarily harm others. But living in a society that doesn't promote morality, that doesn't work toward aiming that autonomy toward some higher end, is harmful. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 15:20:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:20:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> References: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is the purpose to make things even worse? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 16:28:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 19:28:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> References: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150705232816.GA29598@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:20:08PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. : Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a : moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is : the purpose to make things even worse? As I quoted from RAK, because they classically were not considered chuqim. Until our contemporaries took the issue from sexual morality to sexual ethics, these truths were considered self-evident. It's the choqification of dinei arayos that's inauthentic. In any case, since one doesn't pasqen from taamei hamitzvos, the din is the same either way. Nothhing in such exploration can "make things even worse". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 15:57:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:57:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon Message-ID: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> In Pirkei Avot, Hillel HaZaken says: "Be among the talmidim of Aharon, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them close to the Torah." I don't get it. I honestly don't. If we see a bunch of Jews who don't know anything about Judaism, shouldn't we try and get them to keep the mitzvot? If you know that they're more likely to violate the mitzvot if they don't know, it's it our responsibility to teach them what God wants of them? The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this subject. I look at gay people and I see them overwhelmingly part of the nihilism of the left, but I don't think being gay automatically makes people like that. But what else are Jews supposed to do when they're being pushed away from the Torah? Jews have neshamas that were at Sinai. A Jew who was raised without Torah has an empty space inside that's just *begging* to be filled with Torah. But because of the wrongheaded idea that gay people have to either pretend they aren't gay, or they must be ostracized from the Torah community, they wind up filling that empty space with the even emptier slogans of the left. Because of the belief held by so many frum Jews that gay people who acknowledge themselves to be gay are simply *incapable* or unwilling to keep mitzvot, we, as a community *deliberately* withhold the Torah from them. It makes no sense to me. I mean, worst case, you tell someone gay, "There are things you aren't allowed to do according to Jewish law. Are you willing to abide by that?" But we aren't even doing that. We're assuming that the answer is going to be no, and by so assuming, we're *making that happen*. At 120, when you're standing before the Kisei HaKavod and you're asked why you pushed so many Jews away from His Torah, I wonder what you'll answer. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 17:34:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 20:34:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon In-Reply-To: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> References: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150706003423.GB14365@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:57:04PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: : In Pirkei Avot, Hillel HaZaken says: "Be among the talmidim of Aharon, : loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them close : to the Torah." : : I don't get it. I honestly don't. If we see a bunch of Jews who don't : know anything about Judaism, shouldn't we try and get them to keep the : mitzvot?... First, a minor correction. Hillel says "berios", or as in the tradition "loving people and bringing them..." IOW, not only kiruv, but bringing non-Jews to NNoachidism. : The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since : the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of : the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't : get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so : many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this : subject. I'm not so sure. The SCOTUS ruled in favor of a right that is based on the idea that believing the Torah's position about homosexuality is bigotry. But in any case, it's like any other rule of tochachah... You need to tell them what they're doing is wrong n a way that gets constructive change. The usual rule for when you should shut up is "mutav sheyihyu shogegim", but here nearly everyone involved know what we pasqen it's assur. So, you're not turning anyone into meizidim. : It makes no sense to me. I mean, worst case, you tell someone gay, : "There are things you aren't allowed to do according to Jewish law. : Are you willing to abide by that?" But we aren't even doing that. : We're assuming that the answer is going to be no, and by so assuming, : we're *making that happen*. But the US law in question is itself to permit something you aren't allowed to do in Jewish law, and in the Minchas Chinukh's opinion -- nor in Noachide law. The general problem of people hating the sinner rather than the sin isn't limited to this one. Perhaps here things are more extreme because the accusers do not attempt to separate an instinctive loathing from actual halachic concerns. Either we should be getting similar bile when discussing business cheats, or we should be getting quiet on both fronts. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 18:46:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 01:46:19 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Alternate texts for the Prayer for the Government Message-ID: <20150705.214619.1506.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> R' Mordechai Harris wrote: > Here's the one I shard last time from the De Sola Pool Siddur. > www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/deSolaPoolPrayerForGovernment.pdf R' Simon Montagu asked: > Can you also share the publication details and/or title page of > this siddur? What I know as the De Sola Pool Siddur is not the > same as in this link. I have ... RMH's link was for "The Traditional Prayer Book for Sabbath and Festivals", the official siddur of the RCA, published in 1960. A very different, longer version appears in many other siddurim, with rather minor differences: The Hirsch Siddur, published by Feldheim The Authorized Daily Prayer Book by Chief Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz The Daily Prayer Book by Philip Birnbaum The Koren Siddur by Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks and in the new Nehalel beShabbat by Michael Haruni (website and free sample at nehalel.com) I was going to remark that I have found this prayer only in siddurim that have an English translation, but is not correct. First, it would seem to appear in whichever siddur the Hirsch was adapted from. But moreover, this same tefila also appears in my copy of "Siddur Eishei Yisrael al pi daas Maran HaGra." (I know there are many siddurim with similar names; all I can tell about this is that the title page lists no publisher, only "Yerushalayim 5735".) The Nehalel siddur is worth noting for this thread. I have not seen this siddur to be too widespread or popular (yet - it's only from 2013), but I'd like to point out that it has TWO versions of this prayer. The version which is very similar to the others is on a page marked "In the United States of America:". But the following page is marked "In the United Kingdom and Commonwealth:", and is markedly different -- but not nearly as different as the De Sola Pool version. This makes me stop, and wonder, and consider the fact that although my Hertz siddur and my Sacks siddur are both of British authorship, they both used American publishers (Bloch and OU Press respectively), and were possibly designed for an American audience. Which leads me to ask those of the chevra who currently reside in the Commonwealth: What version (if any) is said in your shuls? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5599de50e59b55e504270st04vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 06:29:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:29:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VBM-SICHOT75 - 41: The Philosophical Principles of Inheritance Message-ID: <20150706132902.GB31051@aishdas.org> Just because taamei hamitzvos is supposed to be one of the core topics of this email group's host organization.... BTW, my grandfather a"h was named Pinechas after this week's sedra, his bar mitzvah parashah. When it was time to name my oldest, I checked with my uncle how his name appeared on their kesuvah, as their mesader qiddushin was a key rav in my grandfather's life. (R/Dr Mirsky zt"l met two teenage boys coming off the boat and took them under his wing. My grandfather and great-uncle then earned enough to bribe the rest of the family's way out of Litta before the Nazis came to power.) Anyway, it seems R/Dr Mirsky held my grandfather's name was Pinechas, pei-yud-nun-ches-samekh, as it is spelled in the chumash (ignoring the size of the yud as usually written in the beginning of the parashah). And thus the sheva is na, Pinechas - not Pinchas. If you want to make a derashah out of a Mitzri name, it's Pi Nachas, not Pen Chas. Reason for this tangent... I would have expected "Gushies" to get the sheva in the parashah name right. After all, they have the patach under the reish in Parashat. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov VBM-SICHOT75 - 41: Parashat Pinchas Sicha of HaRav Mosheh Lichtenstein Adapted by Motti Guttman Translated by David Strauss Yeshivat Har Etzion "In Place of Your Fathers Shall Be Your Children": The Philosophical Principles of Inheritance The concept of inheritance arises in a number of contexts in the Torah, most prominently in Parashat Pinchas. It is also the central topic of the eighth chapter of Massekhet Bava Batra, Yesh Nochalin. Naturally, the discussion of the laws of inheritance focuses largely on the financial matters at issue among the heirs, leading to the discussion and clarification of a number of fundamental questions regarding monetary law. For that reason, chapter Yesh Nochalin has an important place in the world of Choshen Mishpat. However, the issue of inheritance is not merely monetary. The yerusha (inheritance) is not simply money that we have to decide what to do with. Of course, it is preferable to award the estate of the deceased to his surviving relatives, and not to the state or the income tax authorities; the gemara itself notes, "Should the town collector be the heir?" (Bava Batra 110b). This, however, is not the essence of the laws of inheritance. Inheritance -- Breaching the Boundaries of the Present At the heart of the concept of inheritance lies a significant principle: that of permanence and continuity. When Avraham Avinu entered the Land, he was forced to pitch his tent in different places and live the life of a wanderer. In contrast, the idea of inheritance establishes that a person should not live a life of impermanence. Moshe expresses the desire for a state of permanence in his words to Israel at the plains of Moav: "For you are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance" (Devarim 12:9). This verse was also expounded as referring to the Temple. The idea of inheritance, in this context, creates existential permanence, which is reflected in Halakha. From the time that Jerusalem was selected, it became the permanent site of the Temple, and from that point on, offering sacrifices on bamot was forbidden due to the damage that this would cause to the idea of the Temple as the chosen inheritance. Inheritance constitutes permanence and it creates continuity because it allows the individual to breach the boundaries of the present. From the time of creation, reality dictates that "One generation passes away and another generation comes, but the earth abides forever" (Kohelet 1:4). Man's days are numbered, and sooner or later he will disappear from the world. By his very definition, he is temporary -- like the flower that fades, the shadow that passes, the dust that floats, and the dream that flies away. He is here today and in the grave tomorrow. In contrast, his inheritance remains and affords him continuity. From parent to child and from child to grandchild and great-grandchild, the chain continues and death does not sever it. To a certain extent, this allows one to overcome death and oblivion. Ownership of property and land in itself does not preventing transience or create continuity; it is the identification of inheritance with the family and its heritage in the past and the present that creates the permanence and continuity. A central concept in Jewish law is the concept of the "house," which denotes a family that constitutes a unit of common heritage -- "After their families, by the house of their fathers." We are familiar with this concept from various realms of Halakha. For example, a man whose brother died without children marries the widow through yibum, levirate marriage, in order to continue the family, and he is thereby able to perpetuate the name of the deceased, since they belong to a common "house." Because of the great importance that the Torah attributes to perpetuating the name of the deceased and continuing his legacy, it established the mechanism of levirate marriage despite the personal, familial and halakhic difficulties entailed in marriage to one's brother's wife. Indeed, the mitzva of yibum takes precedence over the mitzva of chalitza because of the mission of perpetuating the brother's name.[1] The language of the text itself creates a connection between yibum and inheritance, as the purpose of the mitzva is defined as "to perpetuate the name of the deceased on his inheritance." The principle of continuity and its importance in a person's life is further reflected in the statement of Chazal (Nedarim 64b) that includes one who does not have any children among those who are considered as if they were dead. While continuity expresses itself on the concrete level through the transmission of property, much more important, of course, is ensuring continuity on the level of values, goals, and existential aspirations, which constitute the true heritage that a person leaves behind. The prophet Yeshaya emphasized how a person's eternal heritage endures: For thus says the Lord to the eunuchs who keep My Sabbath, and choose the things that please Me, and take hold of My covenant. And to them will I give in My house and within My walls a memorial better that sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. (Yeshaya 56:4-5) Indeed, there is more than one plane on which a person achieves inheritance and continuity. Inheritance is part of the system that turns the transition between generations into something permanent and stable, allowing family identity to be transmitted across the generations. In this light, we can understand Chazal's critique of a person who leaves no inheritance. As we read in a mishna in Yesh Nochalin (Bava Batra 133b): If a person gives his estate in writing to strangers and leaves out his children, his arrangements are legally valid, but the spirit of the Sages finds no delight in him. The reference here is not to a person who did not leave an inheritance due to poverty or distress, but rather to a person who decided to give away his estate for other purposes, as positive as they may be,[2] or based on the perception that his children should fend for themselves. The idea behind this mishna is the need to leave a legacy for future generations. The principle of passing down to the next generation is of central importance. Know From Whence You Come! This perception of inheritance is rooted in a general and comprehensive idea that pervades all of Jewish life -- namely, that we do not live only in the present. Judaism rejects a horizontal perspective on man, according to which man is connected only to his current environment. Our relationship is not only with this generation. Rather, our sights are at all times directed at "the one who stands here with us this day before the Lord our God, and also with the one who is not here with us this day" (Devarim 29:14). The hope is to establish a relationship of shared destiny with the past, on both the national and the personal level. This is why we mourn to this day various historical events that happened to our ancestors. We do not say, "What happened, happened." The sense of pain and tragedy that Jewish law demands of a person indicates that it expects one to experience these things in unmediated fashion, as if they occurred to people he knows, and not only that he relate to them as events of the distant past for the purpose of learning a lesson from history. "In every generation one must see himself as if he went out from Egypt." Just as a Jew is expected to feel the pain of his Jewish brothers injured in terrorist attacks in Argentina, Turkey, Paris, or Afula, regardless of the geographical distance between them, because all of Israel are responsible for and close to one another, he is similarly expected to feel pain over events that took place a long time ago. The ability to draw from our heritage and know what happened to our ancestors is important in itself. The actions of our forefathers interest us, regardless of the spiritual insights that can be derived from them, because of the feeling of existential partnership between us and our ancestors. Avraham and Sara, Yitzchak and Rivka, Yaakov, Rachel and Leah, are not only the nation's patriarchs and matriarchs, but also our forefathers. They are not only lofty figures, but also Grandpa and Grandma -- and for this reason the Torah shared their lives with us. Just as a grandson is interested in hearing from his grandfather or his grandmother about life in Eastern Europe or North Africa a century ago, we want to know what happened in Mesopotamia during the time of Avraham and Sara. A person's life in the present is intertwined with the history of his forefathers in the past. One is intricately connected to his past; one does not grow up in a vacuum. Models of Inheritance The first mishna in Yesh Nochalin presents us with a number of possible models for those who inherit and those who transmit inheritance: Some [relatives] inherit [from] and transmit [to each other]; some inherit but do not transmit; some transmit but do not inherit; some neither inherit nor transmit. Clearly, the ideal is that a person should inherit and transmit inheritance, that he should be numbered among those who are "nochalin u-manchilin." As stated above, the inheritance is not simply property for the heir, but rather constitutes a familial plot filled with existential significance. He inherits -- deciding to connect himself to his past and to his heritage. And he is interested in transmitting inheritance -- adding his contribution to the heritage, the personal layer that he adds to the inheritance and passes down to the next generation. In contrast, there are those who inherit but do not transmit, "nochalin ve-lo manchilin" -- who draw from the past and connect to it, but are not capable of passing their heritage on. Perhaps this is because they do not consider this stage important, or perhaps they lack the capacity to give their heritage over to others and to connect to the next generation. Such a person does not know how to take from the past and interpret it for his children in the future. He is familiar with the world of the past, but he lacks the tools to apply the past and its heritage to the challenges of the present and the future. The reverse case also exists -- "yesh manchilin ve-einam nochalin," there are those who transmit but who do not inherit. They wish to pass on their personal legacy, but they are cut off from the past, or so they imagine. In their eyes, everything began in their generation. Previous generations erred or were weak; there is no need to receive their inheritance, laden with the outdated baggage of Diaspora life. This heir is not prepared to connect to the past or to recognize that he is dependent upon it. Blinded by his present achievements, he is alienated from the past and the weight of tradition. The most tragic group neither inherits nor transmits inheritance, "lo nochalin ve-lo manchilin." They are cut off from every bit of the past. They live only in the present and are utterly devoid of worry about the future -- "After me, the deluge." The concept of inheritance serves as a bridge between the past and the future. In this context, the individual is merely another link in a chain. If we consider the chain of tradition recorded by the Rambam in his introduction to the Mishneh Torah, more important than any particular Sage is the very chain of tradition itself. The value of each link lies in the fact that it allows the chain to continue. This is the connection and bridge between all the generations, from Avraham Avinu until the Mashiach. Spiritual Heritage through Physical Means As noted above, the transmission takes place through tangible means as well. It is obvious to us that it is values and ideas, Torah and mitzvot, that constitute the heritage that passes from one generation to the next. It is easy to understand the statement: "Moshe commanded us the Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov" (Devarim 33:4). It is more difficult to grasp that the Torah also attaches great importance to tangible inheritance, to the transmission of physical property. Chazal teach us that "monuments are not built for the righteous; their words are their memorials" (Bereishit Rabba 82). We do not set up statues or tombstones for the righteous, for it is their spiritual legacy that serves as their memorial. Nevertheless, the ability to touch the past by way of some object bestows additional meaning on that heritage. Touching the physical possession of a deceased relative gives a person the sense of an unmediated encounter with the past. One generation passes away and another generation comes, but an object that remains provides a connection to the earlier period. Man is a physical creature, and contact with material objects is meaningful to him as a reminder of and bridge to the past. Not only is it meaningful to transmit the life story of the deceased to future generations and to talk about his values, but it is also important to be able to connect with him on the most basic level. When a person comes across an object that belonged to his relative, it is important to him even if it lacks monetary value or is in no way unique. The tangible item turns the past into something immediate on a level that cannot be achieved by any other means. A number of years ago, a Torah scroll that belonged to the Ran and a seal that was reportedly that of the Ramban were displayed in an exhibition devoted to Spanish Jewry before the expulsion. It is difficult to describe the thrill that I felt when I understood that this seal was once held by the Ramban himself and that the Ran had once used this Torah scroll. I also remember the feeling of immediacy that I felt when someone showed me an etrog box that had once belonged to R. Akiva Eiger. We are physical beings who come from the dust, and physical things therefore speak to us. Paradoxically, it is precisely material objects, which are essentially transient, that maintain their permanence for centuries, creating a bridge between the past and the future. The need for connection through objects, which is natural and self-evident given that we are humans of flesh and blood, also underlies the Torah and the practical mitzvot. Judaism is not built exclusively on vague and abstract values. In response to the human need for concreteness, a system of practical commandments was created in order to express a system of ideas. The performance of mitzvot creates a channel for religious experience and opens the way for a connection between man and God. The experience associated with taking a lulav or eating matza reflects how much an object plays a role in the human religious experience. In a person's private life, intimate family connections are not based exclusively on profound conversations about noble values, but are rather manifest in shared day-to-day experiences, including the trivial problems that engage an ordinary family in everyday conduct, such as who will wash the dishes or fold the laundry. Similarly, this component of activity that is ongoing but not uplifting plays a role in our observance of the mitzvot. Just as a family lives closely together and creates connections even through banal activities, the mitzvot create a common religious experience with God among all those observing them. Thus, objects can provide existential meaning, but this depends upon the eye of the beholder. A person who relates to an inheritance merely as a set of objects and not as a means to continue the past will not see any unique significance in those objects. The Uniqueness of the Firstborn Thus far, we have discussed the idea of heirs and inheritance in general, the concept of personal and national heritage in the sense of "You are the children of the Lord your God" (Devarim 14:1). We have not discussed any unique status of any of the heirs. This indeed follows the model of the first half of Yesh Nochalin. At this point, we must move on to the second half of the chapter and to the concept of the birthright, the special privileges bestowed upon a firstborn. In addition to the passage dealing with inheritance in Sefer Bamidbar, a passage in Sefer Devarim assigns special status to a firstborn son. The concept of the bechora, primogeniture, is not merely factual but rather value-laden. This is reflected in the gemara's emphasis on the idea of "recognizing" the firstborn (based on the word "yakir" in the verse). The birthright expresses an interpersonal relationship unique to the parent and firstborn; it assumes a certain connection between them. Therefore, a firstborn only inherits a double portion if he was alive during his father's lifetime (Bava Batra 142b) and the father recognizes him as his firstborn son (127a).[3] For this reason, we also maintain that "the Torah calls it [the firstborn's double portion] a gift." In Halakha, a gift is not merely a certain type of acquisition, but rather an expression of intimacy. The firstborn inherits as one who receives a gift, directly from the father and not through the house or family. All of a person's strengths are reflected first and foremost in his firstborn. A father is supposed to feel a partnership with his sons, and the firstborn is the first child with whom this closeness is created. The Concept of Birthright in the Bible The birthright is referred to prominently in three contexts in the Bible: the struggle over the birthright between Yaakov and Esav; the story of Yaakov's two firstborn sons, Reuven and Yosef; and the description of Israel as "My son, My firstborn" (Shemot 4:22). These models point to the importance attached to the firstborn, as well as to the dangers that this status creates. Concerning the opportunity and the danger posed by the birthright, it is appropriate to cite two midrashim from Avot De-Rabbi Natan: Israel were called "sons," as it is stated: "You are the sons of the Lord your God" (Devarim 14:1), and the ministering angels are called "sons," as it is stated: "The sons of God came" (Iyov 1:6), and you do not know which are more loved. When it says: "Israel is My son, My firstborn," [it makes clear that] you are more precious to me than the ministering angels. (44a) The firstborn is perceived here as a clear expression of endearment and special closeness. Another midrash in Avot De-Rabbi Natan speaks in a different tone, recognizing that not every firstborn is dearly loved: Israel is precious, for in His time of anger they are called "sons." In His time of anger they are called sons, and even at a time when the verse says: "Not His is the corruption, but the blemish of His sons" (Devarim 32:5) -- sons in whom I have no trust, corrupt sons. Therefore, the Sages taught that they are called sons of God... But not every firstborn is precious and dear. There is a firstborn who is precious and dear, and there is also a firstborn who is not precious and dear. (8a) This midrash points to the problematic nature of the firstborn. It is simple to speak of the beauty and loftiness of the idea of Israel being "My son, My firstborn." But this does not necessarily reflect reality, as we find in the stories dealing with the birthright in the book of Bereishit. Yaakov vs. Esav -- Values vs. Money Esav views inheritance as a way to acquire property: "Behold, I am at the point of death, and what profit shall this birthright be to me?" (Bereishit 25:32). Ostensibly, the opposite is actually true! It is precisely at the point of death that the birthright acquires greater importance, for through it Esav could be counted as part of the line of the house of Avraham and as a link that transmits the heritage of the past to the coming generations. In this way, his memory would be preserved for generations, even after he dies. But Esav understands that he will derive no monetary gain from the inheritance, as he is about to die, and he is therefore prepared to sell his birthright for a pot of lentils. The commentators discuss the manner in which Yaakov took the birthright from Esav, and the Rishonim deal with the legal question of how Yaakov could acquire the birthright even though it was something that had not yet come into existence ("davar she-lo ba le-olam"). Many explanations have been offered, but it is possible to suggest one very simple answer. Esav did not sell the birthright to Yaakov; he lost it because his actions proved that he was not worthy of it. His very readiness to sell his birthright for a pot of lentils attested to his attitude toward the birthright and to his alienation from the world of Yitzchak. Anyone who scorns the birthright demonstrates that he does not understand its significance, and thus forfeits it. Sometimes, a child relates to his parents as an infinite source of rights. He wishes only to receive benefits and service from his parents; he is not prepared to accept the burden of transferring the legacy of previous generations. It is not for naught that the midrash (Bereishit Rabba 67:8; 75:9) describes Esav as ready to arrange for the murder of Yaakov and Yishmael in order to inherit the entire inheritance of Avraham. When the birthright is perceived not as a responsibility and sacred mission, but as an opportunity to profit at the expense of others, when the attitude toward inheritance is like that toward any monetary matter, it is not surprising to find that a violent man would be prepared to kill the other heirs and to employ a variety of schemes in order to inherit more assets. Yaakov, in contrast, views the birthright not only as a right, but as a mission. He wants to perpetuate Avraham's blessing in the world, and he sees the birthright as a destiny that will confer that mission upon him. It is not by chance that Chazal saw the pot of lentils as a dish denoting mourning over Avraham's passing, for it is around this event that the debate focuses. The test is whether to view this as an opportunity for profit -- on the tangible level, through the eating of the beans, and on the symbolic level, through benefit from the property of the deceased -- or as a call to assume responsibility and accept the authority of the firstborn. Reuven vs. Yosef -- Competition vs. Continuity Another pair of brothers who compete over the birthright presents us with a different model that is problematic for a different reason. On the one hand, "Reuven, you are my firstborn, my might and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity and the excellency of power" (Bereishit 49:3). It is upon Reuven that Yaakov pins his entire future and all of his hopes. On the other hand, "Unstable as water, you shall not excel; because you went up to your father's bed; then you did defile it: he went up to my couch" (ibid. 49:4), and in Divrei Ha-Yamim: "Now the sons of Reuven the firstborn of Israel -- for he was the firstborn, but since he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Yosef the son of Yisrael" (I Divrei Ha-Yamim 5:1). Because he defiled his father's bed, the birthright was taken away from Reuven. Esav was indifferent to the birthright and to the past; he sought in his inheritance only monetary gain. Reuven suffers from the opposite problem -- he sees himself as competing with his father and contending against him. No matter how we understand the specifics of Reuven's sin when he defiled his father's bed, the implication is the same -- it was an attempt to push his father aside and take his place during his lifetime. Reuven challenged his father's standing as head of the family. He rejected Yaakov's authority, and by doing so he impaired his own standing. The way of the world is that at some stage in a person's life, there is a reversal of roles. The strong parent, the firm rock, turns into a frail old man, at which point the sons must help the parent. Sometimes, they are even compelled to make decisions for the parent. Indeed, at the end of Yaakov's life, when he arrived in Egypt a broken and ill man, Yosef made various decisions for him. All this is possible and appropriate when the father is old and weak, when there is no other way, but not when the father is at the height of his strength and is fit to stand on his own two feet. The firstborn is meant to be the continuation of his father, but not his replacement who is in competition with him. The father bestows the birthright -- "The Torah calls it a gift." A son may not take the birthright by force. The similarity between Reuven and Yaakov could have prepared Reuven to be his father's successor. However, when that similarity is interpreted as competition, the firstborn's reward is cancelled out by his loss. Yosef was also similar to Yaakov, but he knew how to actualize that similarity at the proper time and not to replace him while he was still alive. The birthright was thus taken from Reuven, as from Esav, because he was unsuited for it. The transfer of property from an unfit son is the subject of a dispute between the Sages and R. Shimon ben Gamliel (133b), and we rule that property should not be transferred even from a wicked son to a good son. But in such a case, we are not dealing with an impairment in the firstborn's functioning as a firstborn, but rather with a general problem, and we therefore do not want to cancel the birthright. However, when the son sets himself in competition with his father, when he defiles his father's bed, the birthright is removed from him. The Actions of the Fathers are a Sign for the Sons The relationship between God and Israel should be examined in a similar manner. As stated to Moshe, Israel is "My son, My firstborn" (Shemot 22:4). What this means is that on a certain level, all the nations are God's children; the birthright does not negate the standing of the other brothers, but rather bestows a certain advantage on the firstborn while recognizing the others as sons.[4] But how are we to understand our relationship to God as His firstborn? Are we more precious to God than the ministering angels, as is stated in the first midrash cited above? Or are we perhaps like the firstborn who is not cherished and dear, as he appears in the second midrash? Will we be alienated from God? Will we be like a firstborn who is first among his brothers, but aware of his place? Or perhaps, God forbid, we will view ourselves in competition with God? Of course, the desired model is a permanent and meaningful relationship in which the individual feels the presence of the Shekhina, one in which he does not view the relationship between man and God as an interesting idea but nothing more. A child feels the presence of his parent and maintains a strong relationship with him, despite the differences in standing between them; this is also true of the relationship between Israel and their Father in Heaven. This is the challenge with which we are faced. A person who feels the responsibility of being a fitting firstborn to God justifies his birthright, but also assumes responsibility. The greater and deeper the responsibility and purpose, the greater the spiritual achievement. However, the spiritual danger is also greater. The same things that create obstacles in the relationship between a son and his parents are liable to ruin the relationship between man and his Maker. One can encounter a problem in the form of what we saw regarding Esav; a person recognizes the existence of God, but views the connection between him and his Father in Heaven as a means of satisfying his own pleasures and fulfilling his needs. In such a case, his heritage interests him only for the purpose of generating profits, and nothing more. He does not see his heritage as an obligation or mission, but rather as "a spade for digging," a source of personal gain. Alternatively, there is the situation of Reuven, which is reflected in the feeling that God is "strangling" him, leaving him with insufficient leeway due to the Shekhina's presence in the world. Just like a child rebels when he feels constrained by a parent or when he senses that the parent with his power and status overshadows him and his capabilities, a person's feelings about God may be similar. The proper situation, both with respect to the parent-child relationship and with respect to the relationship between man and God, is that man should find his place within a framework of existing laws and recognize that there are factors above him. Within these boundaries, he will be able to find his uniqueness and express his personal development. A firstborn like Reuven, who feels that he cannot exercise his strengths together with the strengths of God, is a firstborn who lacks the appropriate "recognition." Let us move from the People of Israel to the Land of Israel. The Land was also given to us as an inheritance and a heritage. Here, too, the aim is to see it as God's inheritance and to reach the realization of "You shall bring them in and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance" (Shemot 15:17), with the physical land serving as an expression of the spiritual connection and relationship between God and His people. Here, too, however, there is the danger of being caught up in the perspective of profitability and materialism, which views the Land exclusively as a place of leisure and profits. As opposed to "the mountain of Your inheritance," Datan and Aviram view the Land as "an inheritance of fields and vineyards" (Bamidbar 16:14), and nothing more. The children of Reuven and Gad preferred to receive their inheritance on the east bank of the Jordan, as that was advantageous for their animals and business. They did not ask themselves about the effect that their step would have on their inheritance as a sacred place or as the land of their forefathers. In opposition to "an inheritance of fields and vineyards" stands "the mountain of Your inheritance." Furthermore, since the inheritance is not land but rather a heritage, it exists, under certain condition, even without land. Not only is there the mountain of Your inheritance, but God is also the inheritance of the priests and Levites, substituting for the inheritance of land. We not only have God's intention "to give it to you for a heritage" (Shemot 6:8), but also "Moshe commanded us the Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov" (Devarim 33:4). Needless to say, the fitting situation for the ordinary person is the realization of the two inheritances, both of the Land and of the Torah. At times, however, it is one heritage that sustains us, while the other is missing. This was the case throughout the long years of exile, when the heritage of the Torah allowed Israel to survive in the lands of their dispersion. Similarly, in recent generations, the secular Zionist movement adopted for itself the heritage of the Land without a Torah heritage. Indeed, the core challenge facing secular Zionism and the State of Israel in this regard is viewing the country's heritage as an ancestral heritage and an expression of Jewish identity that is connected to the people of Israel throughout the generations, and not only as an inheritance of fields and vineyards. "A Ladder Set upon the Earth, and the Top of it Reached to Heaven" The chapter of Yesh Nochalin presents a sublime model of a system of inheritance that depends on the values that we have discussed. Very often, however, reality slaps us in the face. Inheritance disputes are a common and painful phenomenon. Unfortunately, these struggles are widespread and they destroy families. Values and ideals of great importance are shattered against the rocks of family disputes; instead of attaining achievements, they engage in conflict. Instead of the past serving as an inspiration and guide for the future, a person can destroy his future and fill it with conflicts from the past. Instead of the "house" inheriting the deceased and passing the family heritage down to the other members of the house, the house is split and destroyed in the storms of dispute. One should not make the mistake of thinking that such disputes are driven solely by profits. Often, the conflicts are grounded in what appears to be holiness. Struggles arise around the question of who will be a better successor, who will more faithfully represent the heritage and values of the deceased. Each side is convinced that he alone can express the family truth, while the other side will betray it. He therefore enters into battle against his brothers and sisters, without realizing that he is thereby destroying the family and defying the wishes of the deceased. These "holy fights" create the antithesis of the concept of inheritance. The challenge of inheritance and creating a heritage is indeed great, and it therefore often leads to tension. Nevertheless, Yesh Nochalin presents us with a meaningful model on the existential level, both with respect to the family and the past and with respect to our lives with God. May we merit to meet these challenges. (This sicha was delivered in summer 5767 [2007]. The original Hebrew adaptation was reviewed by Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein.) -- [1] This is true on the fundamental level, as is stated in the mishna in Bekhorot. In this context, we will not consider the dispute between Abba Shaul and the Sages. [2] Most authorities are uncomfortable even with one who donates all of his property to charity. [3] As a result, someone whose status is in doubt is excluded from the law of the birthright: "A son and not a tumtum [a person of undetermined gender]; a firstborn, and not a doubtful firstborn." This is also the basis for the law of "recognition," which according to many authorities is not based on credibility, but on the creation of a connection between father and son, credibility being the byproduct. [4] See the commentators ad loc., especially Ibn Ezra and Seforno. Rashi apparently understood differently and deliberately chose to deviate from the plain meaning of the birthright. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 13:31:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:31:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Defining Tzeis Message-ID: <20150706203135.GA12889@aishdas.org> I wrote the following to FB. If anyone can add or make corrections before the thread there dies, I would appreciate it. I think I summed up the highlights of the sugya as I understood it from previous conversations here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha [Someone asked what the sources in question were, so I replied:] Shabbos 34b-35a, 35b; Pesachim 94a. As Tosafos on Pesachim note, in Shabbos (34b) R' Yehudah is quoted as saying bein hashemashot (sunset to the stars coming out) is 3/4 mil (or 2/3 mil, depending on which amora's version of R' Yehudah you're using, but we hold 3/4), but in Pesachim he says a person can walk 4 mil after sunset before the stars emerge. Rabbeinu Tam notes a slight difference in language. It takes 4 mil "misheqi'as hachamah," in Pesachim, but 3/4 mil from "mishetishqeh hachamah." RT therefore resolves the two gemaros by saying sunset takes 3-1/4 mil. So, 4 mil from the beginning of sunset will take you to 3/4 mil after sunset, which is R' Yehudah's tzeis. The Vilna Gaon's resolution of the confliciting gemaros (OC 235 and 261) is not to split sunset into a beginning an end, but to split tzeis. The halachic tzeis is 3/4 mil after sunset. The gemara in Pesachim is using the term colloquially, not halachically, and simply refers to "all the stars" rather the standard 3. The Re'eim (R' Eliezer of Metz, Seifer Yerei'im, written in the 1170s) splits both -- the two gemaras are discussing different sunsets AND different tzeis. To him, the gemara in Shabbos is saying sheqi'ah (which we usually translate "sunset") is 3/4 mil BEFORE the sun hits the horizon, and tzeis is when the sun is at the horizon. Whereas the gemara in Pesachim then measures how much after the sun is below the horizon that the sky is fully dark. Note that both the Vilna Gaon and the Re'eim assume the gemara in Pesachim is using at least one of the idioms differently than the gemara in Shabbos, and therefore it has no bearing on halakhah. ... [Material in response to what someone else wrote, ellided.] BUT... The Vilna Gaon understands the defining feature to be the emergence of stars, not the fixed time R' Yehudah gives. And therefore inflates the 3/4 mil to adjust from Usha (R' Yehudah's home town) to Vilna. Which brings us to the third topic, on the other side of the page on Shabbos (35b). Again it's R' Yehudah, quoting Shemu'el's prescription of which stars to watch for: [If you see] 1 star, it is day; 2 -- bein hashemashos; 3 -- night. Rabbi Yosi said, "Not large stars that are visible in the day, nor small stars that are only visible at night, but medium stars..." 35b cannot describe 3/4 mil after sunset. Even in Usha or Nehardaa (Shemuel's home town, today's Anbar, central Iraq, on the Euphrates), you will not see 3 middle sized stars 18 min after sunset. R Michl Tukaczinsky and R' Dovid Spitzer did the observations in Jerusalem, and found it takes 31-43 min or 28-40 min, respectively. (Use the smaller end of the range for rabbinic fasts, like the OP, and the larger for Torah laws like Shabbos. Jerusalem is closer to the equator than either city, not that I think it's by enough to matter much.) Rav Moshe Feinstein similarly gave 50 min for Shabbos, 31 for rabbinic fasts -- but then, NY's days vary more in length, so a "never later than" will be more minutes after sunset. With a computer, we could translate all these numbers into degrees below the horizon, as that would tell us how dark it would be outside, and therefore how many stars could be seen, if we weren't bathed in artificial lighting. And even then you get into questions about which stars. The western horizon (the side with the glow of sunset) will show stars well after the east. Three stars seen at once (near each-other) or total when scanning the whole sky? Etc... Rather than decide whether we follow Shabbos 34a or 35a, even those who do not use Pesachim to shed light on 34a pad the 3/4 mil to plausibly allow for people to see three medium sized stars. Given the fact that it's this measure which actually gives the landmark on our clock its name, assuming it is less definitional than a fixed time delay is difficult. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 13:39:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:39:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dan leKaf Zekhus Message-ID: <20150706203931.GB12889@aishdas.org> When I got on the subway this morning, there was a pregnant woman already standing holding on to the poll nearest the door I just came in through. So, feeling all heroic, I asked her quite loudly and pointedly, "Do you need me to embarass someone into getting up for you?" She replied, "No, thank you. A number of people offered when I just got on, but I was more comfortable standing than on the train's benches." I blushed, and sheepishly muttered apologies to those around us. As I said: Dan lekaf zekhus. Not just the law, a good idea. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 14:45:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 17:45:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah and Poverty In-Reply-To: <20150706202632.A741518370D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150706202632.A741518370D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150706214552.GE12889@aishdas.org> On 7/3/2015 3:16 AM, RnTK wrote to Areivim: : But our mishna does describe this as the "way of the Torah." : True Torah scholars will live contentedly under conditions of : denial and poverty. The beraisa (Avos "6":4) says that darkah shel Torah is not to quit learning even if you have to live off bread, salt and water you have to ration, sleep on the ground and otherwise suffer. Not that this is their normal condition, or even one they should desire. There is still the take on the chatas of someone ending nezirus (Rabbeinu Bachya, in contrast to the Ramban) that it's for forgoing permissable pleasure while a nazir. And the Y-mi (Qiddushin 4:12, vilna 48b, the end of the mesechta) in which Rav is quoted as saying "A person will have to give a din vecheshbon on anything his eye saw but he didn't eat. R' Leizer [Elazar? Eliezer?] was chosheish for this, and would use Shabbos to enjoy one such pleasure. This is on the mishnah where R' Nera'i promises to only teach his son Torah, to the exclusion of a profession. But the Y-mi understands this to mean that keeping the Torah (not learning in particular) will provide wealth. Whereas a profession leaves you stuck in your old age, or if one otherwise become unable to work. But it's "vekhein atah motzei be'avinu Avraham *sheshimer* es haTorah" and was wealthy. However, the Bavli famously reports that this was tried experimentally and it generally doesn't work. Okay for a R' Shimon bar Yochai, but not R' Yishmael and the like. (Which could be a difference in kind or quantitative.) No one today would qualify as either a Rashbi or a R' Yishmael, so I don't think the Y-mi's promise should be counted on. And neither gemara lauds poverty. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 17:12:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 20:12:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon Message-ID: From: Lisa Liel via Avodah The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this subject. Lisa >>>> I have seen none of that "vitriol" or "viciousness," either in the past few days or in the last few years, or ever. On the contrary, all I see is an almost desperate attempt to be conciliatory, a desperate if hopeless wish not to be the *victims* of liberal, anti-religious vitriol. See for example "A Letter by Reb Ahron Feldman to a Gay Baal Teshuva" https://guardyoureyes.com/resources/ssa/item/a-letter-by-reb-ahron-feldman-to-a-gay-baal-teshuva Also see Agudath Israel's statement on the recent Supreme Court gay-marriage decision http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2015/06/28/agudath-israel-statement-o n-supreme-court-marriage-ruling/ It reads, in part, "we are deeply concerned that, as a result of today?s ruling, and as the dissenting Justices have pointed out, members and institutions of traditional communities like the Orthodox Jewish community we represent may incur moral opprobrium and risk tangible negative consequence if they refuse to transgress their beliefs, and even if they simply teach and express their religious views publicly." I might add that Lisa's post, being an emotional cri de coeur, really belongs on Areivim. However, since she has posted it to Avodah, I will add my own comments previously posted on Cross-Currents: Here, for the record, is what our ancient Torah heritage has to say about homosexual marriage: The nations are allowed to continue in existence only because they keep a minimum of three mitzvos. These are: not writing marriage documents for the union of two males, not selling human flesh in the market place, and giving honor to the Torah?which in practice means, not persecuting the people of the Torah, the Jewish people. In one of his prophetic visions, the Navi (prophet) Zechariah took thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the Temple treasury in Jerusalem (Zechariah 11:13). The Rabbis of the Talmud had varying interpretations of what this vision symbolized. According to Rabbi Ulla (Talmud Chullin 92B), the thirty pieces of silver symbolized the thirty mitzvos that the Bnei Noach accepted upon themselves. These thirty mitzvos include not worshipping idols, not consulting witchcraft and sorcery, refraining from illicit sexual relationships, and so on. (Bnei Noach are the Sons of Noah, also called Noahides? i.e., the nations of the world.) Rabbi Ulla says that the world continues to exist because the nations accepted these thirty mitzvos. However, he adds, the nations do not keep all the mitzvos they accepted. They keep only three, and one of the three is: ? They do not write a marriage contract for males.? Rashi comments that the nations do engage in forbidden homosexual relations, but they at least acknowledge that such relations are illicit by not formalizing those relations in legal documents. The other two commandments that they keep are that they do not sell human flesh in the market place, and that they give honor to the Torah (Talmud Chullin 92B). Elsewhere the Rabbis of old stated that the final decree of destruction, the Great Flood, was sealed against the generation of Noach because they wrote marriage documents for males. ?Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Yosef, ?The generation of the Flood was not wiped out until they wrote marriage documents for the union of a man to a male or to an animal ? ? (Genesis Rabbah 26:5; Leviticus Rabbah 23:9). Implicit is the assumption that if the nations do not abide by at least the aforementioned three mitzvos, they may forfeit the very right to exist. Hence, these three?not writing marriage documents for males, not selling human flesh in the marketplace, and honoring the Torah?may be considered the Three Conditions for the continued existence of mankind. So you see, the idea of gay marriage is not new, not a fresh idea that represents the ultimate development, enlightenment and evolution of mankind. No, the formal marriage of two men is a very ancient idea that represents the degradation of mankind. http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2011/07/28/4524/ I will add a further point to what I wrote in 2011: The reason the gay pride movement adopted rainbow colors as their symbol is that the rainbow is the sign of Hashem?s promise not to wipe out the entire world again in one big flood. They wave the rainbow flag in defiance of Him, as if to say, ?Ha ha, You can?t touch us!? The message of the rainbow flag is, ?We are major sinners, like the generation of the Flood.? But they are whistling in the dark if they think there won?t be consequences. May Hashem protect His people, those who are chassidei umos ha?olam as well as us, Klal Yisrael. Read more: http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2015/06/29/scotus-on-same-gender-what-it-means-what-it-doesnt/#ixzz3f9x0mazM --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 18:14:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 01:14:59 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> I noted about Kaddish Yasom > From what I've seen, it is NOT said even if a minyan says Birkas > Hamazon, R' Zev Sero asked: > Why would it? Well, I guess my original post should have had a longer introduction. I know that Kaddish Tiskabel has a very clear rule, namely that it follows every Amidah, and the only exception is that it also follows Selichos. Kaddish D'rabanan always follows group learning (though I've never figured out exactly what learning counts and what doesn't). And now I'm trying to figure out the rule for Kaddish Yasom. It SEEMS to be a sort of "congregational prayer", where "prayer" is something *other* than the Amidah, but I can't define it any more precisely than that. For a long time I thought it was connected to Tehillim, but when I noticed it after the megilos on Yom Tov, someone suggested that it's not specifically Sefer Tehillim, but *any* part of Kesuvim, not that we had any idea why Kesuvim would get this distinction over Neviim or Torah. I wrote: > but it IS said when a minyan says Kiddush Levana. RZS suggested: > Probably because people are used to saying it after Alenu. Maybe, and maybe not. I have a suspicion that Alenu was added *because of* the Kaddish, and not the other way around. Here are some data points: The Hirsch siddur has Tehillim 67 as the last paragraph of Kiddush Levana, with nothing at all after it. My Minchas Yerushalayim, and Birnbaum too, end with Tehillim 67 which is then followed by Kaddish Yasom, without Alenu. Is it possible that Alenu is a recent addition to the Kiddush Levana? I wrote: > It is NOT said when a minyan says Tehillim even as an organized > group, RZS asked: > Where have you seen it not being said then? I'm surprised that > this is your experience. In my current community, and also from my memories of yeshiva. When there was some sort of tzara that we said Tehillim for -- whether for a choleh, or some military or political problem -- we would say the Tehillim deemed appropriate by the leaders, and this would be followed by tefillos such as Acheinu and/or Mi Sheberach(s). I don't recall Kaddish ever being part of this. I have to admit that a big part of my asking this question is a pet peeve that I've been nursing, regarding Kiddush Levana in particular. It seems to me that Kiddush Levana -- the way it is done in just about every situation I've ever seen -- cannot be called a Tefilas Tzibur in any sense. It is a group of yechidim who happen to be saying the same thing, but in a totally disorganized fashion. The first one out of shul begins as soon as he finds a good location, and the last one out of shul also begins when he finds a good location. No attempt whatsoever is made to get this group to be on the same page, let alone in the same paragraph. There is no leader (like we have in Hallel and Pesukei Dzimra and everywhere else) who lets everyone know what the group is up to, so that they might end in unison. Rather, one person ends Alenu out loud, and that's when the yesomim say kaddish, regardless of whether they are only halfway though, or already finished before. So that's one of the reasons why I'm wondering why Kiddush Levana gets a kaddish. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/559b2834173228336fdfst03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 23:16:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 02:16:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kiddush levana In-Reply-To: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <559B6EB4.3010400@sero.name> On 07/06/2015 09:14 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: > So that's one of the reasons why I'm wondering why Kiddush Levana gets a kaddish. Well, I found what may be the source for this kaddish. The Shelah says "There is a nice minhag in the kingdom of EY and its surroundings, to say various pesukim and maamarim after kiddush levana, and then say kaddish derabanan [...] and the meaning of this kaddish is that [the Name] should be magnified and sanctified, a Great Name, a full Name, and then the moon's light will be as the sun's light". http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=45685&pgnum=287 > I have a suspicion that Alenu was added > *because of* the Kaddish, and not the other way around. Here are > some data points: The Hirsch siddur has Tehillim 67 as the last > paragraph of Kiddush Levana, with nothing at all after it. My Minchas > Yerushalayim, and Birnbaum too, end with Tehillim 67 which is then > followed by Kaddish Yasom, without Alenu. Is it possible that Alenu > is a recent addition to the Kiddush Levana? Taamei Haminhagim gives a reason for saying Alenu, because it was written by Yehoshua, whose face is compared to the moon (Bava Basra 75a). According to this reason there would seem to be no reason to say it after birkas hachama. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=216 But the footnote to Kuntres Acharon on the next page gives a different reason: Because kiddush levana looks like a pagan ritual, we say Alenu to declare that we worship only Hashem, and this is the same reason that after Hoshanos, which also seems a bit pagan, we declare "Lema'an daas kol amei ha'aretz ki Hashem hu haElokim, ein od". This reason applies equally to birkas hachama. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=217 I remember hearing that the same reason is why we say Alenu after a bris, but I can't find a source for this. Taamei Haminhagim cites Yaavetz that the reason is to include the baby among the "us" who are declaring our loyalty to Hashem. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=404 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 03:41:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 13:41:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Pinechas vs Pinchas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> R' Micha points out that his grandfather's name was Pinechas. He proves it first by the yud after the pei which, by the rules of dikduk, makes the following sheva a na'. In addition, the name is an Egyptian one, Pi-nechas, pi being a common prefix in Egyptian names. In case you haven't been convinced yet, there is a meteg in the pei which, by the rules, makes the chirik malei and the sheva na' There is, however, one small point that makes me wonder. R' Aharon ben Asher who, for the last thousand years, has been called the accepted decision maker on correct spelling in Tana"kh seems to disagree. In perek 11 of his book Dikdukei Hat'amim he describes the sh'vaim before the otyot g'roniot inside a word, when they are na' and when nach. Included in his list of words where they are nach are laqkhu, barchu, Pinchas, zar'u, etc. IIRC, not all manuscripts have all the words and Pinchas might be omitted in some. It is possible that copiers of the words lists added or omitted. On the Mesorah sub-list it is known that I am anti-dikduk because it opens the way to change the fine points on Torah pronunciation to match its rules. Among these "improvements" was the changing of many internal sh'vaim in words from nach to na'. What enabled this to happen was the brilliant invention by R' Yosef Kimchi of the ten vowel, five pairs of malei and chaseir. This led to the rule that after malei the sh'va is na' and after chaseir it is nach. Ben Asher, in perek 10 notes that there are seven vowels in Hebrew. All of the masoretes also state this. If there aren't pairs of malei and chaseir, we've just lost the rule about the following sh'vaim. All this is not something new. Heidenheim in his comments on the Ein Hakorei of RYHB"Y (Shemini, just before sh'lishi) states that in the times of the kadmonim many sh'vaim that are now na'im were then nachim. He quotes (from Ibn Ezra?) that kol sh'va b'ot rafah shekadam lo echad mishiv'at ham'lakhim hu nach ki halashon ha-ivrit kasha la r'difat shalosh t'nu'ot...except for double letters and some words with groniot. So how should I lein on Shabbos? Oh, no problem, I'm not the bal-koire. bivrakha, David From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 05:21:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:21:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kesher Message-ID: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little farfetched 1) knot 2) connection 3) conspiracy -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 06:18:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 09:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> In various places in dovening, kaddish etc we find the loshon - ..v'imru amen. Simply understood this is something only said by a sh'ztibur, as an announcement by the sh'ztibur that the congregation sh answer amen. In some cases, a yachid says it (ie Kiddush hachodesh, etc) probably bc we are saying something that originally was said by the sh'ztibur. What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? Who are we saying v'imru amen to? And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). Because the silent SE is not a carbon copy of the sh'ztibur version (for instance - no elokai netzor, SE of fast days are diff, etc) Mordechai Cohen mcohen at touchlogic.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:09:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 10:09:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper : connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little : farfetched : 1) knot : 2) connection : 3) conspiracy Interestingly, the noun doesn't show in chumash. As an adjective, we have hamuqsharos/im, to describe which of the tzon Yaaqov received (30:41-42). Rashi quotes the Targum, "habechiros" and cites two pesuqim in Shemuel II pereq 15. To round out the list: About Yaaqov (again) and Yoseif, "venafsho qesurah benafsho." Also the string tied on Zarach's hand, and tefillin (x2). Those are all the occurances of the shoresh. BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. Conspiracy comes up in #2, "league together, conspire". It would seem they conjecture the word comes from the collaboration, and less so what they're connecting to eachother to plan against something. They also cite "vatiqasheir kol-hachimah" in Nechemiah 3:35, where one would not readily picture "tying together" parts as a metaphor. I understand why Rashi thought the translation in Bereishis 30 is unique enough to require comment, but not how it fits altogether. (Rashi says it does, not how.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:08:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 14:08:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Pinechas vs Pinchas In-Reply-To: <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> References: , <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1436278092269.69769@ou.org> It should be noted that how Pinechas was read according to the Masorah is not really relevant to the way it was pronounced as a name. Pinchas is a Yiddish name (to be sure, with its roots in Hebrew), and is pronounced without a het and without a sh'wa. Its pronunciation in Hebrew is no more relevant than is the proper pronunciation of the word gannav (theif) in the T'NaKh to the pronunciation of the Yiddish word ganef. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union 11 Broadway, New York, NY 10004 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:22:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 17:22:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> References: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper >: connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little >: farfetched >: 1) knot >: 2) connection >: 3) conspiracy ... > BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary > meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. and what is the connection to a knot (the origin of the question was a dvar torah on the knots of tsizit) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 09:03:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:03:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: References: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150707160302.GA10745@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 05:22:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :>: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings... : ... :> BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary :> meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. : and what is the connection to a knot : (the origin of the question was a dvar torah on the knots of tsizit) Well, tzitzis knots less so, but knots generally bind two strings or two ends of a string together, no? Tzitzis knots are somewhat more like the example from Nechemiah. If qesher includes "batiqashar kol-hachomah", perhaps it also it includes binding pesilim into a gedil. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 14:44:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 17:44:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam, Moreh Nevuchim (2:29), A Strange Passage about Miracles Message-ID: <559C4830.9030705@gmail.com> In Moreh Nevuchim, 2:29, the Rambam seems to disparage a talmudical position about miracles that he had endorsed in his prior works (Commentary on Avos 5:6 and Shmoneh Perakim chapter 8). This, despite the fact that in the Moreh, he refers the reader to these former works to understand his position about miracles. And to further confuse matters, in the Moreh itself, within just a few sentences, he goes on to laud the proponent of that very positionfor maintaining it! The position is that already during the Creation week, G-d instilled, in objects and forces of nature, the potential for the aberrant behaviors that He would unleash when appropriate. (I.e. the aberrant behaviors were not changes G-d first decided upon, created and imposed upon things at the time the miracles were witnessed.) The Moreh Nevuchim introduces the concept with the words: "Our Sages said things zarrim m'od as regards miracles." "zarrim m'od" is Ibn Tibbon's Hebrew translation. Narboni and Schwartz use the similar "muzarrim, and likewise, Friedlander and Pines, in their English translations, translate, "very strange." KPCH translates, "temuhim" (astonishing). They all seem to indicate that the Rambam shunned the idea. Yet, as I noted, just a few sentences later, the Rambam lauds the Tanna who expressed the thought: [T]his text...demonstrates the [high] level of the speaker, and its being very difficult in his eyes that Nature could change after Creation, or that G-d's Will would change after it had been established. He therefore reasons, for example, that G-d instilled, in the nature of Water, the [property of] sticking together and always flowing in a downward direction, except for that time in which the Egyptians would drown in them; those specific waters would split. I have already enlightened you as to the main idea of the [talmudic] statement [KPCH in a footnote sees this as a reference to the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah and Shemoneh Perakim], and that it is all meant to flee from [the idea that, after Creation, G-d would bring about] the new creation of anything. It says there: R. Yonathan said, G-d placed stipulations on the sea, that it should divide before the Israelites. Thus it says, "And the sea returned, when the morning appeared, l'ay-sa-no [to its strength, or to its stipulated nature]"(Sh'mos 14:27). R. Yiremiyah ben Elazar said: Not only with the sea did the Holy One, blessed be He, place stipulations, but with all that has been created in the six days of Creation. "My hands stretched out the heavens, and all their hosts I commanded" (Yishayahu 45:12): I commanded the sea that it will divide, the fire that it should not harm Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, and the lions that they should not harm Daniel, and the fish that it should spit out Jonah." The same is to be applied to all the other miracles. The surprising solution to this problem is really quite simple. I noticed that in Moreh 1:70 (p. 106 in the classic version, line 2), Pines translates a certain phrase as "strange but true."But both Ibn Tibbon and Schwartz translate it, "ha-inyanim ha-mufla-os ha-n'chonos, ("matters wondrous but true/correct"). Hmmm. One Arabic scholar translates a word as "strange," while others translate it as "wondrous." I began to sense how the same word could be used both ways, and I suspected it might also be the same word as in our passage in 2:29. Without mentioning my problem about the Rambam's self-contradiction (to keep the issue unbiased), I asked R. Yakov Wincelberg, translator of Avraham ben HaRambam's Sefer HaMaspik from Arabic to English, what the actual Arabic word there is, and if it's the same word in our passage in 2:29. Here is his reply: In both cases, the word griva is used. It doesn't mean specifically "weird," but something that stands out. It could be: extraordinary, wondrous, amazing, rare, peculiar, uncommon, obscure, etc. It even is used for emigrating from one's country, as one is separating from the people. In other words, the word means "outstanding." So, true, one tends to understand the translation "zar" or "strange" to be meant in the sense of "weird," or "foreign," indicating that in the Moreh the Rambam considered the "front-loaded" miracle an idea to be shunned--contra the Gemora, his Avos commentary, and his Shemoneh Perakim. But the simpler truth is that the Rambam consistently endorsed this view, and considered it to be an outstanding one. One need only realize that Ibn Tibbon titles his dictionary of unfamiliar philosophical terms,appended to his Moreh Nevuchim translation, "Payrush Me'Hamillot Zarot," The word Zar indicates something unfamiliar, but not necessarily "strange" in the sense of "weird." And it can also mean something that is wondrous and true. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 17:01:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 20:01:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher Message-ID: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little farfetched 1) knot 2) connection 3) conspiracy -- Eli Turkel >>>> The deeper connection is -- connection! All the words formed from this shoresh are words that have "connecting" as their basic meaning. In Edward Horowitz's fascinating and entertaining book, "How the Hebrew Language Grew," he has a chapter on how sounds made in the same part of the mouth sometimes interchange to form words with similar or closely related meanings. One example he gives is the word kesher, and the related word gesher -- a bridge, which connects two places, two sides of a river, two sides of a road and so on. Keshes, a rainbow, is something like a bridge connecting two parts of the sky. Another example of these interconnected words (this one I've also seen in the Hirsch commentary on Chumash) is the word "tsachak" to laugh, to which a number of other words are related in a phonetic way: Change the ches to an ayin and you get "tsa'ak." Both tsachak and tsa'ak involve emitting loud sounds -- sounds of mirth or of alarm or distress. (Ches and ayin are both formed in the back of the throat.) Change the tsadi to a sin and instead of "tsachak" to laugh you get "sachak" to be happy, to rejoice. (Tsadi and sin are both sibilants.) Going back to the word tsa'ak, if you now change the tsadi to a zayin you again get a closely related word, "za'ak." And if you take the word "tsa'ir" (young) and change the tsadi to a zayin you get "za'ir" small. Change the sin of saraf to a tsadi and instead of burning (saraf) you get refining (tsaraf) gold or silver -- which is done through heat. Change the zayin of "zahav" to a tsadi and instead of gold you get "tzahov," the color yellow. Horowitz points out that these kinds of phonetic relationships can also be found in English, Latin and other languages, but nevertheless I find it especially fascinating to trace these connections in Lashon Hakodesh. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 02:42:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 09:42:27 GMT Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen Message-ID: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. > Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? > Who are we saying v'imru amen to? > > And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the > same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end of Birkas Hamazon. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett???s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren???t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/559cf0b42988970b45addst03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 02:09:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 02:09:57 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:18 AM, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: > In various places in dovening, kaddish etc we find the loshon - ..v'imru > amen. .. > What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. > Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? > Who are we saying v'imru amen to? I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish. SE took on the whole paragraph "Oseh Shalom ... ve'imru amen" from the end of Kaddish, and Kaddish took on the three steps backwards from the end of SE (which makes sense for the STz's Kaddish Titkabbal at the end of the repetition, but not so much in all other kaddishim) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 06:30:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 09:30:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <559D2610.8060803@sero.name> On 07/08/2015 05:42 AM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > >> What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. >> Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? >> Who are we saying v'imru amen to? >> >> And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the >> same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). > > The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end of Birkas Hamazon. Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even when there's a zimun. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 08:04:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:04:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> References: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150708150424.GA8908@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 08:01:24PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : In Edward Horowitz's fascinating and entertaining book, "How the Hebrew : Language Grew," he has a chapter on how sounds made in the same part of the : mouth sometimes interchange to form words with similar or closely related : meanings... Also in RSRH's fascinating and entertaining commentary on the Pentateuch and a couple of places in CW and elsewhere. : Another example of these interconnected words (this one I've also seen in : the Hirsch commentary on Chumash)... See https://books.google.com/books?id=eVAAfn6Itb4C (The real one; the google preview skips all of your examples.) Etymological Dictionary of Biblcal Hebrew: Based on the Commentaries of Samson Raphael Hirsch by Matityahu Clark This is a central part of RSRH's exegesis. I once went through much of Bereishis and Shemos documenting which letters RSRH considers related enough to qualify as likely to be part of the same phonetic meta-root. I ended up with the following chart (readable only in fixed-width-font, eg Courier): geroniot velar dental dento-lingual labial h,ch q | s,sh tes | alef k | tz tav | b ayin g | z d | p n ------------- m r --------------------------------- l y ------------------------------------- v Letters in the same column are phonetically related (eg hei and aleg) Vertical lines separate into pairs (eg zayin and dalet, but not dalet and pei nor tzadi and dalet [paired coumns, different rows]). The pairs are lingual/velar (use tongue) vs not. Horizontal lines connect the nasals (mem and nun), the approximants (lamd and reish) and the semivowels (yud and vav). The unvoiced letters are all in the top two rows. Notice how hei-ches and shin/sin-samech fall into parallel positions, and bege"d kefe"t into the same two rows. I stopped my analysis when I had gone dozens of peraqim without needing to change the chart any. Lost interest. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 08:12:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:12:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> Message-ID: <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:09:57AM -0700, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, : but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence : between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish... You might have seen it on-list in Apr or Dec 2006, offered by RPMinden. RSBA offered a different explanation: > Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, Likutei Maharich, RS Schwab, Boruch She'omar all > say that we are whispering to the Malochim - that accompany a person all > the time. [Maybe 'oseh sholom BIMEROMOV' indicates this?] The earliest > source seems to be Mateh Moshe - which some cite. > The OH also brings a nusach - IIRC - Machzor [or Siddur] Roma - that > indeed does not include the 'Ve'imru Omein' at the end of SE. RPM believes it was a post-facto explanation, giving meaning to a pratice that really originated in error. See the subject line at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=T#TO%20WHOM%20ARE%20WE%20WHISPERING%20 and the 3 starting with http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=V#VIMRU%20AMEN in the archive index. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 11:33:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 14:33:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: In Avodah V33n96, RAM referred repeatedly to "Kaddish Yasom" -- I think at least some of his questions might be answered once we understand that (a) what he called "Kaddish Yasom" is actually the Qaddish (Shaleim, but without the "tisqaba[i]l" phrase) said by the SHaTZ at the end of davening, at some point in our history given over to children (eventually/or to *y'somim*) who could not be SHaTZ (see http://www.beureihatefila.com/files/Introduction_to_Mourners_Kaddish.pdf); and that (b) Qaddish is said after the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim or other K'suvim. As for Kiddush L'vana (KL), indeed Minhag Ashk'naz did not include "Aleinu" -- as was noted, the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim at the end of KL (similar to doing so after Shacharis and after [Mincha/]Ma'ariv, and similar to when a *seifer* from K'suvim was read) was followed by Qaddish (in the Roedelheim, those chapters are 121, 150, and 67, not just 67) -- and KL not being a *t'filas tzibbur* does not impact upon the saying of Qaddish (although obviously, a *minyan* is required for any *davar shebiq'dusha*). HTH :). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 02:40:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 02:40:50 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:09:57AM -0700, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > : I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, > : but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence > : between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish... > > You might have seen it on-list in Apr or Dec 2006, offered by RPMinden. > My memory was correct as to the attribution, though I garbled the content a bit. It's on page 48 of the Birnbaum siddur, in the notes to the Kaddish deRabbanan after Korbanot: "/Oseh Shalom/, which repeats in Hebrew the thought expressed in the preceding Aramaic paragraph, seems to have been added from the meditation recited at the end of the /Shemoneh Esreh/. The same sentence is also added at the end of the grace recited after meals. The three steps backwards, which formed the respectful manner of retiring from a superior, were likewise transferred from the concluding sentence of the /Shemoneh Esreh/. On the other hand, the phrase "and say Amen", added at the end of the silent meditation after the /Shemoneh Esreh/, must have been borrowed from the Kaddish which is always recited in the hearing of no fewer than ten men." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 08:53:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:53:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reciting a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time Message-ID: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> http://tinyurl.com/o6rxcdf according to those that say you do NOT recite a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time (ie bar mitzvah), why is it different than all the places where we DO recite a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah not done in a long time? (ie lulav, shofar, megila, etc) Thanks, mc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 13:27:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 20:27:55 GMT Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen Message-ID: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> I wrote: > The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end > of Birkas Hamazon. R' Zev Sero responded: > Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, > with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively > recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even > when there's a zimun. But we've *always* benched as individuals when there *isn't* a zimun. But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that originally, Oseh Shalom was part of benching only when a zimun was present, and then for some reason came to be said even by individuals. If that is indeed what happened, I can't help but speculate that there was an even earlier time, when benching with a zimun would include Oseh Shalom at that point, but benching with a *minyan* would include Kaddish at that point! Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55a02add2581a2add0f3dst01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 16:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <55A05668.1080404@sero.name> On 07/10/2015 04:27 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: >> >Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, >> >with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively >> >recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even >> >when there's a zimun. > But we've*always* benched as individuals when there*isn't* a zimun. Benching is designed for a zimun. It's normal to eat in a group. But even when there were only two eating, or when a family ate together, I think the usual thing was for one person to bench and the other person (or the wife and children) to listen and say amen. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 08:42:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush L'vana (was "Kaddish Yasom") Message-ID: In Avodah v33n97, I wrote: > As for Kiddush L'vana (KL), indeed Minhag Ashk'naz did not include "Aleinu" -- as was noted, the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim at the end of KL...was followed by Qaddish...-- and KL not being a *t'filas tzibbur* does not impact upon the saying of Qaddish.... < Just wanted to add that (a) For the record, I don't recall Qaddish being said at the end of KL at KAJ/"Breuer's" (and the MMA Siddur Tefilas Yeshurun instructs not to say either "Aleinu" or Qaddish at the end of Bircas haL'vana), even when there was evidently more than a quorum of men (gathered to be *m'qabeil p'nei haShchina b'rov-am*) on the front steps or sidewalk of the Shul -- whether or not Qaddish should be said (and what the precise parameters are) in that circumstance (not a *t'filas tzibbur*; not in a *maqom t'fila*) was not central to the overall points I was trying to make; and (b) for consistency, it's QL, not KL :). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 11:30:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:30:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pinchas Message-ID: > > > BTW, my grandfather a"h was named Pinechas after this week's sedra, > his bar mitzvah parashah. When it was time to name my oldest, I checked > with my uncle how his name appeared on their kesuvah, as their mesader > qiddushin was a key rav in my grandfather's life. (R/Dr Mirsky zt"l met > two teenage boys coming off the boat and took them under his wing. My > grandfather and great-uncle then earned enough to bribe the rest of the > family's way out of Litta before the Nazis came to power.) > > Anyway, it seems R/Dr Mirsky held my grandfather's name was Pinechas, > pei-yud-nun-ches-samekh, as it is spelled in the chumash (ignoring the > size of the yud as usually written in the beginning of the parashah). > And thus the sheva is na, Pinechas - not Pinchas. > > If you want to make a derashah out of a Mitzri name, it's Pi Nachas, > not Pen Chas. > > Reason for this tangent... I would have expected "Gushies" to get the > sheva in the parashah name right. After all, they have the patach under > the reish in Parashat. > > Way behind in reading. However, Aharon Ben Asher, in Dikduke Hate'amim, specifically lists the sheva in Pinchas (with a yud) as being a sheva nach, so the "Gushies" have on whom to rely.. Meir Shinnar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 11:39:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:39:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: > On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:20:08PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: > : On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. > > : Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a > : moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is > : the purpose to make things even worse? > > As I quoted from RAK, because they classically were not considered > chuqim. Until our contemporaries took the issue from sexual morality > to sexual ethics, these truths were considered self-evident. It's the > choqification of dinei arayos that's inauthentic. > > In any case, since one doesn't pasqen from taamei hamitzvos, the din > is the same either way. Nothhing in such exploration can "make things > even worse". > > In Shmona prakim, the rambam seems to take the opposite view - trying to reconcile the view that having a desire to sin is a sign of moral failing, and that the overcoming of desire is a sign o f greatness - he argues that to desire to sin is problematic in hamefursamot - but NOT in those forbidden only for religious reasons - and he specifically applies that to arayot - and needs to apply it to arayot, because the sugyot that deal with kol hagadol mechavero yitzro gadol mimenu - specifically apply to arayot. One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT self evident or even mefursamot Meir Shinnar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 11:10:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 20:10:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out Message-ID: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> In SA OH 272:1 the Mechabeir writes that one shouldn't use wine left out for kiddush (or any type of mitzvah adds the Aruch HaShulchan). The problem isn't gi'loi'im but the pasuk in Malachi 1:8 which teaches us not to use Grade B products for mitzvot. The assumption is that wine left out goes bad (or gets worse) and therefore it can't be used for qiddush. My question is what does one do if you thinking allowing wine to breath for hours improves the taste? That's been my experience for years. If I open a bottle Friday evening, the wine definitely tastes better Saturday morning. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 12:14:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 15:14:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> On 07/13/2015 02:10 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > In SA OH 272:1 the Mechabeir writes that one shouldn't use wine left out for kiddush (or any type of mitzvah adds the Aruch HaShulchan). The problem isn't gi'loi'im but the pasuk in Malachi 1:8 which teaches us not to use Grade B products for mitzvot. The assumption is that wine left out goes bad (or gets worse) and therefore it can't be used for qiddush. > > My question is what does one do if you thinking allowing wine to breath for hours improves the taste? That's been my experience for years. If I open a bottle Friday evening, the wine definitely tastes better Saturday morning. It depends what kind of wine. Some wines definitely improve with a few hours' breathing. The criterion is "hakriveihu no lefechasecho"; *would* you serve this to an honoured guest who is used to drinking quality wine? If it's a wine that needs the time to aerate then you certainly would, and in fact you wouldn't think of serving it to him *without* that time. OTOH this would preclude making kiddush at all on Manishewitz, no matter how "fresh" it is. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 20:18:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 05:18:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> Message-ID: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? Did they not know that allowing wine to breath improves the taste, at least for a decent red wine (which is the type of wine they think we should be drinking)? Ben On 7/13/2015 9:14 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > It depends what kind of wine. Some wines definitely improve with a > few hours' breathing. The criterion is "hakriveihu no lefechasecho"; > *would* you serve this to an honoured guest who is used to drinking > quality wine? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 19:34:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 22:34:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20150714023419.GA18963@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 05:18:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and : others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? Because Shapiro's wine is "So thick you could cut it with a knife" as that billboard we'd pass driving to Boro Park used to advertise. Whereas you're talkng about a finer wine as vitners and frenchmen measure. Different products with totally different definitions of what is "good". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 21:48:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:48:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55A4949B.8090308@sero.name> On 07/13/2015 11:18 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and > others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? > Did they not know that allowing wine to breath improves the taste, at > least for a decent red wine (which is the type of wine they think we > should be drinking)? First of all, most good wines shouldn't breathe for very long. Second, their wine was generally pretty awful by our standards; bad enough that it needed watering to make it palatable. They used wild yeast, they had no pasteurization, and it was all they could do to stop it all turning into vinegar. I wonder how much damage could exposure possibly do to wine that bad, but I seriously doubt it could improve it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 14:11:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 17:11:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Timely Notes for the Summer Message-ID: <20150714211025.9203118356A@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from an article by Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer, ZT"L, that appeared in the Mitteilungen, Vol. 2, June 1941 Timely Notes for the Summer Can the heat of summer be termed ?oppressive?? That is surely something that is individual. If we think of the terribly oppressive times a large number of our brethren are going through, we will gladly tolerate the discomforts of summer and rather bless our good fortune to be spared such pain. Many of our newly immigrated brothers and sisters are struggling with heavy economic burdens, and only the few can afford the much desired relaxing rest. We are pleased for those who can afford a vacation and expect that they will carefully select, as far as the trustworthiness of its kashrus, the place where they plan to spend their vacation. Obviously, they will not want to take a vacation from the ?yoke of the Law.? They want to return home, hale and hearty, and not with a feeling of unease for having risked their moral values in exchange for physical wellbeing. The heat of summer calls for changes in clothing and appearance. The conscientious Jew will carefully keep to certain limits, which he will not overstep. Our Divine Law cautions us to have a sense of shame, and that applies to summer as well. The Jewish custom ?according to the Talmud ?requires men and boys to cover their heads outdoors. God gave the first garment to man when he forfeited his special standing by disregarding the Will of God.Modest covering of his body is to be a steady reminder of the higher calling of man. Jewish men were given the adornment of tzitzis to admonish them to wear their clothes as proper Jews. Even in the summer heat, our requirements for covering can easily be heeded with lighter clothing. Comfort will not cause us to shirk our duty. A soldier?s helmet is uncomfortably heavy, but he wears it because it is required; God?s requirement should not be heeded? As for the Jewish woman, Jewish law requires her to cover her hair. The true Jewish woman will proudly do so, for it is a sign of her willingness to adhere to God?s Will as the guide in her life. A woman unworthy of this sign will have it removed forcibly by the priest (Bemidbar 5:18). Covering one?s hair is merely a sign if a woman does not conduct herself otherwise in the properly Jewish manner. Similarly, there are Jewish men who bear the Milah-sign on their bodies but sully their bodies in other ways. Not covering one?s hair is probably ? we are sorry to say ? a matter of ignorance, and perhaps such a Jewish woman was not brought up to understand the importance of covering her hair. Many women may carefully observe their Jewish duties in other areas, and we would so much like to adorn them with this special crown also. For the fact remains: covering of the hair for the Jewish woman is a must. The proud Jewish woman will conduct herself Jewishly in her clothing and in covering her hair. The word Tznius is a Jewish concept that is hard to translate exactly. It does not only denote a ?quietly humble way of living? (Michah 6:8), but everything else that our people has so valued and esteemed in their Jewish women at all times. ?quietly humble way of living? (Michah 6:8), but everything else that our people has so valued and esteemed in their Jewish women at all times. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 02:01:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 05:01:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Star-K on the Heter Mechira Message-ID: <20150715090047.2F7EB1824C9@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-shmitta-5775.htm Who Owns The Land? There is a difference of opinion among the poskim as to whether produce grown on land owned by a non-Jew living in the Land of Israel is considered produce of sheviis. The custom in Yerushalayim is not to consider it produce of sheviis, while the custom in Bnei Brak is to consider it produce of sheviis. Selling The Land: The Heter Mechira was formulated and instituted by many very prominent rabbanim (including the Gadol Hador, Harav Yitzchok Elchanan Spector) in the year 1887. There was a great deal of controversy among other prominent rabbanim surrounding the heter, the foremost of whom was the Netziv (Harav Naftoli Zvi Yehuda Berlin) of Volozin. Most of the controversy centered around the problem regarding the Torah prohibition of selling any part of the Land of Israel to non-Jews. Those who proposed the heter claimed that the situation in the Land of Israel was so precarious that not working the land for an entire year would put the entire Jewish settlement in danger, thus warranting this drastic measure. Others claimed that the prohibition of selling the land was worse than the prohibition of working the land. Since then, every Shmitta there have been rabbanim who have sold the land. Harav Avraham Yitzchok Kook institutionalized the sale (although he, too, agreed it was to be done only under grave duress). Since it's inception, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel has sold the land every Shmitta. However, there are presently many rabbanim who question whether the current situation in Israel warrants this type of sale. Furthermore, there is another more serious problem the consumer faces. The produce that is sold in the regular stores during the year of Shmitta predominantly comes from non-religious kibbutzim and moshavim, who would never agree to sell their land. This is compounded by the fact that the non-religious kibbutzim do not observe those prohibitions which Harav Kook instituted, and Harav Kook never permitted their current practices. Certainly, a tourist who is not knowledgeable concerning the dinim of Shmitta should buy produce only from stores that do not rely upon the heter mechira. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 03:18:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 06:18:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. Whether MZ is well known or not aside, even "kemaaseh Eretz Mitzrayim" (at least the male half of it) is described in the gemara as pretty well known -- it's on Ulla's list of 3 dinim of the 30 mitzvos Benei Noach (which rishonim map to subcategories of the usual 7) that Benei Noach generally observe -- "she'in kosevin kesuvah lezekharim". In any case, I will leave the Rambam as a tzarikh iyun that only affects the lives of those who agree with him that understanding theology and/or metaphysics is the perfection we strive for in life, above perfection of virtue. (Moreh, conclusion, worthy of its own thread.) For that matter, most of us also diagree with the Rambam on whether a person is judged by the level reached or by the distance covered. Without agreeing on either of those two points, it's likely one wouldn't agree with the Rambam's pesaq here. His view of the role of of bringing one's desire in line with a mitzvah will necessarily come from a different place. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 03:32:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 06:32:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Herzl In-Reply-To: <17e71f.7a1031b7.42d6e65d@aol.com> References: <17e71f.7a1031b7.42d6e65d@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150715103208.GD4654@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 06:25:33PM -0400, RnTK wrote on Areivim: : My comment was facetious -- a little dig at those MO who apparently do : believe that Herzl, Golda Meir and Ben Gurion were gedolim. R' AE Kaplan wrote very highly of Theodore Herzl. RAEK predeceased the accompilshments of the other two. To quote RYGB's translation (from BeIqvos haYir'ah pg 85): He [Herzl] did not teach us Torah... because he was never taught Torah... He taught us, rather, to say two words [four words in English] on occasions that until he came we had neither dared nor been able to utter: "I am a Jew [Ivri]!" We were always able to recite these words in the Beis Medrash next to our shtenders, we were even capable of reading and writing them... We could declare ourselves a nation in any place we wanted, except in that one place where the nations of the world were... to be found - in the international political arena. There we were seen as wandering sheep, like one Telzer (Yehuda Leib Gordon [22]) once put it: "Not a nation, not a congregation, rather a flock." Not like sheep that are petted and fed, but like those that are shorn or slaughtered. When a European ruler asked a Jew: "Who are you?" Would he respond simply: "I am a Jew" - without any qualifications or explanations? He would answer: I am a Jew - but also German, also French, also English, etc. Along came Herzl, the first from among us to reach that international political arena that serves as a world court, and responded, openly, freely, effortlessly and guilelessly: "I am a Jew." Moreover: "I was stolen from the land of the Jews [Eretz HaIvrim], and here I have done nothing, for they placed me in the pit" [Bereishis 40:15]. The Jewish nation is a nation unto itself, like all other nations, indeed, it is special, and it possesses a unique life force that sustains it... Do you not sense the hidden workings of divine providence? I know that just as the rejuvenation of Jewish national spirit had to come, so will finally come, in the unseen future, the rejuvenation of our Torah spirit... We do not see the paths, we do not see the footsteps, but I know... that I must strive toward this. And G-d who returns to Tziyon [Zion] will return us also to Torah MiTziyon... [23] [22] The most prominent Hebrew poet of the nineteenth century and a notorious Maskil, Gordon was generally known by his acronym, YaLaG, that, in a play on words, would be pronounced by Orthodox Jews as "yil'ag," the Hebrew word for "scoffer." [23] Besides his essays on Hashkafa, Reb Avraham Elya also left many "Reshimos," short notes on topics in Mussar, Machashava, and Avodas Hashem, some of which are beautiful vignettes of life lived in a Torah true and Mussar suffused way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 02:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 05:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Secular Studies: Are They for Everyone? Message-ID: <20150715092755.A05BB1824E7@nexus.stevens.edu> From the article by Rabbi Mordechai Willig at http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/%2FTU1_Willig.pdf Are secular studies permissible for everyone when they are necessary to provide for a livelihood? The answer is: for almost everyone. To summarize, then, for purpose of parnasah, secular studies are allowed for almost everyone. If it is not for parnasah, it is permissible, and sometimes even a mitzvah to learn various disciplines, providing that such study is considered of secondary importance, both in terms of time and value for, above all, Torah must always be the Ekir. Please see the above URL for the entire article. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 07:56:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:56:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Confronting sexual abuse in the Jewish community Message-ID: <> Can you give a place in shas or SA where the punishment of a crime accounts for the pain to the family If someone deserves the death penalty (there is no jail in halacha) as far as I know the bet din does not take into account that the family who are innocent will also be punished. If someone is sent to "ir miklat" the yeshiva goes with him, we don't remove the punishment because it affects the whole community -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:33:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian Message-ID: During a recent discussion with a friend the following two questions came up and I am curious what the fellows of Avodah think. 1) Can one count someone who denies the historicity of *matan torah* and *yetzias mitzrayim* but is other completely *shomer torah u-mitzvos* for a *minyan*? There is an halakhic category of *mumar l?hachis* who cannot count for a *minyan* according to many *poskim*. But that is on the assumption that they are violating *halakhah*. If they are not violating halakhah, can they be counted in a *minyan*? 2) Does one fulfill their shofer blowing from hearing the shofar be blown by someone denies the historicity of *matan torah* and *yetzias mitzrayim*? We assume that *mitzvos tzerichos kavvanah*. So this individual intends to fulfill the mitzvah of blowing the shofar on Rosh ha-Shanah. However, his conception of the nature of *mitzvos* and commandedness is extremely untraditional. Personally, I am inclined to include this individual in a minyan and assume that one fulfills the mitzvah of shofar with his blowing. But my conception of halakha flows from R. Dr. Walter Wurzburger?s *zy?a* belief that halakhah is a floor and not a ceiling. In other words, we do not make the bar for basic fulfillment of halakhah obligations higher if one could avoid it. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:32:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:32:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> References: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 6:18 AM Micha Berger wrote: > Lo zakhisi lehavin: > It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss > aren't mefursamot. > > Whether MZ is well known or not aside, even "kemaaseh Eretz Mitzrayim"... > In any case, I will leave the Rambam as a tzarikh iyun that only affects > the lives of those who agree with him that understanding theology and/or > metaphysics is the perfection we strive for in life, above perfection > of virtue. (Moreh, conclusion, worthy of its own thread.) ... You are assuming the shmona prakim see relevant only to those who fully accept Rambam's philosophy -- and that is a very unique position. I think shmona prakim is studied by those who would never open the moreh Rambam argues that a lust to steal or murder is a character flaw -- the should be overcome -- but a lust for hazir or arayot is not a character flaw -- although it too should be overcome. Why that is dependent on his notions of the ultimate good, effort versus achievement, or mitzvot bne noach I don't see -- nor do I think most others me that connection.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:55:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:55:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150715155517.GC31352@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 03:32:08PM +0000, Meir Shinnar wrote: : You are assuming the shmona prakim see relevant only to those who fully : accept Rambam's philosophy -- and that is a very unique position... Nah, I'm just surmising that the two may be linked. If your notion of redemption revolves around ideas and the thirst for knowledge, then developing something like like-vs-dislike is a different topic than if your notion of personal redemption is "sheyehei adir cheftzeinu leheitiv im zulaseinu... bedemus haBorei, keveyakhol." (Bonus points for the first person to identify the reference. ) So not that 8 Peraqim are only relevent to followers of the Rambam's point, just that this particular point, and perhaps a couple to a few others, may be of limited utility to the rest of us. (8 Peraqim, BTW, is one of my more heavily used resources when teaching for The Mussar Institute.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 12:49:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:49:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55A6B95E.6090302@starways.net> On 7/15/2015 10:33 AM, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: > 1)Can one count someone who denies the historicity of /matan > torah/ and /yetzias mitzrayim/ but is other completely /shomer > torah u-mitzvos/ for a /minyan/? I think there's a difference between someone who denies Matan Torah and someone who expresses doubts. The former, I'd treat no differently than someone who denies God, because for the purposes of Judaism, they're not separable. We asked our mesader kiddushin (years ago) what we should do about those family members who didn't believe in God. He said that if they'd openly denied God's existence, we could not give them sheva brachot, because we couldn't be yotzei on a bracha by someone who doesn't believe in God. He didn't say anything at all about observance. A lot of people focus on Rambam's ikkarim, and whether or not we're bound by them, but the concept of being kofer ba-ikkar predates Rambam by centuries. The existence of God and the historical fact of Matan Torah are, by any reasonable assessment, the most basic ikkarim of Judaism. Absent either of these, what's left isn't Judaism. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 19:47:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:47:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150716024705.GE13610@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:33:13AM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : 1) Can one count someone who denies the historicity of *matan torah* : and *yetzias mitzrayim* but is other completely *shomer torah u-mitzvos* : for a *minyan*? : : There is an halakhic category of *mumar l'hachis* who cannot count for a : *minyan* according to many *poskim*. But that is on the assumption that : they are violating *halakhah*. If they are not violating halakhah, can they : be counted in a *minyan*? I don't know if we hold like the Rambam, but Hil' Teshuvah ch. 3 is the only discussion of the categories of heresy I know of. A min is an atheist or polytheist, a trinitarian, etc... (3:7) An apiqoreis, the category in the title, is defined with a list of theological errors. It's someone who, like Epicurus, denies that Hashem runs the world. A Deist, someone who denies prophecy, or that He doesn't know man's actions. (3:8) Leshitaso, someone who doesn't believe in the historicity of Torah miSinai would be a kofer baTorah. (ibid) A mumar is a consistent sinner (ledavar achas, lekhol haTorah kulah), not a heretic. {3.9) Then the machti'ei rabbim (10), poreish midarkei hatzibur (11), moserim (12), and one who terrorizes the community -- not lehsim shamayim (13). That list -- 3 kinds of heretic and 5 kinds of sinners -- lose their olam haba, if they die without teshuvah (3:14). And then he says there are also smaller ones that still carry a similar price. Anyway, R' Aharon Soloveitchik held that "nebich an apiqoreis" (not using the term in the Rambam's technical sense) can be counted for a minyan. As long as his beliefs include those ideas that make tefillah meaningful. So a min couldn't, nor an apiqoreis who believes G-d doesn't know every little thing going on down here. (This was a common idea among Artistotilian, although obviosuly not among ours. Since facts change with time, and the Creator does not, how could the Creator know such facts? Would that mean His knowledge changes?) But a tinoq shenishba (by which RAL intentionally includes Jews not raised O) who doesn't believe in Sinai, but does believe that there is One G-d Who Listens to prayer and is Mashgiach, should be countable. Not because their heresy makes them heretics and thus michutz lamachaneh. But because they are incapable of prayer. RAS didn't discuss the person who isn't a tinoq shenishba, but also not a rebal. Someone who grew up in a Torah setting, but in his studies reached the wrong conclusion. The Tashbetz and the Radbaz (eearly 16th cent CE, not the Ridbaz who wrote on the Y-mi) famously hold that such people are not heetics even if they believe heresy. (As least on the list list it's famous, anyeay.) I just can't assume RAS agrees without proof. RAL also doesn't discuss a Deist who believes G-d Hears prayers, but won't act any differently. Can he make a brikhas hoda'ah, but not a baqashah? Since prayer is not al menas leqabel peras, do we even make baqashos for the sake of gettin a "yes", or just to have a moment with Him talking about what is bothering you? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 16 07:01:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:01:37 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Confronting sexual abuse in the Jewish community Message-ID: <20150716.100137.31633.0@webmail13.vgs.untd.com> I wrote on Areivim: > Of course it is important to protect future victims, but that is > not the only consideration here. What about the fallout to the > family of the victim, to the family of the perpetrator, and to > the community as a whole? (For those who have not been following on Areivim: Personally, I am all in favor of protecting the victims, but I know that my opinions might be heavily influenced by the society in which I live. My suggestion is that our chachamim are the only ones qualified to decide on any particular case, whether it might be better to whitewash an incident, so that the family and/or community are not hurt by the publicity.) R' Eli Turkel responded here on Avodah: > Can you give a place in shas or SA where the punishment of a > crime accounts for the pain to the family > If someone deserves the death penalty (there is no jail in > halacha) as far as I know the bet din does not take into > account that the family who are innocent will also be > punished. > If someone is sent to "ir miklat" the yeshiva goes with him, > we don't remove the punishment because it affects the whole > community These are excellent points. But then I must ask: Haven't there been times and situations when legitimate gedolim have paskened to hush things up because of other considerations? Would someone say that all such cases come from gedolim whose outlook is NOT Torah-based? I wish I could cite specific examples for discussion. Unfortunately, my knowledge of such things is far too limited. But surely this attitude must have come from somewhere, and did not materialize from nothingness. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett???s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren???t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55a7b984d1f883984538est04vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 18 13:49:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 22:49:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on Exercise Message-ID: <55AABBF3.2070100@zahav.net.il> Rav Kook's opinion about exercise and sport had been brought up here before. I quoted him as saying that physical activity helps the tzaddikim in their avodah. In the class I go to on Orot, we discussed the following piece by R Kook, which goes way further than that. Keep in mind that this was written before there was an IDF, so he isn't talking about any sort of physical protection. Orot, Orot Hatechiya, 34: Exercise, (which young Israel is getting involved in, in Eretz Yisrael, to strengthen their bodies in order to be vigorous for the nation), improves the spiritual strength of the greatest tzaddikim, those who involve themselves in "the unification of God's names" (my translation of a phrase which I admit I don't get), and increases the transmission of God's light in the world, because there is no revelation at all of light without all components being present. Turns out that (according to Rav Kook) not only does Talmud Torah increase the merits to the army/state/people, but just having people trying to be healthy, active, in shape, improves Talmud Torah, as long as both sides are doing this for the nation. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 18 17:09:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 03:09:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tefach Thick Soft Spongy Matza Message-ID: Many mistakenly think that we now have an accepted Halachic tradition, recorded in the Shulchan Aruch [460:5] to no longer bake Tefach thick Matza [10 - 12 cm] as in Talmudic times. This is untrue. The ShAruch records that Tefach thick Matza must not be Pesach. There is no problem whatsoever to produce such Matza Pesach and eat them during Pesach. The reason for this is quite simple; if one makes Chamets during Pesach, no matter that it was unintentional, one has transgressed the very serious violation of having Chamets - Bal YeRaEh and Bal YeMaTzeh. When making Tefach thick Matza the risk of inadvertently making Chamets because some dough in the Matza will remain unbaked, is [became] intolerable. However, baking the same thickness Matza before Pesach poses no concern. If it is Chamets, as can be discerned by tearing the Matza and checking for doughy stringy threads, then either eat it before Pesach or get rid of it. Whatever is fully baked however, is fine for Pesach. Compare the Mechabers expression, Seif 4 and 5, not to make images on the Matza; and not to make thick Matza - it is not done - ??? ?????; to his expression Seif 6, not to make dough filled with meat and veg - one ought not be lenient - ??? ????. One ought not be lenient - ??? ???? sounds more strict, as is supported by the MBerurah [18] suggesting that it is prohibited even after the fact, - whereas it is not done - ??? ????? implies it should not be done but after the fact, if it not Chamets it is Kosher and may be eaten during Pesach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 17 07:19:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 10:19:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Guten Chodesh (Though sad, still hope...) Message-ID: <0F8B8D71-82A7-4DB7-AFF4-740FDDA46D37@cox.net> The gematria for ?Rosh Chodesh" is 813. (reish:200, aleph:1, shin:300; ches:8, dalet:4, shin:300 ? Total=813) In the whole of tanach there is only one verse with the gematria of 813 which occurs in B?reishis, Chapter 1, verse 3: ?Vayomer Elohim ohr; vay?hi ohr? ?And God said: Let there be light and there was light.? May our mourning be turned into dancing (Ps.30:12) and may we live to see the light. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 00:55:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 10:55:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: heter mechira In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <> There are many inaccuracies in their statement and much is outdated. "The produce that is sold in the regular stores during the year of Shmitta predominantly comes from non-religious kibbutzim and moshavim, who would never agree to sell their land. " I have no idea what this statement means. They in fact do sell their land. The current situation in Israel is that the chief rabbinate sends people to each of these kibbutzim etc to explain to them what the heter mechira means and what are the other options. No one is forced to participate. "However, there are presently many rabbanim who question whether the current situation in Israel warrants this type of sale" The figures I have heard is that 85% of Israeli produce is exported (mainly to Europe). Without the heter mechira one would have to close down almost the entire agricultural development in Israel. In addition one is forbidden to sell produce with kedushat sheviit to nonJews. That would mean having guards at supermarkets checking that only Jews buy the produce "This is compounded by the fact that the non-religious kibbutzim do not observe those prohibitions which Harav Kook instituted, and Harav Kook never permitted their current practices." The current chief rabbinate tries to enforce whatever Rav Kook instituted. In fact most agricultural workers in Israel regardless of shemita are Arabs. -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 18:33:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:33:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish with mixed seating In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720013343.GC4548@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 03:08:58PM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : Interestingly enough the Gemara in Succos brings a "proof" for separation : of men and women from a non-"Davar She'bekedushah" the funeral in : Zecharyah. The other example is Simchas Beis haSho'eivah. Notice that one is extreme joy, and the other extreme sadness. Neither was tefillah betzibbur. Should the fact that chazal thought it was natural to apply these precedents to tefillah be taken to mean that -- "thanks to my knees for bowing at modim" aside -- Chazal found such extremes of emotion common during davening? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 18:57:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:57:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150720015718.GD4548@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 01:14:59AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : Well, I guess my original post should have had a longer introduction. I : know that Kaddish Tiskabel has a very clear rule, namely that it : follows every Amidah, and the only exception is that it also follows : Selichos. Kaddish D'rabanan always follows group learning (though I've : never figured out exactly what learning counts and what doesn't). Qaddish Tisqabel is said after zelosehon (the Amidah) uVa'us-hon (tachanun or selichos. That the request that they be accepted. : And now I'm trying to figure out the rule for Kaddish Yasom. It SEEMS : to be a sort of "congregational prayer", where "prayer" is something : *other* than the Amidah, but I can't define it any more precisely than : that. For a long time I thought it was connected to Tehillim, but when : I noticed it after the megilos on Yom Tov, someone suggested that it's : not specifically Sefer Tehillim, but *any* part of Kesuvim, not that we : had any idea why Kesuvim would get this distinction over Neviim or Torah. Accordng to R' de Sola Pool's monograph "Kaddish", Qaddish originated as being post-derashah -- the role Qaddish deRabbanan still serves. So perhaps non-concidentally, the format for sermons through the geonic era was to start with a pasuq from one of the sidrei EMa"S (Iyov, Mishlei, Tefillim) and wrap up by applying the resulting an idea to a pasuq from he sedra. ... : I have to admit that a big part of my asking this question is a pet : peeve that I've been nursing, regarding Kiddush Levana in particular. It : seems to me that Kiddush Levana -- the way it is done in just about : every situation I've ever seen -- cannot be called a Tefilas Tzibur in : any sense. It is a group of yechidim who happen to be saying the same : thing, but in a totally disorganized fashion... Perhaps that's it exactly. Like "Shalom Aleikhem", we make a cpoint of socially unifying those yechidim as part of qiddush levanah. Perhaps not in the sense of tefillah betzibbur or tefillas hatzibur, but then, neither is a shiur. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 09:45:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:45:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reciting a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time In-Reply-To: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> References: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> Message-ID: <20150720164528.GA10632@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:53:34AM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : http://tinyurl.com/o6rxcdf : according to those that say you do NOT recite a shehechiyanu when performing : a mitzvah for the first time (ie bar mitzvah), Who are they? All I know of is the Chasam Sofer (OC 55) -- well I guess I also know of the Peri To'ar, his maqor -- who says that the berakhah when putting on tefillin on one's bar mitzvah is supposed to be made with all the rest of the mitzvos in mind. The Radvaz says a ger says shehechiyanu when they emerge from the miqvah. I am less clear when a girl becoming a bas mitzvah would make her shechiyanu. The Ben Ish Chai says the girl should have in mind ol mitzvos when making shehechiyanu on her celebratory dress. Paralleling what we do by eating a new fruit on the 2nd evening of RH. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 09:51:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefach Thick Soft Spongy Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720165119.GB10632@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 03:09:13AM +0300, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Many mistakenly think that we now have an accepted Halachic tradition, : recorded in the Shulchan Aruch [460:5] to no longer bake Tefach thick Matza : [10 - 12 cm] as in Talmudic times. This is untrue... Unless we are holding like the "veyeish la'asos" in the Rama se'if 4. Neither the se'if nor the explanation "ki ein hareqiqin memaharin lehachmitz" make a distinction about when the matzah was made. -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:19:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on Exercise In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720211930.2A235182421@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:53 PM 7/20/2015, R. Ben Waxman wrote: >Orot, Orot Hatechiya, 34: > >Exercise, (which young Israel is getting involved in, in Eretz Yisrael, >to strengthen their bodies in order to be vigorous for the nation), >improves the spiritual strength of the greatest tzaddikim, those who >involve themselves in "the unification of God's names" (my translation >of a phrase which I admit I don't get), and increases the transmission >of God's light in the world, because there is no revelation at all of >light without all components being present. > >Turns out that (according to Rav Kook) not only does Talmud Torah >increase the merits to the army/state/people, but just having people >trying to be healthy, active, in shape, improves Talmud Torah, as long >as both sides are doing this for the nation. See "Exercise, Torah Learning and the Chofetz Chaim" http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/exercise_torah_cc_v2.pdf Reb Yaakov Kamenetsky was an avid swimmer all of his life. I recall when he came to Monroe to spend a Shabbos with his son Avraham. He was in his 80s I believe. Well, he put on his bathing suit, a robe and went to the pool. He then proceeded to jump into the pool and swim laps. This spread like wildfire in the 3 colonies in Monroe. People could not stop talking about it. It eventually got back to Reb Yaakov who quipped, "I wish they are as excited about my learning as they are about my swimming!" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 15:03:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> Re: Micha's questioning kadish yasom(KY) after kidush levana, the Vilna Gaon has a shortened version(doesn't he always?) that starts with the bracha and ends with siman tov. There is no Aleinu, hence no KY. He also holds that "sh'ain l'harbos b'k'dashim shelo l'tzorech, hence,there is only once KY per tefila. After the Yom by shachris and after Aleinu by mincha & maariv. Minhag Ashkenaz is not to say kadish d'rabonan during/after tefila but only after limud agada. The chasidim adopted the custom of saying it from the Seforadim and that's how it entered their ritual. I remember davening once at the Boro Park nusach HaGra k'vosikin minyan way back and was struck by the number of KYs that were said. The gabbai's answer was that it was too difficult to stop the "kadish zogers" from having their way. B"H, at our Flatbush Nusach HaGra k'vosikin minyan (Young Israel of Ave K, East 29th and K) under Rav Aryeh Ralbag guidance, we are have not had to compromise the Nusach HaGra way of davening. Shachris is 45 minutes before HaNetz every shabos and YT. -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com http://www.schnurassociates.com/joels-corner/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 15:46:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:46:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> References: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> Message-ID: <20150720224608.GB21161@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 06:03:46PM -0400, Joel Schnur via Avodah wrote: : I remember davening once at the Boro Park nusach HaGra k'vosikin : minyan way back and was struck by the number of KYs that were said. : The gabbai's answer was that it was too difficult to stop the : "kadish zogers" from having their way... REMT said something that makes me wonder... He suggested that our (non-Yekke) current practice of every avel saying qaddish is to make it condusive for aveilim to feel they're discharging their duty. Many men first started attending minyan regularly during aveileus and kept on doing so for the rest of their lives. Do you really want to discourage that with "Ah, why bother, I probably wouldn't get a turn this time anyway!"? A similar argument would change the priorities the Gra assumes about making extraneous opportunities for Qaddish. The AhS OC 55:4 gives this explanation for the creation of a 2nd opportunity for Qaddish Yasom at the end of Shacharis. He also writes that the Qadmonim only said 7 qaddeisim a day: Shacharis, after each of Yishtabach, Tachanun and UVa leTzion Minchah, after Ashrei and Tachanuun, and Arvis -- before and after Shemoneh Esrei. He quotes the Roqeiach invoking the pasuq "sheva bayom haleltikha" to explain that 7 was an intentional, significant, number. The AhS continues that three more were added when Aleinu was appended to the end of each tefillah. For the sake of yesomim who didn't get the amud. And significance was found for that, by reading Tzadi"q as an acronym, and each letter a gematria. Each day a tzadiq would say 90 times amein, (tzadi) 4 qedushos, (dalet) 10 qadeihim, and (yud) 100 berakhos (quf). (Citing the NMA.) Then he discusses leining adding one. "Veyoseir ein maqom laqadeishim", and still we added after Shir shel Yom because there were more yesomim, but more than that -- the AhS does not permit. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot RMB responded: Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. ============= My two cents: Adultery (eishis ish) is technically taking from another man that which belongs exclusively to him. So that itself puts it within the category of issurim that are mefursamos. The Rambam (MN 2:49) describes all sexuality as something that even when natural, should be limited. Homosexuality and bestiality, however, he describes as obvious deviations from the natural order that should be abhorred. I think that would place these two activities, as well, in the mefursamos category. The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely forbidden. Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: MN 3:49 As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure alone be eschewed. All illicit unions with females have one thing in common: namely, that in the majority of cases these females are constantly in the company of the male in his house, and that they are easy of access for him, and can be easily controlled by him - there being no difficulty in making them come into his presence; and no judge could blame the male I for their being with him. Consequently if the status of the women with whom union is illicit were that of any unmarried woman, I mean to say that if it were possible to marry them and that the prohibition with regard to them were only due to their not being the man's wives, most people would have constantly succumbed and fornicated with them. However, as it is absolutely forbidden to have intercourse with them, the strongest deterrents making us avoid this - I mean by this a sentence of death by order of a court of law and the threat of being cut off--so that there is no way to have intercourse with these women, men are safe from seeking to approach them and their thoughts are turned away from them. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot RMB responded: > Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate > family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. My two cents: Adultery (eishis ish) should be categorized under issurim mefursomos simply on the basis that it involves taking lves taking liberties with another man's wife, an intimacy that belongs to the husband. A form of theft! So that itself puts it within the category of issurim that are mefursamos. The Rambam (MN 2:49) describes all sexuality as something that even when natural, should be limited. Homosexuality and bestiality, however, he describes as obvious deviations from the natural order that should be abhorred. I think that would place these two activities, as well, in the mefursamos category. The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely forbidden. Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: MN 3:49 As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure alone be eschewed. All illicit unions with females have one thing in common: namely, that in the majority of cases these females are constantly in the company of the male in his house, and that they are easy of access for him, and can be easily controlled by him - there being no difficulty in making them come into his presence; and no judge could blame the male I for their being with him. Consequently if the status of the women with whom union is illicit were that of any unmarried woman, I mean to say that if it were possible to marry them and that the prohibition with regard to them were only due to their not being the man's wives, most people would have constantly succumbed and fornicated with them. However, as it is absolutely forbidden to have intercourse with them, the strongest deterrents making us avoid this - I mean by this a sentence of death by order of a court of law and the threat of being cut off--so that there is no way to have intercourse with these women, men are safe from seeking to approach them and their thoughts are turned away from them. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 16:02:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:02:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: (Sorry for approving both versions of that post! It was a quick typo in what was until-then going so smoothly! -micha) On 2015-07-20 5:34 pm, RZ Lampel wrote: > RMB responded: "Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest > within > the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot." > Adultery (eishis ish) is technically taking from another man that > which > belongs exclusively to him. So that itself puts it within the > category of > issurim that are mefursamos. > The Rambam (MN 2:49) ... Yes. But our problem is with Shemoneh Peraqim, where the Rambam distinguishes between mitzvos mefusamot, for which a person should develop a desire that is in line with the mitzvah (or a distaste in line with the issur), and other mitzvos where one should simply refrain out of submission to ol mitzvos. And among his mitzvos which are NOT mefursamos are arayos. R/Dr Meir Shinnar writes: > he specifically applies that > to > arayot - and needs to apply it to arayot, because the sugyot that > deal with > kol hagadol mechavero yitzro gadol mimenu - specifically apply to > arayot. > One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all > dine > arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not > sure > on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are > NOT > self evident or even mefursamot So regardless of how he categorizes them in the Moreh, the chiluq the Rambam makes in 8P requires our considering these issurim to not be self-evident. (Which I still don't get.) -micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 20:09:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 23:09:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah REMT said something that makes me wonder... He suggested that our (non-Yekke) current practice of every avel saying qaddish is to make it condusive for aveilim to feel they're discharging their duty. Micha Berger >>>> You are mainly talking about adults saying kaddish, but I remember one tragic year when there were seven yesomim under bar mitzva age saying kaddish, from three different families. Two families had lost their mothers, one family their father. Who was going to tell these children, who came to shul faithfully every day, sometimes getting to school late or skipping outings with their friends, "You can't say kaddish for your Ima or your Abba today, someone else has kadima"? Correct me if I am mistaken but my impression is that kaddish yasom is really mainly for genuine yesomim, i.e., those who lose their parents while they are still children. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 23:56:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:56:00 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Dr Shapiro's book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I found the most disturbing part of Dr Shapiro's book the last chapter. This is a halachid discussion of lying. My conclusion from this is that lying is perfectly permissible if there is a good reason. Basically the ends justifies the means. We are not talking about white lies as praising the bride for her beauty. In particular it is permissible to quote a psak from a gadol even though he never said it as long as you are sure that it is correct and he probably would have said it. There is no problem with making up stories about a gadol as long as the intention is to either glorify the gadol or else show why some idea is important. He claims that there are groups that actively make up stories about CI. The Chatam Sofer says that in order to prevent sins one can make the problem appear to be more serious than it really is such as turning a rabbinic prohibition into a biblical one. The problem with false attribution (besides the seemingly moral one) is that the result one cannot believe anything that is not written by the gadol himself. One never knows if the citation of the gadol was deliberately changed, However as seen in the rest of the book even the written words of the author are not always authoritative as in many cases they are tampered with to protect some "higher interest". Even the SA has been tampered with for this purpose. One can lie in order to avoid embarrassment to oneself. R Papa seems to have issued an incorrect halacha to avoid shame. A poor man can make believe he is blind or crippled in order to get more charity. One can claim that the monet is going for a poor bride when in fact it will be used for some other charity. Finally there is the heter of mental reservation or reinterpreting ones words made famous by the story of Yaakov "lying" To Isaac that he is Esav. Shapiro gives the example of Clinton making all sorts of "false" statements about Lewinsky and later justified it by saying that his words had another meaning than what people thought. Note this is sometimes permitted even in monetary cases. As stated about one can lie for educational purposes "Noble Lie" of Plato. Rav Dessler defines "truth" as the value that gives a positive result and is independent of observation and evidence. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 19:10:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 21:10:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: > Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: > MN 3:49 > As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are > directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling > disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The > reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against > intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is > natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more > should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure > alone be eschewed. So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 21:55:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:55:23 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9105E0A4-E59B-4E23-ADAA-7FCACD74F424@gmail.com> This is tangentially related only, but may be of interest in the context. I asked Rav Hershel Schachter, Shlita, what to do if someone who acts as a functionary at a Shira Chadasha (partnership) style service wants to do likewise in a mainstream Orthodox Congregation. His answer was, that such a person can be counted towards a Minyan, but no Kibbudim should be afforded to them. We have one here in Melbourne, which isn't like the one in Israel, but the strong word is that one of Rabbi Avi Weiss's Maharatos (Rabba/Rabbis) will be hired to lead that congregation. She was recently interviewed and claimed she was non denominational because she wanted to break down boundaries. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 03:08:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:08:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] thick matza Message-ID: For those interested a thorough discussion on thick matazot see the article of Ari Zivotofsky in Hakirah www.hakirah.org/Vol17Zivotofsky.pdf -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 06:54:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 06:54:49 -- 0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> Message-ID: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> On 7/20/2015 7:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > ... our problem is with Shemoneh Peraqim, where the Rambam distinguishes > between mitzvos mefusamot, for which a person should develop a desire > that is in line with the mitzvah (or a distaste in line with the issur), > and other mitzvos where one should simply refrain out of submission to > ol mitzvos. > And among his mitzvos which are NOT mefursamos are arayos....the chiluq > the Rambam makes in 8P requires our considering these issurim to not > be self-evident. And that's precisely what I addressed in my 3rd paragraph. After citing the Moreh Nevuchim's description of homosexuality and bestiality as obviously deviant practices (i.e. mefursamos), I cited its description of arayos (outside of eishis ish) as being not mefursomos, but issurim Hashem instituted as a preventative, a gedder, against unrestrained licentiousness in a situation (viz. family) where the temptation for it would otherwise be too hard to control. To repeat what I wrote: >> The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and >> commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because >> allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than >> his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would >> lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest >> intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, >> it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound >> to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely >> forbidden." Perhaps the mention of "commanded that it, too, be considered >> abhorrent" causes confusion. This would seem to put incest back into >> the category of mefursomos, along with murder and stealing, etc., about >> which a normal person is expected to harbor revulsion. So Rambam would be >> self-contradicting. But the elephant in the room is that the Torah itself >> commands us to treat eating non-kosher creatures with disgust. So how >> can Chazal tell us the right attitude is "efshi"? Evidently, Chazal and, >> naturally, Rambam, do not consider "efshi" to be at odds with "shekketz >> yih'yu lachem/teshak'tsu."My surmise is that they understand the Torah's >> command to treat with disgust the eating of non-kosher creatures and >> other acts that are not intrinsically objectionable (such as, per Rambam, >> incest, vs. murder, stealing, homosexuality and bestiality), as an imposed >> artificial behavior/attitude for these non-mefusamos issurim. Regarding >> your definition of issurim mefursamim, the Shemoneh Perakim does not >> say a tsaddik should /develop/ a revulsion, but that such revulsion is >> natural in born in all people. The tsaddik retains these feelings and >> does not allow them to be tainted. [Email #2.] On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: >> MN 3:49 >> As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are >> directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling >> disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom... On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and > should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of > Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what > possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 07:36:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:36:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Dr Shapiro's book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AE5907.7010503@optimum.net> RET: << A poor man can make believe he is blind or crippled in order to get more charity. >> How does this fit with Peah 8:9? Which book are we talking about? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 17:48:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 20:48:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> Message-ID: <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> I think one has to be careful, as I find it difficult to reconcile the position of the MN and that of the SP, and think they represent two distinct aspects (?stages) in the rambam Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions I) in hazal -- that continued desire for some forbidden actions is compatible with a high spiritual state -- issue is control of the desire -- NOT its presence II) Aristotelian ethics -- a high spiritual state does not desire for forbidden -- the desire is a sign of a flaw. SP resolves by differentiating between mefursamot -- whose desire is problematic and a flaw -- and religious law -- where desire is not a flaw -- and applies this specifically to arayot -- as examples in Talmud of Rabbanit with desire are of arayot, It is difficult for me to reconcile this position with the MN -- if our proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is " to instil disgust" -- how can desire still remaining not be a flaw???? In the MN, there is a conceptual framework to distinguish homosexuality and bestiality from regular sexuality -- but they are ALL viewed as things that should repulse us -- just some more than others. It is by no means clear that this framework and distinction can be read into the SP, and would think that One would need good evidence .hat it does not include ALL arayot... Meir Shinnar > It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah > attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress > during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan > Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a > marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. > Zvi Lampel > On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and >> should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of >> Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what >> possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? >> On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: >>> Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: >>> MN 3:49 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 08:06:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:06:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Message-ID: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why ? What changed in the afternoon? (especially since some pple fast both the 9th and 10th( Mordechai cohen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 06:18:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:18:26 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150722.091826.10442.1@webmail10.vgs.untd.com> The Moreh Nevuchim was quoted: > As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are > directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling > disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. R"n Lisa Liel wrote what I had wanted to write: > So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty > and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something > out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, > but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? R' Zvi Lampel answered: > It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah > attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt > duress during the marital process (you can find this in the > Kitzur Shulchan Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the > Rambam when it comes to a marital setting. I was taught we hold > like the Ramban. My guess is that you're referring to R' Eliezer from Nedarim 20b, referenced at the end of Kitzur 150:1. But from what I have seen, not for nothing is it called "Kitzur Shulchan Aruch", because this seems to be the attitude of all the standard poskim. The Kitzur is not a standalone machmir here; from what I can tell, he's merely quoting the Mechaber in Orach Chayim 240:8. Mishneh Brurah 240:35 (who refers us to Magen Avraham 240:21), Aruch Hashulchan 240:14, and Kaf Hachaim 240:59 all seem to advocate a strong reluctance towards intercourse, which is not quite as extreme as the Rambam's "disgust", but that might merely reflect their choice of words. For purposes of Talmud Torah, where is this Ramban who "strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting"? And for purposes of Halacha, which Acharonim hold like the Ramban, over the Mechaber, KSA, MB, and KH? (I recall hearing that the Siddur HaYaavetz might be the answer here, but there seem to be several different versions. If anyone can post a link to a specific version on SeforimOnline or HebrewBooks.org, and a page citation, I'd appreciate that very much.) Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett?s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren?t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55af9846b9a261846362est02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 07:13:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:13:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel asked: "The idea that sex is something dirty and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude?" See the Gemara in Nedarim (20a) about kafuhu shed. Also see RAL's article OF MARRIAGE: RELATIONSHIP AND RELATIONS ( http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf ) where he discusses this question and brings many of the sources. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:25:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:25:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 06:54:49AM +0000, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: :> So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and :> should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of :> Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what :> possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? : It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah : attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress : during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan : Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to : a marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. But the most famous Ramban does speak of perushim tihyu and how perishus is the key to holiness. (R' Shimon Shkop explains the Ramban as saying it is a primary means to hoiness, because "qedoshim tihyu qi Qadosh Ani" would be absurd if referring to Hashem practicing perishus. What temptations would He need to avoid?) And his first example is yema'eit bemishgal, like (Berakhos 22) "that TC not be found by their wives like roosters" and that tashmish should be limited to "kefi hatzeikh beqiyum hamitzvah mimenu". I presume, in an unXian sense, the Rambam refers to onah, not "only" piryah verivyah. Perishus and neqi'us come up a lot in lower-case-m mussar literature, even among anti-Maimonidians like Rabbeinu Yonah. To quote Mesilas Yesharim ch 13 (tr. from http://www.shechem.org/torah/mesyesh/13.htm I think it's the old Feldheim ed, by R' Shraga Simmons): There is no question as to the permissibility of cohabitation with one's wife, but still, ablutions were instituted for those who had had seminal emissions, so that Scholars should not be steadily with their wives, like roosters. Even though the act itself is permissible it implants in a person a lust for it which might draw him on to what is forbidden; as our Sages of blessed memory have said (Sukkah 526), "There is a small organ in a man which, when it is satiated, hungers and which, when it is made to hunger, is sated." And they said about R. Eleazar (Nedarim 20b) that even in the proper hour and the correct time he would expose a handbreadth and conceal two hand-breadths and imagine that a demon was compelling him, in order to cancel out the feeling of pleasure. And ch. 14: THERE ARE THREE principal divisions of Separation, involving pleasures, laws, and conduct respectively. Separation in relation to pleasures, which we spoke of in the previous chapter, consists in one's taking from the world only what is essential to him. This type of Separation encompasses anything which provides pleasure to any one of the senses, whether the pleasure be gained through food, cohabitation, clothing, strolls, conversation or similar means, exceptions obtaining only at such times when deriving pleasure through these means is a mitzvah. Separation in relation to laws ... Separation in relation to conduct ... Which also limits marital intimacy to what is necessary to fulfill piryah verivyah and onah. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:36:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:36:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55AFD49B.4070904@gmail.com> On 7/21/2015 8:48 PM, Meir Shinnar wrote: > Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions > I) in hazal - that continued desire for some forbidden actions is > compatible with a high spiritual state - issue is control of the > desire - NOT its presence > I) Aristotelian ethics - a high spiritual state does not desire for > forbidden - the desire is a sign of a flaw. > SP resolves by differentiating between mefursamot - whose desire is > problematic and a flaw - and religious law - where desire is not a > flaw - and applies this specifically to arayot - as examples in Talmud > of Rabbanit with desire are of arayot, > It is difficult for me to reconcile this position with the MN - if our > proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is " to instil > disgust" - how can desire still remaining not be a flaw???? > In the MN, there is a conceptual framework to distinguish > homosexuality and bestiality from regular sexuality - but they are ALL > viewed as things that should repulse us - just some more than others. > It is by no means clear that this framework and distinction can be > read into the SP, and would think that One would need good evidence > that it does not include ALL arayot... The Moreh Nevuchim III:35 explicitly states that his view about this matter is the same as his view in Shemoneh Perakim: The fourteenth class comprises the commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain sexual unions. They are those that we have enumerated in the Book of Women [/Sepher Nashim/] and in Laws concerning Prohibited Sexual Relations [/Hilkhoth Issurei Bi'ah/. The interbreeding of beasts belongs to this class. The purpose of this ... is to bring about a decrease of sexual intercourse and to diminish the desire for mating as far as possible, so that it should not be taken as an end, as is done by the ignorant, *according to what we have explained in the Commentary on the Tractate Aboth.* (All commentators agree this is a reference to the introduction to the commentary, the Shemoneh Perakim, just as the Moreh stated regarding the thirteenth class.) Your kushya is good: if [as per MN] our proper relationship to even permitted sexualityis "to instill disgust" - how can desire still remaining not be a flaw [as per ShP]???? But I think the solution I offered is reasonable. To wit: What do you do with the elephant in the room I mentioned? The Torah commands /t'shaktsu/ concerning the eating of non-kosher creatures (which is certainly as much in the category of non-mefursomos as bassar b'chalav and arayos); yet Chazal (and naturally, then, Rambam) say that when it comes to basar b'chalav, etc., one should have the attitude of "I have the desire to do it, but Hashem prohibited me.'' I offered one answer to both questions: When Rambam says that Hashem wants to instill in us disgust for the act, and the Torah (as per Chazal) says "t'shakstu,'' they mean that despite the fact that we should not deny or seek to eradicate the physical inclination for such pleasures, we must maintain an aversion to succumbing to it except for limited situations. (And the purpose of that is to keep us from doing it in excess, which is the real flaw.) *So although as per MN,] our proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is to instill a reluctance except for limited occasions (such as in a marriage setting), the desire still remaining is not a flaw [as per ShP] to be eradicated.* "I have the desire to do it [even outside of marriage, and I will not eradicate the sexual desire from myself,] but [live with it and constrain it outside of marriage,] because Hashem commanded me so [and this will bring me to perfection]. So, a word about the Moreh's wording. Pines translates: "As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. ... the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity." Friedlander translates: " we ought to limit sexual intercourse altogether, hold it in *contempt,* and only desire it very rarely." Ibn Tibbon translates "ha-arayos, ha-inyan b'kulam shahv l'ma-eit ha-mishgal *v'lim'os* bo, v'shello yirtseh mimennu ki im m'aht mi-za-ir...sheh-inyan ha-tiv'i *nim-ahs* l'hay-a-sos rak l'tsorech." I suspect from the context (lim'os/disgust/contempt, *except for limited occasions*) that the Rambam's original Arabic, not to mention his intention, is closer on the scale to the idea of avoidance for the sake of gaining perfection, than to disgust and contempt. Basically, it translates to what I believe is in fact our common attitude regarding these things. To put things in perspective, note that immediately before this section, the Rambam, following the same attitude of engaging in unrestrained physical pleasures being an obstacle to personal perfection, writes similarly about the activity of eating, again equating what he writes in the Moreh to what he wrote in Shemoneh Perakim: The thirteenth class comprises the commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain foods and what is connected therewith. These are the commandments that we have enumerated in the Laws concerning Forbidden Foods [/Hilkhoth Ma-akholoth Asuroth/]. The [commandments concerning] vows and the state of the Nazarites belong to this class. The purpose of all this is, *as we have explained in the Commentary on the Mishnah in the introduction to Aboth,* to put an end to the lusts and licentiousness manifested in seeking what is most pleasurable and to taking the desire for food and drink as an end. [Email #2. -micha] On 7/22/2015 1:25 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > But the most famous Ramban does speak of perushim tihyu and how perishus > is the key to holiness. ...And his first example is yema'eit > bemishgal... > I presume, in an unXian sense, the Rambam refers to onah, not "only" > piryah verivyah. > Perishus and neqi'us come up a lot in lower-case-m mussar literature, even > among anti-Maimonidians like Rabbeinu Yonah. To quote Mesilas Yesharim ch 13 > ..." And they said about > R. Eleazar (Nedarim 20b) that even in the proper hour and the correct > time he would expose a handbreadth and conceal two hand-breadths and > imagine that a demon was compelling him, in order to cancel out the > feeling of pleasure. > And ch. 14: ... > Separation in relation to pleasures, which we spoke of in the > previous chapter, consists in one's taking from the world only what > is essential to him. > Which also limits marital intimacy to what is necessary to fulfill piryah > verivyah and onah. Which, as I was contemplating to write, shows that the Ramban and Rambam (and as you have pointed out, mainstream Jewish thought) all share the same basic nuanced attitude--despite the Ramban's opposition to the Rambam's presentation. Thanks for the sources. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:00:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:00:43 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> References: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:06 AM, M Cohen via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after > chatzos on Tbav > > Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc > > Why ? > > What changed in the afternoon? (especially since some pple fast both the 9 > th and 10th( > There are two answers in the Birkhei Yosef quoting Sefer Hakavvanot of R. Haim Vital (OH 559 s"k 7) for why we say verses of consolation at minha, both based on Midrash Eicha Rabba, and perhaps the reason is the same. Firstly, that this was when the BHMK began to burn, and it was davka a time of consolation because the people realized that HKBH was pouring his anger on stone and wood, not on flesh and blood. Secondly, that this is the time when the Messiah whose name is Menahem is born. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 22:23:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 01:23:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55B07A69.5020203@gmail.com> On 7/22/2015 1:26 PM, H Lampel wrote: > When Rambam says that Hashem wants to instill in us disgust for the > act, and the Torah (as per Chazal) says ''t'shakstu,'' they mean that > despite the fact that we should not deny or seek to eradicate the > physical inclination for such pleasures, we must maintain an aversion > to succumbing to it except for limited situations. (And the purpose of > that is to keep us from doing it in excess, which is the real flaw.) I should also note that the Rambam teaches that hand-in-hand with the flaw of excessive involvement in physical pleasures, and the ultimate problem with that, is the attitude behind it, of making physical pleasure an end in itself, rather than a side benefit of a means. The Rambam applies this objection to both sexual pleasure for its own sake and eating pleasure for its own sake: The prohibition of certain foods and what is connected therewith.... The purpose of all this is, as we have explained in the Commentary on the Mishnah in the introduction to Aboth, to put an end to the lusts and licentiousness manifested in seeking what is most pleasurable and to taking the desire for food and drink /as an end/. ...The commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain sexual unions... The purpose of this ... is to bring about a decrease of sexual intercourse and to diminish the desire for mating as far as possible, so that it should not be taken /as an end/, as is done by the ignorant, according to what we have explained in the Commentary on the Tractate Aboth. Zvi Lampel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 01:16:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:16:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R' Aharon Lichtenstein was bothered by the difference in opinion regarding marital intimacy between Chazal who seem to have a very positive attitude and the Rishonim (especially the Rambam) who have a very negative attitude and the attitude of contemporary authorities who seem to have swung back to the positive side: "We, for our part, are confronted by a quandary of our own; and it is dual. At one plane, we ask ourselves, within the context of our learn- ing?it is Torah, and we must learn?a simple and straightforward ques- tion. In light of the predominant evidence we have noted from Hazal and, particularly, its halakhic component, how and why did Rambam, Ramban, and some other rishonim, deviate so markedly from their prevalent attitude? With reference to yetser (the inclination)?generic in connotation but defined by Rashi as shel tashmish (sexual desire)?Hazal identify it as one of a triad which, optimally, one should ?let the left hand deflect and the right hand bring close? (Sota 47a). One sometimes gets the impression that the proportion was subsequently inverted. ... To the extent that we do succeed in harmonizing the positions of Hazal and of rishonim, we ameliorate the pressure of one issue but exacerbate that of another. For we are brought, in turn, to a second quandary: our own. While I have conducted no empirical survey, I believe there is little question regarding the sensibility of the contempo- rary Torah world, irrespective of camp and orientation. We stand, fun- damentally, with R. Bar-Shaul. We assert the value of romantic love, its physical manifestation included, without flinching from the prospect of concomitant sensual pleasure; and we do so without harboring guilt or reservations. " Source: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 06:35:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:35:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shimon haTzaddik and Alexander the Macedonian Message-ID: <20150723133509.GA14333@aishdas.org> The story of Shim'on haTzaddiq, in the office of kohein gadol, meeting Alexander the Great, as told in Yuma 69a, is pretty well known. Josephus told the story earlier, in Antiquities 11:8. The Daily Mail recently covered what appears to be another retelling : Mosaic of Alexander the Great meeting a Jewish priest is the first ever non-biblical scene to be discovered inside a synagogue - Artwork was uncovered in a fifth-century synagogue in Huqoq, Israel - May depict Alexander the Great, based on the presence of elephants - Scene is the first non-biblical story to be found in an ancient synagogue - Depictions of Biblical hero Samson are also part of the decorative floor By Sarah Griffiths for MailOnline Published: 03:43 EST, 15 July 2015 | Updated: 07:21 EST, 15 July 2015 ... The artwork was uncovered in the east aisle of a fifth-century synagogue in the ancient Jewish village of Huqoq. ... The largest top strip contains the scene showing a meeting between two men, who perhaps represent the legendary warrior and a Jewish high priest. In the scene, a bearded soldier wearing battle dress and a purple cloak leads a bull by the horns, followed by other soldiers and elephants with shields tied to their sides. He is meeting with a grey-haired, bearded elderly man wearing a ceremonial white tunic and mantle, accompanied by young men with sheathed swords, also in ceremonial clothes. Southern Galil, 5th cent CE. Within a generation of the compilation of Mes Yuma. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 06:14:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:14:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B0E8A7.7050202@gmail.com> I agree with all those who reacted to my remark about Ramban vs Rambam, and I am especially grateful to Marty Bluke for the link to Rav Lichtenstein ztl's comprehensive article that provides the sources and notes the challenges they present. (I think that link was recently posted on R. Gil Student's blog.) As R. Akiva Miller has pointed out, it was Rebbi Eliezer of Nedarim 20b, referenced at the end of Kitzur 150:1 (and, as RAM pointed out, the Mechaber OC 240:8) who is understood to have expressed duress during the marital process. (And who is a Tanna, not an Amora, as I incorrectly stated.) Also, RAM asked, > For purposes of Talmud Torah, where is this Ramban who "strongly disagreed > with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting"? And again, I stand corrected. The Rav who gave me my "chassan shmuess" was probably referring to the /Iggeress ha-Kodesh,/ which, as Rav Lichtenstein pointed out in his article, is often erroneously attributed to Ramban. But apparently, had Rav Lichtenstein been giving me the "chassan shmuez," I would have come away with the same halacha l'ma'aseh regarding attitude. He writes: We cannot, as the author of the /Iggeret ha-Kodesh/ could not, abandon the conviction that so central a component of human nature is not part of the /tov me'od/ of primordial creation. Consequently, impelled by our spiritual instincts and animated by the faith instilled in us by our Torah mentors, we opt for consecration rather than abstinence. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 07:12:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:12:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> Message-ID: <26C8383E-E3E8-4443-8BAD-62AB922C5681@gmail.com> Again, one has to be very careful. There are four different sources here. 1)Shmona Prakim -- chapter 4 -- where reason for laws on arayot is to limit Sexuality -- in the sense of a golden mean. 2)Shmona Prakim -- chapter 6 -- where desire for things forbidden only by halakhah is endorsed as not a spiritual flaw 3) MN 3:35, where he describes category 14 of mitzvot -- relating to arayot -- in terms similar to source 1, as the rambam notes and meforshim point out. 4) MN 3:49 -- where purpose of hilchot arayot is to instill disgust -- not merely control and limit Therefore, RZL is correct that MN 3:35 refers to Spm but chapter 4. One can reconcile sources 1,2 and 3, or 1,3 and 4 -- but difficult to recocile all 4. I would ad that source 2 is problematic, in that it's view of halakhah as an almost arbitrary set of limitations, seems quite different than the rambam's normal presentation of the purpose of Halacha. Meir Shinnar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 10:15:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:15:16 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150723.131516.32484.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> Many posters - and their quoted sources - have compared the desire for intercourse with the desire for food. What I have not seen is any comparison between the *enjoyment* of intercourse and the enjoyment of food. Halacha restricts our eating in many ways, and we are taught that this is to curb our desires. But there are seem to be many exceptions to this, and I don't see parallels to intercourse. We have mitzvos where eating is merely a physical act used as a means to some other end. Achilas Matza might be the best example of this. We need to internalize the matzah and its lessons, but any enjoyment that we might get from this eating is utterly irrelevant. This seems quite comparable to the intercourse, where it is merely a means towards having children. The enjoyment that one gets from the intercourse (like from the matza) is irrelevant - or perhaps even lower, to be eschewed. One might cite Rama Even Haezer 25:2, which lists various permitted forms of intercourse, but to me, that is like saying "You can eat your meat broiled or cooked or fried, as long as you don't put milk in it, and don't eat it too often either." This is NOT what we are told about meat. Rather we are told that eating meat is the only way to enjoy Yom Tov. We are taught that eating is proper and good. When a simcha arises, we must make a meal so as to properly celebrate it. And if there are overlapping simchas, we should add an extra course so that each simcha gets its due. Red wine is more appropriate than white, but if you personally enjoy white, then go for it. Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. - Is the difference really that subtle? To me, it is as subtle as a brick. R' Marty Bluke posted: > Also see RAL's article OF MARRIAGE: RELATIONSHIP AND RELATIONS > ( http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf ) where > he discusses this question and brings many of the sources. Indeed he does bring many sources. And I was particularly intrigued by his conclusion, that the general thrust of recent authorities seems to be very different from before that: > To the extent that we do succeed in harmonizing the positions of > Hazal and of rishonim, we ameliorate the pressure of one issue but > exacerbate that of another. For we are brought, in turn, to a > second quandary: our own. While I have conducted no empirical > survey, I believe there is little question regarding the > sensibility of the contemporary Torah world, irrespective of camp > and orientation. ... We assert the value of romantic love, its > physical manifestation included, without flinching from the > prospect of concomitant sensual pleasure; and we do so without > harboring guilt or reservations. We insist, of course, upon its > sanctification?this, within the context of suffusive kedusha of > carnal experience, generally. and yet, a page later, > Assuming these facts to be correct ? as regards my own spiritual > environs, I can attest directly ? we ask ourselves: How and why > do we depart from positions articulated by some of our greatest > ? "from whose mouths we live and from whose waters we drink" - > and, is this departure legitimate? Are we victims of the Zeitgeist, > swept along by general socio-historical currents? Do we tailor our > attitude on this issue to conform to appetitive convenience and > erotic desire? Have we, in this case, adopted a self-satisfying > posture of facile world-acceptance clothed in culturally correct > garb? I did not find his answers to these questions very satisfying. But I do find his *asking* them to be extremely comforting. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 11:43:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:43:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Relative Priorities Message-ID: <1440012f20ae4d989f0b2c5fdc8b1c1e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> A yahrtzeit shiur is "being sponsored" at the same time as your regular learning seder. Evaluate the various score cards in shamayim (yours, the niftar's, your chavrutah's) depending on whether you attended the shiur or seder (all other things being equal). She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 24 07:09:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 17:09:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: artificial meat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Technological advances are bringing us to ask a pressing question: Does Judaism consider meat created in a laboratory to be kosher? Does Jewish law even consider it to be meat?The question takes on particular significance now, during the nine days, the traditional period of mourning that precedes Tisha B'Av when observant Jews abstain from meat. (Well, theoretical significance, at least ? the world's first lab-grown hamburger, created in 2013, cost a cool $325,000 and it's not exactly available at your neighborhood grocery store yet.)Some kashrut experts are ready to rule the burger kosher, and not only that, parve, reported Ynet reporter Koby Nachshoni ? meaning observant Jews, who won't eat milk and meat together, can eat their test-tube burger topped with cheese. Furthermore, the halachic authorities with whom Nachshon consulted even said this would apply to test-tube pork ? so make that a bacon cheeseburger.But, no surprise here, not everyone agrees about that.Chabad addressed the issue , too, noting that there are precedents for test-tube meat in the ancient Jewish sources. see http://www.haaretz.com/life/food-wine/1.667580 -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:30:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh Message-ID: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> Last night in the shul that I davened B'Leil Zeh was said with great fervor. However, I am wondering if it should have been said at all. B'Leil Zeh is referring to the night of the 9th of Av and the many things that occurred then. Last night was, of course, the night of the 10th of Av. Does it really make sense to have said B'Leil Zeh on the 10th of Av? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:50:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:50:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh In-Reply-To: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 10:30:37AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : B'Leil Zeh is referring to the night of the 9th of Av and the many : things that occurred then. Last night was, of course, the night of : the 10th of Av. Does it really make sense to have said B'Leil Zeh : on the 10th of Av? Now that you made me think about the question, I would ask the reverse one. Bayis sheini was set aflame shortly before sheqi'ah on the 9th and burned through the 10th. So wouldn't beleil zeh only fit a postponed ta'anis? As for bayis rishon... I'm still sorting my way through understandings of Yechezqeil and the Yerushalmi. RMT, kedarko (see ) touches on a nice subset of sources at http://download.yutorah.org/2012/1053/Tisha_Bav_To-Go_-_5771_Rabbi_Torczyner.pdf Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: R' Mordechai Torczyner -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:58:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:58:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh In-Reply-To: <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> References: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150726145900.0654D1831F2@nexus.stevens.edu> At 10:50 AM 7/26/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >Now that you made me think about the question, I would ask the reverse >one. Bayis sheini was set aflame shortly before sheqi'ah on the 9th and >burned through the 10th. > >So wouldn't beleil zeh only fit a postponed ta'anis? > >As for bayis rishon... I'm still sorting my way through understandings >of Yechezqeil and the Yerushalmi. Perhaps two separate tefillos are needed, one for the night of the 9th of Av and one for the night of the 10th of Av. However, given the vast amount of kinos and other tefillos for Tisha B'Av, I am loath to suggest adding any more. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 16:32:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 19:32:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Message-ID: From: M Cohen via Avodah There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why? What changed in the afternoon? Mordechai Cohen >>>> The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 22:02:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:02:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus Message-ID: Thew gemara in Gittin tells the story of the rich lady miryam bat batus who sent her sevant to buy food in the market, before the churban, each time the food is already sold and she finally dies from dung on her foot. OTOH the gemara in ketuvot says that miryam bat batus paid King Yanai a lot of money to appoint her son yehoshua ben gamla as high priest First the two stories are about 150 years apart. In addition Alexander Jannai was himself high priest and unlikely to sell that position -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 20:18:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:18:25 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150726.231825.30515.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> R' Zvi Lampel wrote: > But apparently, had Rav Lichtenstein been giving me the > "chassan shmuez," I would have come away with the same halacha > l'ma'aseh regarding attitude. He writes: > > We cannot, as the author of the /Iggeret ha-Kodesh/ could > not, abandon the conviction that so central a component of > human nature is not part of the /tov me'od/ of primordial > creation. Consequently, impelled by our spiritual instincts > and animated by the faith instilled in us by our Torah > mentors, we opt for consecration rather than abstinence. I am very bothered by this attitude. I will explain why. We have discussed the idea that a posek may sometimes choose a psak based on what "seems right" to him, and then he will find sources to support that conclusion. But if I remember correctly, this is usually done in the case of *new* questions, where there is little precedent to draw upon. But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed. And it changed so recently that Rav Lichtenstein couldn't name any seforim that might have explained it to him. Namely, that for some reason, various people (such as RZL's teacher) started paskening - "halacha l'ma'aseh" in RZL's words - that the halacha follows the Iggeret ha-Kodesh (whose author we aren't sure of) rather than the Shulchan Aruch and Rav Yosef Karo. Why aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? Can we really overturn the Shulchan Aruch simply because "We cannot ... abandon the conviction" that sex is "tov me'od"? When we justify a psak and say we were "impelled by our spiritual instincts", how are we different from Conservative and Reform? I would not speak this way if the topic was a machlokes rishonim. Can someone please point to another major Rishon besides the Iggeret ha-Kodesh who holds that way? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b5a34e339ce234e4610st01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 01:31:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:31:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why? What changed in the afternoon? Mordechai Cohen >>>> The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= R'YBS explained that once the mikdash started burning (PM of TB) we knew hkb"h was taking out his wrath on stones and wood, not us. 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 00:49:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:49:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> On 07/27/2015 01:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Thew gemara in Gittin tells the story of the rich lady miryam bat > batus Martha bat Baytus. > who sent her sevant to buy food in the market, before the > churban, each time the food is already sold and she finally dies from > dung on her foot. > > OTOH the gemara in ketuvot Yoma. 18a. And Yavamos 61a. I could not find any reference to this in Kesubos. > says that miryam bat batus Martha bat Baytus. > paid King Yanai a lot of money to appoint her son Husband > yehoshua ben gamla as high priest. First the two stories are about > 150 years apart. No, they're not. Yehoshua ben Gamla was the Cohen Gadol at the time of the revolt against Rome, and was murdered by the Biryonim. > In addition Alexander Jannai was himself high priest > and unlikely to sell that position Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos in both places points out, for precisely that reason. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 03:22:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:22:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> References: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150727102247.GA8241@aishdas.org> RnTK wrote: : The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting : the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people : (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house : on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. R' Yirmiyohu Kaganoff provided sources at : In some places there is a custom to wash the floors and clean the house on the afternoon of Tisha B'Av. This custom is based on a mesorah that Moshiach will be born on Tisha B'Av afternoon and that it is therefore appropriate to commemorate the redemption and strengthen people's hopes and prayers (based on Beis Yosef 554 and Kolbo). Although this seems like unnecessary work on Tisha B'Av that should be postponed, the poskim rule that one should not discourage those who follow this custom (Birkei Yosef 559:7). On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:31am +0000, R Joel Rich replied: : R'YBS explained that once the mikdash started burning (PM of TB) : we knew [HKB"H] was taking out his wrath on stones and wood, not us. I bet RYBS cited the Gra (OC 555:1). Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: Actually, Google gets most of the credit for filling in vague memories with mar'eh meqomos. -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 05:00:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:00:41 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150727.080041.13995.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> I asked: > I would not speak this way if the topic was a machlokes > rishonim. Can someone please point to another major Rishon > besides the Iggeret ha-Kodesh who holds that way? Alternatively, can anyone cite other halachos, where for centuries the acharonim followed the Shulchan Aruch, and then in recent decades, the poskim decided to follow a minority rishon? My first instinct is to say that the shitos of the Gra are in this category, but there were those who followed the Gra ever since his day, and the only real change is that his views became more and more widespread. Was there ever a community that was known for following the Iggeret ha-Kodesh in this inyan until recently? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b61d8f130a61d8b4299st01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 07:10:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:10:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 11:15:51AM -1000, R/ Dr Noam Stadlan wrote on Areivim: : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded : as ignorance... To do that woud be to disagree with her husband. See "Thinking Aloud", pg 113: DH: What is the heter for a married woman in her house not to cover her hair when there are outsiders present? RYBS: She has to cover her hair. Another exchange: DH: Someone was asking about a woman wearing a kisui rosh in the house. RYBS: We pasken you should. DH: Someone showed me a gemara in Kesubos that b'toch chatzeira it should be mutar, since otherwise there is no way any woman could remain tachas ba'alah (72b). Offhand it occurred to me that if it was lo shechichei inshei - just for going around the house when no one's around, and someone just may drop in - then it would be mutar. But if you have people coming over b'kevius, then why would it be any different than going aroung in the street? Is there a special din in the bayis that there's no din of covering your head anymore? DH: Is this kisui ervah like most kisui ervah? RYBS: Of course. DH: What should I do for myself, for my wife? RYBS: You will find out. There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 08:15:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & the Tosafists. http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ Our *Torah shebe?al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the *Torah shebe?al peh* would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe?al peh* today. I just heard a piece yesterday by Rabbi Weill, from a few years back on Kinnot and the destruction of Ashkenaz and burning of the gemorahs in Paris. It was very devastating for the area. Jews lived in other areas as well, thank God. So the Mesora continued with them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 11:42:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:42:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? Message-ID: From: Micha Berger via Avodah : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded : as ignorance...[--Dr. Noam Stadlan] To do that would be to disagree with her husband. ....There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. -- Micha Berger >>>> A similar quote (third hand): Someone told me he once asked RYBS if a married woman is obligated to cover her hair, and RYBS replied in a somewhat sideways fashion, "You are not obligated to divorce her if she does not do so." You have to understand that it was an era in which most American Jews were throwing away the Torah with both hands. It was hard enough to find a wife who was frum; demanding that she cover her hair was almost impossible in many cases. RYBS was not the only Torah scholar whose wife failed to cover her hair. I have to assume that this was simply one nisayon that was too difficult, given those times. After the post-war influx of chassidim arrived in America, kisui rosh, like so many other neglected mitzvos, became much more acceptable and common. R' Michael Brody in his article on the subject says that the Chofetz Chaim railed against the practice of women in Vilna, even those married to big talmidei chachamim, to go about with their hair uncovered. Although the CC is completely, vehemently, opposed to this practice, R' Brody deduces (I am paraphrasing) that "This proves that many talmidei chachamim did not demand that their wives cover their hair, from which we may deduce that they held kisui rosh was not required, and we may rely on them." This line of reasoning is reminiscent of the joke, "How do we know that Yakov wore a yarmulka? Answer: It says 'Vayetzei Yakov' -- would Yakov have gone out without a yarmulka?!" But at any rate it does indicate that this was a largely neglected mitzva even in Vilna, in the early 20th century -- though neglect of a mitzva does not make the obligation go away. I for one do not hold it against RYBS. What he would have preferred and what was actually obtainable, in that time and place, were not the same. For that time and place, for a woman to be Torah observant was already a madreiga. To have been the wife of such a man -- his rebetzen must have had extraordinary zechuyos. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 11:43:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:43:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> The below (and, btw, R Nachum Lamm makes an interesting point in the comments there) leads me to a different, but related, question: We trace Rashi's mesorah pretty easily back to Rabbeinu Gershom -- but where did _he_ get _his_ mesorah from? How did it get from Bavel and the Gaonim to northern Europe? > RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & the Tosafists. > http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ [1] > Our *Torah shebe?al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the *Torah shebe?al peh* would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe?al peh* today. Links: ------ [1] http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 12:41:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:41:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: From: Kenneth Miller via Avodah >> We have discussed the idea that a posek may sometimes choose a psak based on what "seems right" to him, and then he will find sources to support that conclusion. But if I remember correctly, this is usually done in the case of *new* questions, where there is little precedent to draw upon. But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? --Akiva Miller >>>> It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan Aruch. What frequency is optimum? Surely that is at least partly subjective, and any of the various sources that apparently disagree with each other can be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up what your gut tells you is right. I can easily see a modern day rav or Torah mentor varying his answers depending on the circumstances of the wife and husband who are asking him for advice, as well as accepted societal norms. Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least some obligation to fulfill. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 14:59:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gil Student via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 17:59:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume 2 of his Collected Essays. Gil Student From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 19:55:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 22:55:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Re:Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> References: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:10:59 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah > : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the > : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded > : as ignorance... > > To do that woud be to disagree with her husband. > > See "Thinking Aloud", pg 113: ... > There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with > his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. WADR, Micha misunderstands the issue. The issue is not whether RYBS agreed with his wife's practice -- there are sources (albeit most of them from long after her passing) which would suggest that he may ave disagreed, and paskened otherwise) -- but that is a different issue of whether he viewed it as ignorance -- and for sure not out of the pale of halacha. That is the crux of the issue -- not whether we wish to pasken that this is muttar for ourselves (or for those who listen to us..) -- but how we view those who follow a different shitta -- and anyone who suggests that RYBS viewed his wife as nonobservant or not fully halachically committed is motsi la'az and needs to go to her kever( you can ask R Seth Mandel his opinion how the rav would have viewed such a person) Several related stories: 1) The rav was the posek for a community, who knew that his wife did not cover her hair. The vast majority of that community, even those close to the rav, who followed his every word, did not think that he viewed this as being problematic -- and he had plenty of opportunity to let it be known.... 2) I knew a talmid who was close to the rav in the 70s (shiur many years, rav was measured kiddushin -- unfortunately niftar early. when getting married, he told me that he asked the rav all his shailos -- except about head covering for his wife (she did) -- he said that it was thought problematic to ask him because of the rav's wife 3) Another talmid was once invited, late 70s, to Rav Schwab's shabbes table. Topic got around to data's torah, and rav schwab said that many have it wrong -- there is not one da'as torah -- but da'as torah is the opinion of someone who is wholly torah -- rav kotler is da'as torah, rav feinstein is da'as torah,the satmar is da'as torah. My friend jumped in and asked what about RYBS? Rav Schwab was no fan of RYBS, and he hemmed and hawed and then said that as his wife did not cover her hair, he was not da'as torah. At that point Mrs. Schwab interjected, but you know that none of the litvische rebbitzens covered their hair. At which point R Schwab agreed to that, and then agreed that RYBS was da'as torah..... That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. Meir Shinnar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 06:52:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:52:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> Message-ID: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> On 7/27/2015 2:49 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos > in both places points out, for precisely that reason. > Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any permutation thereof. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 07:31:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:31:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> Message-ID: <55B79226.4030906@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 09:52 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 7/27/2015 2:49 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos >> in both places points out, for precisely that reason. > Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of > there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any > permutation thereof. Except this memra of Rav Assi, which is quoted twice in the gemara with the same language, so it's unlikely to be a mistranscription. Either Rav Assi was mistaken about the king's name, or there was a short-reigned later king of that name whom Josephus didn't bother mentioning, or one of the later kings had Yannai as one of his names, and Josephus didn't bother mentioning it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 07:21:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:21:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> References: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55B78FCC.2020104@sero.name> On 07/27/2015 10:55 PM, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: > At that point Mrs. Schwab interjected, but you know > that none of the litvische rebbitzens covered their hair. At which point > R Schwab agreed to that, and then agreed that RYBS was da'as torah..... > > That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it > was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, > it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. No, it was *not* a shita in Litte, it was a makas medinah. It was an aveira that was prevalent among women, and the best the rabbonim could do was not talk about it to the women, in the hope that they were shogegin. Even in an earlier generation, no less a person than R Akiva Eger had no control over his wife and daughters' mode of dress: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31632&pgnum=300 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 08:57:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:57:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 08:52:45AM -0500, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of : there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any : permutation thereof. Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and Hebrew? 400 years prior, having two names was common and the civil names we know of (Mordechai, Esther, Shadrach, Meshach, Aved-Nego, etc...) bore no relation to their Jewish names. Alternatively: Chazal could have thrown in the timing problem to flag to the historian that they were not speaking historically. After all, we know from the other narratives quoted that they knew the dates for Alexander Yannai wouldn't work. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:21:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 12:21:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> References: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150728162126.GC24227@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 11:09pm EDT, RnTK wrote: : with their friends, "You can't say kaddish for your Ima or your Abba : today, someone else has kadima"? Correct me if I am mistaken but my impression : is that kaddish yasom is really mainly for genuine yesomim, i.e., those who : lose their parents while they are still children. Rather than correct you, let me provide a mar'eh maqom: Rama YD 376:4, quoting the Mahariq. Both of us probably remembering R Michael Poppers posting this. The Rama says that Qadish Yasom was established for Qetanim, because they cannot be Chazan. BUT... the Rama is clear that this ended before the custom of multiple people saying Qaddish at once began. When writing the above, I started wondering about areas like Vilna, where a daughter would say Qaddish for parents who had no sons. Did this minhag begin back when only one person said Qaddish at a time? If so, she would get the same priority for Qaddish Yasom as a qatan, no? But cold you picture such a scene in early 19th cent Litta, a woman saying Qaddish by herself on one side of the mechitzah or by the doorway, and all the men of the minyan answering? So my instinct is that this minhag post-dates group Qaddish. But my instinct might be based on revisionist history, for all I know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:38:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:38:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:153am EDT, R Saul Guberman wrote: : RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & : the Tosafists. : http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ : Our *Torah shebe'al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish : history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a : great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, : but the *Torah shebe'al peh* would have survived without him. However, : without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, : any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe'al peh* today. Which is a different statement than the subject line. I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue understanding the gemara. But one thing RGS loses is RYBS's context. RYBS was saying this in shiur, in a room where talmidim bring a compact edition of the Rambam with them for reference. It's a different thing to make this statement while sitting in Brisk, when you may intentionally state a perspective re-setting idea more strongly than in other settings. On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 2:43pm EDT, R Sholom Simon wrote: : We trace Rashi's mesorah pretty easily back to Rabbeinu Gershom -- but : where did _he_ get _his_ mesorah from? How did it get from Bavel and the : Gaonim to northern Europe? In a teshuvah, Rabbeinu Gershom says he was taught most of his Torah by "R' Leon". He means Rabbi Yehudah (Leontin) ben Rabbi Meir haKohein. R' Leontin was from Iraly, but he was in France before reaching Mainz. In France he picked up talmidim who then followed him to Ashkenaz, including Rabbinu Gershom and R' Yosef Tuv Elem (Tuv Elem = Bonfils, you will see him the the Mordechai alot, Tosafos, and [if you ever have occasion to look] Machzor Vitri). Rabbeinu Gershom took over the yeshiva upon RYBRM's petirah, which is probably why he is "Rabbeinu" rather than "Rav". The thing is, the tradition in Provence is that they came from EY. For example, in Luneil it was (is?) believed that the city was founded by refugees from Yericho, who commemorated their city of origin by using a translation of the same name: yareiach = luna. Which brings me to RGS's reply to R Sholom, written yesterday, Jul 27, 2015, at 5:59pm EDT: : Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German : mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger : disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. : However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments : against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from : Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume : 2 of his Collected Essays. If there is any truth to the Israeli Provencial tradition, we have a link in terms of rabbinic leadership to EY. However, not only do nusach hatefillah, piyut, and a number of pesaqim (which RRW educated me on repeatedly on these "pages" in the past) point toward an EY origin of Ashkenaz, so does something I didn't see R/Dr Soloveitchik address -- genetics. A map of the Jewish genetic tree http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072 shows the closes affinity for the Ashkenazi gene pool were the Italian, Greek, Turkish and Syrian communities. Notably all under the Roman Empire. Whereas the Jews of the geonic lands -- from Bavel through Qairouan, Tunisia -- form a second grouping. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:45:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:45:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728174552.GE24227@aishdas.org> I just posted: : However, the loss of a codifier who : stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of : mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But : Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue : understanding the gemara. I meant to add a different (and to my mind very important) way of looking at this idea: In terms of mesorah, a flow of TSBP as a "dialog down the ages" (to use RYBS's terminlogy), the parshan keeps the chain connected down the ages in a way that a Yad, designed to be stand-alone, does not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:24:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:24:20 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go > by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and > Hebrew? > I don't follow: the Hasmonean and post-Hasmonean kings did all have both Hebrew and Greek or Latin names, but Yannai is a *Hebrew* name, from the same root as Yona. I know someone who Hebraized his surname from Taubmann to Yannai ("Taub" is German for "dove"). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:50:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:50:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 09:24:20AM -0700, Simon Montagu wrote: : > Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go : > by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and : > Hebrew? : I don't follow: the Hasmonean and post-Hasmonean kings did all have both : Hebrew and Greek or Latin names, but Yannai is a *Hebrew* name, from the : same root as Yona. I know someone who Hebraized his surname from Taubmann : to Yannai ("Taub" is German for "dove"). I believe this is a folk etymology. Where would the alef (yud, nun, alef, yud) have come from? But more tellingly, Alexander Janneus's Hebrew name was Yehonasan, like his uncle. See the Latin and Hebrew on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Jannaeus#/media/File:JanaeusCoinPhoto.jpg If he could be "Alexander Yannai" in one language and "Yonasan" in another, who knows it there weren't another king whose Latin name "Janneus" was simply not preserved? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:17:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:17:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: There are those who argued that Tosfos (in particular Rabbeinu Tam) essentially created Ashkenazi mesorah by radically changing how we study and relate to Gemara and how we relate to popular practice. One might suggest without exaggeration that Tosfos created our Mesora. In which case Rashi's mesora is less relevant. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> There certainly is a lot of evidence that Ashkenzi minhagim com more from E"Y than Bavel. But do we know of any chochomim that went from anywhere in the Middle East to Germany? I.e., ok, even if we accept that either there was a third school, or it came from E"Y -- do we yet know *how* it got to Northern Europe? (Or perhaps the answers are in articles that Haym Soloveitchik or David Berger wrote? (And, if so, does anyone have any citations?) -- Sholom On 2015-07-27 17:59, Gil Student wrote: > Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. > > However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume 2 of his Collected Essays. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:18:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:18:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Sources_for_Not_Covering_Hair=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > 2) I knew a talmid who was close to the rav in the 70s ... when getting married, he told me that he asked the rav all his shailos -- except about head covering for his wife (she did) -- he said that it was thought problematic to ask him because of the rav's wife I have a related story. A talmid who was also close to him. When getting married he _did_ ask about a head covering for his wife (after apologizing for asking it). If I remember the story correctly, the Rav smiled and said that he wasn't the right person to ask. -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:41:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:41:08 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Molad Message-ID: Calendars in my home town print the latest times of saying Kiddush Levana, which equate to exactly fifteen days after the announced Molad time. This might be an entire night, or an exact time, e.g. Sunday night 22.45. But since the astronomical Molad can be some distance from the calculated Molad times, by sometimes as much as twelve hours, does this not mean that these sof zeman kiddush levana times can be faulty by that same margin? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:00:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:00:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728180043.GG24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 01:28:42PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : There certainly is a lot of evidence that Ashkenzi minhagim com more : from E"Y than Bavel. Although experts, O Rabbi-PhDs, debate the issue. So what seems obvious to you or me apparently isn't. : But do we know of any chochomim that went from anywhere in the Middle : East to Germany? I already posted the mesorah from EY to Provence to Rabbeinu Gershom. Jews really started reaching the Rhineland area at the invitation of Charlemagne in the 9th cent CE, when he started the Holy Roman Empire. They came from Provence (again) and Italy. Recall that most of the captives from EY ended up in Rome, and you can understand how an Israeli presence in Italy would have already been established. Far more so than the Jews of the geonate -- who, as I mentioned, were living outside the Roman Empire. In mythic form, we have a story of a King Charles invited R' Moshe ben Klonimus from Lucca to Mainz. In documentation form, Louis "the Pious", C's son, left charters showing that he too invited Jewish merchants to provide an economic backbone to his country, and mentions that he was continuing his father's invitation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person must be very patient micha at aishdas.org even with himself. http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:10:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:10:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: AIUI the MN "was all that you needed to study". Are you/RGS saying that this is only as a codifier? RAMBAM did not feel that he was passing on the mesorah? In the end, it does not matter what he wrote, RASHI vs RAMBAM, you must have RASHI, RAMBAM is nice but without RASHI you come to a dead end? On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > > I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah > through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who > stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of > mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But > Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue > understanding the gemara. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:32:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:32:24 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are forgotten after 12 months (memory of the bet hamikdash is different) I have a personal problem with this statement. To my sorry I know of several people who have lost children especially in the age of 18-25. One thing I have learned from these people is that one never forgets a child, It is part of their lives every day. The secretary of my department lost a son in a flash flood in the negev. She changed her last name to incorporate the name of that son. Every time she signs her name she remembers her son, Others who have lost sons in military actions say kaddish every day for the son many years later. I would just imagine that Yaakov having lost his "favorite" son would not forget him after 12 months but indeed would mourn for him forever -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:09:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:09:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 12:41 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > Calendars in my home town print the latest times of saying Kiddush > Levana, which equate to exactly fifteen days after the announced > Molad time. This might be an entire night, or an exact time, e.g. > Sunday night 22.45. That should be halfway between moldos, i.e. 14d 18h 22m after the molad, not a full 15 days. It should also be adjusted for the time difference between your standard time and Y'm's real time, which for NY is 7h 20m in the winter and 6h 20m in the summer. Using a full 15 days is only bediavad. > But since the astronomical Molad can be some distance from the > calculated Molad times, by sometimes as much as twelve hours, does > this not mean that these sof zeman kiddush levana times can be faulty > by that same margin? Yes, but since we have no easy way (other than consulting readily- available secular resources, of course) of determining when the real full moon occurs, we use the calculated moldos, *unless* there is a lunar eclipse, since that by definition happens at the true full moon. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:28:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:28:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B7C9D0.5030709@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 01:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If he could be "Alexander Yannai" in one language and "Yonasan" in > another, who knows it there weren't another king whose Latin name > "Janneus" was simply not preserved? Here's a thought: AFAIK there is no mention in the gemara of a second, bad, King Agrippas. The only Agrippas mentioned is the first one, the good one. Also, as far as I know, there is no record of the second Agrippas's Hebrew name. What if the first Agrippas gave his oldest son Yannai as his Jewish name, after the first Yannai, and that is how he was known among Jews, and therefore by the Amoraim, while Josephus called him by his Roman name, Herod Agrippa? -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:23:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:23:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus Message-ID: <> Any Jewish king would have been over 100 before the churban besides there is the known problem with Yehoshua ben Gamla having his position bought for him OTOH he seems to have done good deeds Interestingly wikipedia writes "*Yehoshua ben Gamla* (or Joshua son of Gamla) was a Jewish high priest who officiated in about 64 CE. He married the rich widow Martha of the high-priestly family Boethos (Yeb. vi. 4), and she by bribing Jannai secured for him the office of high priest (Yeb. 61a; Yoma 18a; comp. "Ant." xx. 9, ? 4). Although Yehoshua himself was not a scholar, he was solicitous for the instruction of the young, and provided schools in every town for children over five years of age, earning thereby the praises of posterity (B. B. 21a). The two lots used on the Day of Atonement , hitherto of boxwood, he made of gold (Yoma iii. 9). Yehoshua did not remain long in office, being forced, after a year, to give way to Matthias ben Theophil ("Ant." xx. 9, ? 7)." i.e. Martha bribed someone named Jannai in 64CE. Not clear who this Jannai is but definitely not a king -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:44:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:44:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B7DB8C.8030404@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 03:23 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Interestingly wikipedia writes I.e. somebody, perhaps with no more information than you or me, wrote > i.e. Martha bribed someone named Jannai in 64CE. Not clear who this > Jannai is but definitely not a king Says who? Why do you say that, especially when not only does the gemara say he was a king, but we know that at the time the kehuna gedola was in the gift of king? -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 13:37:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:37:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? Message-ID: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> From: Meir Shinnar via Avodah >> That is the crux of the issue -- not whether we wish to pasken that this is muttar for ourselves (or for those who listen to us..) -- but how we view those who follow a different shitta -- and anyone who suggests that RYBS viewed his wife as nonobservant or not fully halachically committed is motsi la'az and needs to go to her kever [snip] That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. << Meir Shinnar >>>> [1] No one has ever suggested that RYBS viewed his wife as "nonobservant" so nobody has to go to her kever, although anyone who wants to may do so. I assume her children and grandchildren go on her yahrzeit. The line between observant and nonobservant is pretty clear, even though all of us sometimes sin. I have yet to hear of anyone saying that if a woman keeps Shabbos, kashrus and taharas hamishpacha, but does not cover her hair, she is "nonobservant." However if you know of a person who does say that, please cite the source, thank you. Maybe he is the same person who says that if you talk loshon hara you are nonobservant -- and therefore there are only about 500 observant Jews in the whole world, if that. [2] There is no "different shita." There was no "shitta in Lita" allowing married women to go out with their hair uncovered. What there was in Lita was the winds of Haskala, Reform and sliding, sliding, sliding away from Torah, more marked among the women even than among the men. Sarah Schnirer noted that there were chassidishe homes in Poland where, after the Friday night Shabbos meal, the teenage girls and even the mother would go out to see a play at the local theater. If there was slippage in Poland, where chassidus was strong, you can just imagine what was going on in Lita, where there was nothing to capture the hearts and minds of people who were not themselves talmidei chachamim -- viz, the unlearned masses, and the women. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 14:30:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:30:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> References: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150728213052.GA12259@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:37pm EDT, RnTK wrote: : [2] There is no "different shita." There was no "shitta in Lita" : allowing married women to go out with their hair uncovered... The AhS, whose theory of pesaq gives a lot of weight to seeing which ruling was accepted as general practice, famously permits saying Shema while seeing a married woman with her hair uncovered. But this is what he says in OC 75:7 , where that heter is given: And now, we will cry about the breached of our generation in its many since, for many years Benos Yisrael violate this sin and go with a revealed head. And whateve we yell about this, it doesn't help and it doesn't have an effect. And now this mispachas [oe of the nega'im] has spread, that married [women] go with their hyair like the besulos do. Woe to us that this arose in our generation! Still, al kol panim, according to the din is appears permitted to us to daven and make berakhos opposite their revealed heads, since now that most of them go this way... memeilah there won't be hirhur. So, RYME is pretty clear: It was common, it was viewed has a sin -- not "a different shittah", and the rabbinate did complain but no one listened. And again, that's the AhS, not the textual theoretician "what ought the ideal halakhah be from a clean slate" approach of the MB. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 14:46:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:46:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728214605.GB12259@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 02:10:52PM -0400, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: : AIUI the [MT] "was all that you needed to study". Are you/RGS saying that : this is only as a codifier? RAMBAM did not feel that he was passing on the : mesorah? In the end, it does not matter what he wrote, RASHI vs RAMBAM, you : must have RASHI, RAMBAM is nice but without RASHI you come to a dead end? As the Rambam says in the haqdamah (par 40 ), the goal was to put the "TSBP kulah sedurah befi hakol" -- his primary audience was the masses. And we know how much he thought of the masses. Similarly he continues (41) by telling you he his work "Mishneh Torah" because it fulfills the shelish bemishnah -- the studying of halakhah pesuqah. (He calls it sheliesh BTSBP, but as you just saw in the haqdamah, the Rambam both identifies the two and also says they're contained in his MT.) However, in Hil' Talmud Torah 1:12 tells you that that's only "betechilas tazlmudo shel adam, aval kesheyagdil bechokhmah" he should set time for TSBK and divrei hashemu'ah so as not to forget, "veyifneh kol yamav ligemara". So it is not impossible that even the Rambam himself might agree that those who explain how to do the shaqlara vetarya like gemara, or lomdus, or "veyotzi davar midavar veyidmeh dava ledavar" etc... are more central to the mesorah than his own Mishneh Torah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 13:54:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: <9ea4b.71e33b03.42e9460c@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) >>The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are forgotten after 12 months (memory of the bet hamikdash is different) I have a personal problem with this statement. To my sorry I know of several people who have lost children especially in the age of 18-25. One thing I have learned from these people is that one never forgets a child << --Eli Turkel >>>>> My grandmother had a baby daughter who died at the age of five months, and fifty years or more after that, I once asked her about the baby she had lost. She started to cry as if it had just happened, and described the baby in detail -- what she looked like, what she could do at five months and so on. So I learned the lesson that a parent never forgets a lost child. However, she only cried for a little while and then returned to her cheerful self. I'm sure that in the year after her baby died, she was not cheerful. I don't think "gezeira al hameis" means the person is literally forgotten, but that the degree of mourning becomes less intense. Initially the bereaved person, especially a bereaved parent, simply cannot believe the child is gone, and constantly thinks and even dreams about the child. With the passage of months and years, the knowledge that the child is truly gone is assimilated and the parent goes on with life, even if a heaviness always remains somewhere in the background. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 15:38:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 18:38:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150728223810.GD12259@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:12am EDT, R/Dr Meir Shinnar wrote: : Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions : I) in hazal - that continued desire for some forbidden actions : is compatible with a high spiritual state - issue is control of : the desire - NOT its presence : II) Aristotelian ethics - a high spiritual state does not desire : for forbidden - the desire is a sign of a flaw. But chazal too talk in terms of virtue ethics, not just in terms of kibush hayeitzer (overcoming the desire) but also tiqun hayeitzer (adjusting those desires). Most famously, "mah Hu Chanun, af atah chanun". Or, as the Rambam paraphrased, "mah hu *niqra* 'Chanun'..." It doesn't speak of giving to others without cause despite desire, it asks us to develop the middos of chanun, rachum, etc... Now, on to a totally different topic... On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 05:15:16PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote: : Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. Sex : is proper as long as you minimize it. - Is the difference really that : subtle? To me, it is as subtle as a brick. I think the difference is just about that, but because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: 1- It involves a second party. There is no threat of objectifying good. 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... Therefore, the attitude toward perishus for each comes from opposite directions. For food, which is necessary for survival, we talk about how much is too much. For sex, we talk about the right balance between keeping the other happy (chiyuv onah) and turning them into a tool for your own happiness. The bottom line is still the same: perishus from challenges I cannot handle while be maqdish olam hazeh the rest of the time. The details differ due to the differences above. On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:18am GMT, Kenneth Miller wrote: : .... This is a case where the Shulchan : Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went : uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed... On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:41pm EDT, Rn Toby Katz replied: : It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too loosely. If : it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim and acharonim, agree : that marital intercourse is always mutar (assuming the usual, the wife is not : a nidah, it's not forced, it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really : talking about here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan : Aruch. What frequency is optimum? Surely that is at least partly subjective, ... While what I said before about "minimize it" not meaning all that different from "don't overdue" addresses this question of RAM's as well, I think RnTK's response is really the essence of the answer. But to quibble with the language... I'm not sure it's "hashkafah" as much as Hilkhos Dei'os / Chovos haLvavos. After all "Qedoshim tihyu" is a chiyuv, not a nicety, and that's a source for "perushim tihyu". What a mitzvah to be or to become something (such as "qadosh") is in practice, though, is inherently situational and subjective. If we were talking about something reducible to black-letter halakhah and objective rules, it would have been. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 15:58:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:58:41 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <20150728.185841.2133.0@webmail10.vgs.untd.com> R"n Toby Katz wrote: > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar > (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, > it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might also be RTK's point). But if that is how we are to understand the vocabulary, then we have a whole new way of reading the Shulchan Aruch. Here are some examples: It's not assur to shmooze between Geulah and Tefillah of Maariv. (236:2) It's not assur to say Shehecheyanu on the Lulav on the second day. (662:2) Surely that is at least > partly subjective, and any of the various sources that apparently disagree with each other can be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up what your gut tells you is right. I can easily see a modern day rav or Torah mentor varying his answers depending on the circumstances of the wife and husband who are asking him for advice, as well as accepted societal norms. Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least some obligation to fulfill. ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b8096a62fe9695575st03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 20:51:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:51:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 02:09:11PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : That should be halfway between moldos, i.e. 14d 18h 22m after the : molad, not a full 15 days. It should also be adjusted for the time : difference between your standard time and Y'm's real time, which : for NY is 7h 20m in the winter and 6h 20m in the summer. Using : a full 15 days is only bediavad. Y-m time to EST is 7h 21m, not 20. But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we call it. It's hard to know exactly where the molad is being announced for, since the average lunation has changed over time and the accumulated difference between estimation and reality over millenia has grown large. Right now, the average molad matches the average moment of new moon for Qandahar, Afghanistan. If we go back in time to when the molad was closest to one lunar month, we get to 4th cent CE, the days of Hillel Nesi;ah. The av beis din to whom R Hai Gaon attributes our current calendar. If we assume the molad then was most accurate in start time as well when it was most accurate in durection, then the molad is being announeced for something like Ur Kasdim, which is also around the middle of Jewish settlement at the time, between the Nile and the Euphrates. In which case, the molad is being announced for a place 44 min after IST (not 21m). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 23:45:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 02:45:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 11:51 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Y-m time to EST is 7h 21m, not 20. True. I was approximating, much as the Rambam did with Y'm latitude. > But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we > call it. http://mechon-mamre.org/i/3811.htm#17 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:33:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 02:45:03AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we :> call it. : http://mechon-mamre.org/i/3811.htm#17 The Rambam there (Qiddush haChodesh 11:17) discusses the calculation of the calendar. The rules are set up based on RC in Y-m. Announcing the molad doesn't reflect the calculated calendar, but the whole Qiddush haChodesh is set up to invoke Sanhedrin being meqadesh al pi re'iyah. So perhaps they chose a clock for announcing the molad that wasn't the one they used to translate to the meridian used for translating mollad into rosh chodesh. Why would we do so? Isn't the meridian of Y-m the obvious time to use even if it weren't the one used to compute the calendar? As I quickly mentioned (I gave more details more than once in the past), I am suggesting a different meridian because if Hillel Nesi'ah ubeis dino had assumed a molad that was 23 min earlier than the one we announce, the molad would be more accurate. 23 min later than Yerushalayim does correspond to a meaningful place at the time, a point exactly midway between the Jews of EY and those of Bavel. Aside from including Ur Kasdim. Not the most obvious choice (Yerushalayim) but still not a random meridian either. So why not assume they picked the meridian for announcing the molad on that basis, and credit the Sanhedrin with knowing the molad to greater accuracy? The question is what that does to molad zaqein, and how we would explain the clean result of before noon vs posponing RH if the molad is after noon. The idea behind molad zaqein is that the furthest east Jewish community would still be able to see (weather permitting) the new moon before the end of RC. This is obviously only a loose idea, since we're talking about timing based on the molad, an approximate average. (So that on average Jews in the east would see the new moon...?) RYGB and/or RAZZ theorize http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n038.shtml#08 that the Calendar Controversy was over the issue of how far east do we worry about. R' Aharon ben Meir wanted to move the cutoff for molad zaqein by 64 chalaqim. (More than 23 min, ie 414 chalaqim.) He doesn't say why. Their article suggests that RABM was setting the rule for molad zaqein based on the furthest known Jewish settlement at that time. Which would be Kaifun, and the numbers work. Whereas RSG objected saying that the location is theoretical, not experimental. The Kuzari (following RSG -- since it's his version of the calendar that we all use) uses this to argue that the international date line is 90 deg east of Y-m ih"q. And thus any Jewish settlement that would be further east would be on the other side of the date line WRT Rosh Chodesh, and there is no problem of the molad being on their day 2. If so, changing the molad by 23 min would change the calendar, halakhah would prove my claim wrong. But few if any of us hold that the date line is 90 deg east of Y-m, east down 125.2 deg E, down Dongeng St in Changchun, China. To quote R Dovid Heber at : Families on the eastern strip of Dongfeng Street would recite kiddush while families a block to the west would recite havdala. It may be possible for those who want two days of Shabbos to walk one block eastbound, down Dongfeng Street, after Seuda Shlishis and start Shabbos again. Those who want to skip almost all of Shabbos could take a short stroll westbound, and go from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. (This post needed something light to leaven it.) >From where I sit, between those who say 180deg and the CI's adjudgment of including the entire land mass if part of it is west of 90deg, the dominant shitah is inconsistent with the Kuzari's explanation. If the date line is not involved, it would mean the machloqes would be about what we mean by the far enough end of Jewish settlement who would still experience the molad before the end of RC. RSG is saying that 90 deg is the Sanhderin mandated estimate, and RABM holds it's the actual furthest settlement. And that stands whether or not RYGB and RAZZ are correct about RAML's sevara, as we're only looking at RSG lehalakhah. I just took the Kuzari's lomdus and asked what it would mean to those who don't agree with his date line. If that line of reasoning is correct, then saying the approximate eastmost community is to be measured from the center of the core Jewish settlement -- between Bavel and EY -- ends up more intuitive than saying it's measured from Y-m. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 05:11:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:11:28 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Ooops! Yesterday I accidentally pressed "send" when I meant to "save draft". The result was a post that was far from finished. Here is what I had intended to publish: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar > (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, > it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might also be RTK's point). But IF that is how we are to understand the vocabulary, then we have a whole new way of reading the Shulchan Aruch. Here are some examples of this new way of understanding: It's not assur to shmooze between Geulah and Tefillah of Maariv (236:2) or to say Shehecheyanu on the Lulav on the second day (662:2) or to say Hallel on RH and YK (584:1) or to get a haircut before Mincha (232:2). It's not assur to daven only in your heart, but it's better if you pronounce the words with your lips. (101:2) I will concede that these examples are indeed less severe than cases where the Shulchan Aruch DOES use the word "assur". But nevertheless, we do not take these halachos as mere suggestions. Despite the lack of the word "asur", we DO accept it as normative psak halacha, and not as "hashkafa", to use RTK's word. So why should Siman 240 be different? Why would we suddenly take the words of Siman 240 to be hashkafa, and wave off the Shulchan Aruch, saying that his derech is different than our derech? Shouldn't we accept it as normative halacha? Even if I feel these halachos to be strange or difficult, shouldn't I at least accept them as a goal to strive for? And if I *don't* strive for them, doesn't that require teshuva? > Surely that is at least partly subjective, and any of the > various sources that apparently disagree with each other can > be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up > what your gut tells you is right. Maybe, but one had better be VERY sure that those sources actually exist, and that they have ample support in the poskim. Otherwise - as I asked a couple of posts ago - how is this any different than what the conservative and reform do? "It's a big machlokes - there's gotta be someone who paskens the way I want, so that's what I'm gonna do." I shudder when I hear otherwise-observant people saying such things. There are indeed some cases where there is such a *lack* of consensus among the poskim that one can do as he wants (one of my teachers paskened this way and for this reason regarding brachos on dessert), but I do not see Siman 240 in this category. We seem to be abandoning the consensus of the Shulchan Aruch and Nosei Keilim, and running to minority rishonim. > Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing > this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing > to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation > of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional > closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly > pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least > some obligation to fulfill. Are we really sure that (for the wife) physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness from the Torah's perspective? Or perhaps that is only an invention of minds which have been clouded by the outside culture? Could it be that Onah requires physical closeness, but not emotional closeness? I get mixed messages on this. On the one hand, an awful lot of Siman 240 is devoted to husband and wife both being of the proper frame of mind, and this is extremely strong evidence to the real importance of emotional closeness. But when I see halachos about keeping conversation to a minimum, and keeping the time involved to a minimum, then I wonder how much closeness can be achieved. I had posted: : Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. : Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. R' Micha Berger responded: > ... because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: > ... 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... Really? Can we really survive without it? You and me, I suppose, but that's because we are male. RTK referenced mitzvas onah. In the Torah's view, sex is as essential as food and shelter are. But only for women. Regardless of whether we're talking about physical closeness or emotional closeness, it seems that the Torah is concerned about closeness only for the woman, and not for the man. For women, closeness is a need which must be met; for men, closeness is a taavah which must be controlled. Let's not allow ourselves to get confused between needs and taavos. A person may desire something so much that he thinks it to be a need, but he is deluding himself. Nowhere do I see any responsibilities of the wife which are comparable to Mitzvas Onah. Yes, she'll be a "moredet" if she refuses, but (as I understand it) that is due to the social contract implicit in the concept of marriage, which is a very cry from a Chiyuv D'Oraisa. ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b8c3465e5f543465c9est02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:01:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:01:07 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla Message-ID: according to the Hebrew wikipedia Matyha bat Baytus bought the high priesthood for her husband Yehoshua ben Gamla towards the end of the second Temple. As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai and they guess that it was from Agripas II. Furthermore Yehoshua Ben Gamla was killed during the revolt against Rome. (Where the high priest Yishmael ben Elisha fits in we have discussed in the past) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:07:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:07:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150729160759.GF12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 06:01:07PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> according to the Hebrew wikipedia Matyha bat Baytus bought the high :> priesthood for her husband Yehoshua ben Gamla towards the end of the second :> Temple. As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai and they guess :> that it was from Agripas II. : Furthermore Yehoshua Ben Gamla was killed during the revolt against Rome. : (Where the high priest Yishmael ben Elisha fits in we have discussed in the : past) The gemara is Yuma 18a and Yevamos 61a. The mishnah in Yevemos says that Yehoshua ben Gamla married Marta bas Baisus, an almana, but before consummating the marriage "umanahu melekh" to be kohein gadol, The point of the mishnah is that they can stay married, as actually happened in this event. The gemara comments on the language of "manahu" rather than the expected "nisnamneh" to denote that the appointment wasn't the usual approval of a candidate selected by the kohanim and vetted by Sanhedrin. Then the gemara says she spent two qavin ("tarqav" = trei + qav) of dinarim to buy it. The gemara in Yuma makes this last point as well. Josephus (Antiquities XX 9:4 ) wrote that he became KG during the reign of Herod Agrippa II. Nothing about how. The translation reads weird, calls him "Jesus the son of Gamaliel". I went to the Soncino, since I don't know who else would comment on a gemara - Josephus interaction. Fn 16 on Yuma, 20 on Yevamos make the identity. They first opine that "Jannai is often employed in the Talmud as a general patronymic for Hasmonean and Herodian rulers." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:30:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:30:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?HILCHOS_KIBUD_AV_V=92EIM?= Message-ID: <20150729153144.1CF3218089B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://halachafortodaycom.blogspot.com/2013/02/archives-hilchos-kibud-av-veim.html Some selections from this site. The Aseres HaDibros, the Ten Commandments given to us by Hashem on Har Sinai are divided into two parts, the first five are commandments between man and Hashem (Bein Adam L?Makom) and the last five are commandments between man and fellow man (Bein Adam L?Chaveiro) Kibud Av V?Eim ,the fifth of the Aseres HaDibros, is listed amongst the commandments that are between man and Hashem even though it is seemingly a commandment that is only between man and man. The reason for this is that honoring one?s parents is akin to honoring Hashem. There are 3 partners in every human being, the father, the mother and Hashem. If one honors any of the three it is as if all three have been honored, and if one dishonors any of the three it?s as if all three have been dishonored. 1)It is prohibited to contradict a parent. (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah Siman 240:2) If a parent has a verbal disagreement with another person, and the child tells the other person ?I concur with your view?, it is considered contradicting the parent and is prohibited. (Shach Yoreh Deah 240:2) 2) According to some Poskim this prohibition is only in the presence of the parent. Other Poskim, however, maintain that even not in the presence of the parent it is prohibited. 1)It is forbidden to call a parent or refer to them by their name; rather they need to be referred to as ?My father [my teacher]? or ?My mother?. 1) What constitutes ?Kibud, respecting? parents? One must speak to their parents softly, with respect the way one would speak to a king. 1) Children are obligated to stand up for their parents when they enter a room. 1) If a parent does something that is against the Torah and a child sees, the child should not say ?You transgressed a Torah prohibition?, as bluntly saying so will cause the parent embarrassment. Rather, the child should say something to the effect of: ?Father Does it say in the Torah that one should not .?? in a way that sounds like a question and not like a chastisement or rebuke, and the parent will realize on their own that they have committed the sin. 1) If one?s father asks for a glass of water or any other task, and at the same time his/her mother asked for a glass of water or another task, tending to the father?s needs takes precedence, as the son/daughter and the mother are both obligated to respect the father/husband. 2) If a parent is sleeping it is forbidden to wake them up. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:51:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:51:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B8F66D.2000701@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 11:33 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > > But few if any of us hold that the date line is 90 deg east of Y-m, > east down 125.2 deg E, down Dongeng St in Changchun, China. To quote > R Dovid Heber at: > Families on the eastern strip of Dongfeng Street would recite > kiddush while families a block to the west would recite havdala. > It may be possible for those who want two days of Shabbos to walk > one block eastbound, down Dongfeng Street, after Seuda Shlishis and > start Shabbos again. Those who want to skip almost all of Shabbos > could take a short stroll westbound, and go from sunset Friday to > sunset Saturday. > (This post needed something light to leaven it.) Shu"T Bnai Tziyon points to a gemara about two villages within techum shabbos, where it was Yom Kippur in one and not the other, because that was the last place the messenger had made it before sunset. (I can't figure out how that actually worked, but that is what the gemara says.) He avoids the awkwardness of the situation posited in this clip by positing that the line is not one-dimensional but is several miles wide, and that the area inside the line has an official din of sofek, like bein hashmoshos. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:21:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 19:21:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: saw some trivia questions: 1) Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters of the alph-bet (I only know one) 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:51:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:51:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150729165138.GH12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 07:21:20PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 1) Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters : of the alph-bet (I only know one) Soferim use Tzefania 3:8 to show their penmanship, because it not only includes all 22 letters, it also includes all the sofios. Is that a way to denote total ultimate justice (the meaning of the words ) or what? This question is easier than that, just asking for 22 letters, not whether sofis or not. I already heard this one so I will leave the other 6 for others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:58:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B8F834.5060103@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 11:01 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > according to the Hebrew wikipedia Which is no more authoritative than English WP, and in fact seems to have looser rules regarding sourcing. > Matyha bat Baytus Martha. > As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai As Tosfos already points out, in both places where the gemara quotes this memra. > they guess that it was from Agripas II. That seems like a good guess, that the Yannai in the memra refers to the king Josephus calls Herod Agrippa II, but it is only a guess. On 07/29/2015 12:07 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I went to the Soncino, since I don't know who else would comment on a > gemara - Josephus interaction. Fn 16 on Yuma, 20 on Yevamos make the > identity. They first opine that "Jannai is often employed in the Talmud > as a general patronymic for Hasmonean and Herodian rulers." Which, for all we know, it may have been. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 10:13:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:13:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B909C7.7070906@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 12:21 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach 1. The definition of an "edah" from "this wicked edah". 2. Hezek re'iyah from Bil'am. 3. Standing for a davar shebikdusha, from Eglon. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 14:57:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:57:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150729215724.GA3540@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:11:28PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : R"n Toby Katz wrote: : > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too : > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim : > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar.... : > What we are really talking about : > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan : > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... : : Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. : : I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount : of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as : "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" : (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken : literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that : these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might : also be RTK's point). Which is why I quibbled with RnTK's language. Becauser I think it's assur -- really and actually assur -- not to try for perishus where possible. It's a bitul asei of "qedoshim tihyu". However, a mitzvah of hilkhos dei'os is to stretch, to move the nequdas habechirah and is therefore not only "at least partly subjective" but necessarily subjective. And if the criteria for behavior could be spelled out non-subjectively, they would be spelled out in chovos ha'eivarim. : I had posted: :: Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. :: Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. : R' Micha Berger responded: :> ... because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: :> ... 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... : Really? Can we really survive without it? You and me, I suppose, : but that's because we are male. Under normal circumstances, one can't go 3 days without food and water. Not just "one would be miserable if", but actual death. I am not sure how you could compare the need for intimacy to that kind of mechanistic do-or-die. : RTK referenced mitzvas onah. In the Torah's view, sex is as essential : as food and shelter are. But only for women. I disagree. And BTW, my #1 which you ellided /was/ mitzvas onah. : Regardless of whether we're talking about physical closeness : or emotional closeness, it seems that the Torah is concerned about : closeness only for the woman, and not for the man. For women, closeness : is a need which must be met; for men, closeness is a taavah which must : be controlled. Or, the Torah presumes that opportunity is in the hands of men. Not a difference in desire. Or -- a 3rd possibility -- lehefech, men are presumed more likely to get distracted by their own taavos and objectify their spouse and therefore the chiyuv of onah to focus on someone else's psychological needs. In any case, the requirement to avoid misery would motivate a chiyuv, one needn't define it as a need. Esperically since biologically, it's not necessary for survival the way food, drink or air are. But getting back to what you're saying here... Let me repeat point #1 in different phrasing: Because onah is indeed a chiyuv, saying that it should be minimized outside the realm of mitzvah isn't that much of a minimization. And yet, the threat of erotic desire becoming an end in itself is both more damaging, since there will be other victims beyond the self-destructive aspect and more likely. (In most people's psychology -- it's not like there is an internet food "porn" industry.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 15:37:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:37:27 GMT Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> R' Eli Turkel asked: > The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov > mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are > forgotten after 12 months ... > > I have a personal problem with this statement. ... one never > forgets a child R"n Toby Katz answered: > I don't think "gezeira al hameis" means the person is literally > forgotten, but that the degree of mourning becomes less intense. > ... the parent goes on with life, even if a heaviness always > remains somewhere in the background. I have had the same question as RET, and I thank RTK for this answer. I have written on several occasions, about my belief that Chazal often exaggerate, and this misleads those who are not used to their style of speaking. I think we have here another example of the same thing. There's a tendency to take Chazal at literal face value. We need to be more careful when reading the poetry. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 08:02:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:02:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Parallels in Kiruv Message-ID: <56c357c0b3404dbcbfc7bce2d25a6162@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Here's a quote from "Their Rock is Not Like Our Rock" - Daniel Strange In a recent article addressed to evangelical pastors I outlined a three-point "to do" list that might begin to move us into this stance: * Develop and deploy a biblically rich and nuanced theology of religions * Discern and denounce the arrogance and intolerance of pluralism * Demonstrate and display, in both word and deed, the unique power of the gospel to change lives and communities My impression is the first two are not generally done by kiruv folks but I was wondering if you replace gospel with orthodoxy and evangelical pastors with kiruv professionals, what fits? Should it be considered as an approach? Kol Tuv, 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 09:30:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:30:47 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: 'oh hanisa elokim' is one; the other is in parshat haman , i forget which one. will leave the dvar tora connecting the two , to others , other than to say the import of 'zeh gilui shechina' and lechem mishamayim as fundaments of faith,,,, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 10:38:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:38:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: From: Eli Turkel via Avodah " 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach -- Eli Turkel >>>>> Don't know if this is what you had in mind but I can think of these: [1] A woman cannot be married without her consent -- learn from Lavan -- "Nish'alah es pi hana'arah" before sending Rivka off with Eliezer to marry Yitzchak. [2] A younger sister cannot marry before the older sister (unless she gets permission from her) -- from Lavan again, excusing himself for giving Leah to Yakov instead of Rachel. [3] Celebrating seven days of sheva brachos -- from two places. One is Lavan again -- give Leah a week to celebrate and then Yakov can marry Rachel. And from the Pelishti "friends" of Shimshon who celebrated his wedding for a week. [4] We also learn from Izevel (Jezebel) that it's a big mitzva to dance at a wedding, to be mesameach chassan vekallah, but strictly speaking this is not in Tanach, it's a midrash. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 11:41:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:41:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: In Avodah V33n109, RET posted > Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters of the alph-bet (I only know one) < In the Torah, a *pasuq* in P'Va'eschanan (4 :34) is usually noted, but it (containing letter *sin* but no *shin*) works only when the *shin* and the *sin* are considered the same letter (they are, so long as we're considering the written form). The other *pasuq* in the Torah of which I'm aware is Shmos 16 :16 (in it, the *shin* is extant but there's no *sin*). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 15:30:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:30:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months In-Reply-To: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150730223053.GA17753@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:37:27PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : I have written on several occasions, about my belief that Chazal often : exaggerate, and this misleads those who are not used to their style of : speaking. I think we have here another example of the same thing. There's : a tendency to take Chazal at literal face value. We need to be more : careful when reading the poetry. Tanakh sometimes does something else with a similar effect, and it may be what Chazal are doing here. Lei'ah, rather than being described as "less loved" is "senu'ah". It's not necessarily exageration as much as a language norm to express a relative statement uing the same terms as absolutes. Here too chazal are making a comparison. Was the reader expected to know it's guzma, or was the norm in mishnaic Hebrew as well to use the term for the end of the spectrum to mean "less mourned than"? My problem with this is the parent of the MIA who can't let go for years or decades, and then it's found out that the chayal r"l was killed upon capture (or their body was taken after petirah for a bargaining chip). We have no experimental evidence of parents having that mystical knowledge of their children's state, and quite a bit of evidence otherwise. Perhaps Yaaqov avinu, or even someone with "just" ruach haqodesh is that aware of what's going on on the plane of souls without learning about them through normal olam hazeh means. But I do not see it being true of the majority of humanity. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 20:39:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 03:39:12 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> I tried to make the point that although many try to show similarites between food and sex, if we look at the Torah's view, there are far more differences. I suggested a rule of thumb: > Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. > Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. Chazal see food as an entirely proper way of enjoying olam hazeh, to the point that it is actively encouraged as a form of all sorts of celebrations. (And not only happy celebrations, but eating is also involved in various mourning practices.) Under normal circumstances, one can and should eat as much as he needs, subject to the limitations of kashrus and brachos. One is never allowed to eat in a quantity or manner that he becomes a menuval, but that is not a major concern. Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah. And even there, the restrictions are many. Food has tremendous room for creativity even within the restrictions of hilchos kashrus and brachos. Sex could be similar, even within the bounds of hilchos nidda and arayos, but the restrictions set out in OC 240 go much farther than merely to insure that one does not become a menuval. R' Micha Berger responded: > I think the difference is just about that, but because of the > biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: > 1- It involves a second party. There is no threat of > objectifying [food]. > 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... > Therefore, the attitude toward perishus for each comes from > opposite directions. For food, which is necessary for survival, > we talk about how much is too much. For sex, we talk about the > right balance between keeping the other happy (chiyuv onah) > and turning them into a tool for your own happiness. I think that he is agreeing with me that food and sex are very different, but I disagree with his explanation of *why* they are so different. In his first point, intended to be "food"), he seems to feel that the restrictions on sex are to prevent people from taking advantage of each other: If I have even a small desire for a snack, the Torah has no problem at all if I go to the kitchen and take an apple (provided that I say the bracha to acknowledge Hashem's involvement) because the apple is nothing more than an apple. But while casual eating is fine, casual sex is not. Casual sex involves people, and they must not be taken advantage of. My problem with this is on several levels. First, Chazal are pretty explicit that the purpose of Hilchos Nida is to restore a honeymoon-style atmosphere on a regular basis, and that alone might suffice to insure that spouses aren't objectified. Also, we have the many parts of OC 240 which insure that husband and wife are in the same "place" emotionally: no one is drunk, words of "ritzui", and so on. But isn't that sufficient protection against objectifying? What is gained from the additional restrictions (such as various positions, or finishing quickly) which have no parallel in food? In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach the Torah uses for Onah. While men and women are pretty much identical in the halachos of food, Onah places the husband and wife in opposite situations. Any discussion of Onah that uses the word "spouse" will be flawed, because Onah treats the husband and wife so differently. For example, whenever the wife desires relations, then the husband has a clear and present chiyuv d'Oraisa. But if the husband desires, she has no corresponding obligation; in fact (if I'm not mistaken) she's not even labeled as a "moredet" until after prolonged and repeated refusals. It seems to me that Onah may have the effect of objectifying males. Those parts of Orach Chaim 240 which forbid unwilling relations ought to suffice to insure that the women are not objectified. But Onah seems to push the pendulum too far. In response to RTK, RMB wrote: > I'm not sure it's "hashkafah" as much as Hilkhos Dei'os / Chovos > haLvavos. After all "Qedoshim tihyu" is a chiyuv, not a nicety, > and that's a source for "perushim tihyu". > What a mitzvah to be or to become something (such as "qadosh") > is in practice, though, is inherently situational and subjective. > If we were talking about something reducible to black-letter > halakhah and objective rules, it would have been. And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective rules", is it not? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 1 22:55:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 00:55:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: I initially replied on Areivim to a post reminding women during the summer to cover their hair. Mrs. Katz added that there was no support for those who hold that hair covering in public is not necessary. Others have disputed what RYBS's position on hair covering was, in view of the fact that his wife did NOT cover her hair in public at all times(someone seems to have the impression that she wore a hat). Here are the sources I have collected, in addition to the fact that a significant percentage of Modern Orthodox women to not cover their hair in public except in shul/davening situations. In response to those who have stated that the younger more educated women are covering their hair, I would point out that they have been educated to believe that it is an obligation, and the permissive sources have not been shared with them- case in point Mrs. Katz who either is not aware or chooses to dismiss them out of hand. In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is: if it is the practice of women to cover [their hair] and she uncovered it, then this is immodesty ( *ervah*). But if it was not the regular practice [of women] to cover [their hair] then [going uncovered] is not in the category of immodesty at all. If they uncover one hand?s-breadth in a place where they are habituated to cover then it is [a case of] uncovering immodesty and it is prohibited to read the Shema prayer in their presence... But if their (ladies?) custom is to uncover their hair (or a hand?s-breadth of the body) ? as single women do who by custom walk around with head [hair] uncovered - then this [action] does not constitute immodesty (*ervah*)." If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. Here is a list of easily accessable sources: Rabbi Marc Angel(former president of the Rabbinical Council of America) discusses why hair covering is not mandated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbrQwEerLsY Massive article by Rabbi Michael Broyde: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/0095-0180.pdf I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and everyone can come to their own conclusion. Rav Yosef Haim(author of Ben Ish Chai) writing that hair covering is not necessary(and how his opinion was altered by others): http://text.rcarabbis.org/the-ben-ish-hai-and-women%E2%80%99s-hair-covering-an-interesting-case-of-censorship-by-jacob-sasson/ See Rabbi Broyde's article(pages 155-158) for citations of those who state that hair covering is not mandated in the current society: R. Yitzchak Hurwitz in Yad HaLevi R. Moshe Malka(late Chief Rabbi of Petach Tikvah) R. Josef Messas(late chief rabbi of Morocco and later Haifa) R. Yaakov Haim Sofer Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did not cover her hair? Was this permitted by the *halachah*, or was it not prohibited on the grounds of modesty? He took out a *Gemara Berachot*, opened it to page 24A and showed me the Talmudic statement. "Said Rav Sheshet: [showing] hair by a woman is *ervah *(an act of immodesty)." Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with uncovered hair. Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat common. Some will say that- 'they couldn't control their wives' or other such statements. I would point out that RYBS also went to the opera- perhaps in keeping with an approach that hair wasn't erva, a lenient view of kol isha, all of which seems consistent. Furthermore, it seems quite far fetched that a rav who knew that he had great communal status would abide by gross violation of halacha in public by his own family, and at the very least would make it clear that he did not hold by it. Obviously, the fact that he did not make a deal of it(certainly not a big deal), illustrates something. Do you think he would countenance his wife eating treif? furthermore, the chiyyuv is also for men not to see hair(if that is the position that is being taken), and by not protesting his wife's uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 2 03:40:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 13:40:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: <<> 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach 1. The definition of an "edah" from "this wicked edah". 2. Hezek re'iyah from Bil'am. 3. Standing for a davar shebikdusha, from Eglon. >> Some others are: 4. Lavan: Sheva Brachot; also the Bracha we give the Kalla at the bedeken 5. also "chaye shaah" is less important that "chaye olam" from the 4 lepers, gechazi and his sons -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 2 01:25:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 11:25:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: ""It's a big machlokes - there's gotta be someone who paskens the way I want, so that's what I'm gonna do." I shudder when I hear otherwise-observant people saying such things. There are indeed some cases where there is such a *lack* of consensus among the poskim that one can do as he wants (one of my teachers paskened this way and for this reason regarding brachos on dessert), but I do not see Siman 240 in this category. We seem to be abandoning the consensus of the Shulchan Aruch and Nosei Keilim, and running to minority rishonim." R' Lichtenstein was bothered by this point and answered that we need to rely on our teachers and Gedolim. "Probably most significant, however, is our reliance upon our own mentors. Sensing that modern gedolim, ?the judge of your era??for our purposes, most notably, the Rav, but not he alone?have examined the issue and the evidence and adopted a positive stance, we, ordinary students of Torah, follow in their footsteps as we identify with their position. Whether they felt justified in accepting, out of the depths of their own conviction, a minority view; whether they held that our topic was essen- tially a matter of hashkafic proclivity, not necessarily amenable to the nor- mal procedures of pesak; or whether some other unknown but imagined element?might, for instance, the hospitable climate of Kabbalistic sources, have had some impact?is a matter for conjecture. That the authority of our mentors can inform and sustain our sensibility is not." I understand that for many of us that is not a very satisfying answer and leads to many questions about why specifically here we follow minority opinions as opposed to other places (e.g. wombs issues, etc.) but I don't think there is a better answer. This is the way the halachic system works. Even after all of this, R' Lichtenstein himself was bothered by this very point: "I am left, nonetheless, with a lacuna. Even while adhering to the Rav?s position, one may freely concede wishing that he had done for us what we have been challenged and constrained to do here: examine the various tiers of tradition and elucidate the basis for his own judgment and commitment." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 01:21:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:21:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on tefillin Message-ID: There is a disagreement between Rashi/Rambam and R Tam whether one says one or two brachot on tefillin of the arm and head. While sefardim follow SA and say one bracha ashkenazim follow R Tam and say 2 brachot bur add "baruch shem kvod ..." to avoid a bracha le-vatala I have 2 things I don't understand about the ashkenazi minhag 1) The usual rule is "safek bracha le-kula" and so when in doubt don't say a bracha 2) How does saying "barch shem" help ? We have many disagreements about brachot. For example ashkenazim (again following R Tam) say brachot on customs, eg half hallel. We don't add "baruch shem ..." in these cases. Why only in tefillin? Furthermore whenever there is a doubt about a bracha (classical case is if one forgot to count the omer at night and remembered during the day) why do the act without a bracha - why not say the bracha and add "baruch shem" -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 07:43:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:43:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150803144333.GA30399@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 03:39:12AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed : in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah... ... and priya verivya, no? : Food has tremendous room for creativity even within : the restrictions of hilchos kashrus and brachos. Sex could be similar, : even within the bounds of hilchos nidda and arayos, but the restrictions : set out in OC 240 go much farther than merely to insure that one does : not become a menuval. ... : I think that he is agreeing with me that food and sex are very different, : but I disagree with his explanation of *why* they are so different. I have the same assessment. I am saying that the same principle of when perishus is appropriate is very different for food vs sex because food and sex are different in nature. Summarizing my point #1: : But while casual eating is fine, casual sex is : not. Casual sex involves people, and they must not be taken advantage of. : : My problem with this is on several levels. First, Chazal are pretty : explicit that the purpose of Hilchos Nida is to restore a honeymoon-style : atmosphere on a regular basis, and that alone might suffice to insure : that spouses aren't objectified.... If your objection is based on the "might suffice", all one needs to assert is or might not. : What is gained from the additional : restrictions (such as various positions, or finishing quickly) which : have no parallel in food? I am not sure that prohibitions based on mood are sufficient, as it's too easy to fool oneself about what the other person really wants. In any case, you return to OC 240 again at the end of the post and ask: : And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective : rules", is it not? Perhaps not. Is OC 1 black-letter halakhah? Is hitting the snooze button, or even lying around for a few seconds before getting up, actually assur? For that matter, there is a mitzvah to remember right vs left when putting on and tying shoes, but do you really think someone was oveir an issur if they don't? As the AhS OC often notes, the style of the SA is just to discuss do vs don't, and it blurs the distinctions between levels of issur -- a deOraisa can be next to an accepted minhag, and both may even be written in parallel language. : In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival : without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, : psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach : the Torah uses for Onah. : : While men and women are pretty much identical in the halachos of food, : Onah places the husband and wife in opposite situations... Whereas moredes has no parallel because she cannot initiate a gett. And for that matter, it has no parallel because he is obligated to support here. For that matter, the assymetry in who supports who is quite possibly why HQBH set up an assymetric process for gittin. The man who obligates himself in support can get of it. Onah is a protection against that objectification. Against turning that whole support thing into near prostitution. And with onah, the outcome is more symmetric -- he can end a marriage if dissatisfied, and is obligated to keep her satisfied. Without which BD can force him to willingly end the marriage. (Just paraphrasing the din...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 08:17:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:17:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on tefillin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150803151733.GB30399@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:21:03AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I have 2 things I don't understand about the ashkenazi minhag : : 1) The usual rule is "safek bracha le-kula" and so when in doubt don't say : a bracha : 2) How does saying "bar[u]ch shem" help ? ... The AhS (OC 25:11 ) agrees with you on both points, and therefore posits (se'ifim 12-13) a totally different meaning to the 2nd berakhah. And even though shel yad and shel rosh are two different of the 613, we make one berakhah on maaser rishon and maaser sheini. He also quotes that the BY rejects a possibility that if someone talks between the two tefillin, he would have to make both berakhos on the shel rosh -- repeting "lehaniach" and yet still saying "al mitzvah". But even though he uses this as proof, he requires (se'if 16, following the Ran via the MA s"q 15) loosening the shel yad so that you are still saying "lehaniach" the 2nd time on both. This is a pretty big chiddush, a birkhas hoda'ah that says "asher qidshanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu al mitzvas..." However, similar arguments are made about Birkhas haTorah, if one says the berakhah is deOraisa (Ramban) and therefore "aqb"v la'asoq bedivrei Torah" can't be a birkhas hamitzvah. The IM says as much (OC 2:3). : We don't add "baruch shem ..." in these cases. Why only in tefillin? Leshitas AhS, it follows enacting the qesher gadol between us and HQBH for the same reason the pasuq is said after the first pasuq of Shema. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:04:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 17:04:47 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> I wrote: : Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed : in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah... R' Micha Berger asked: > ... and priya verivya, no? I was trying to show differences between sex and food. I would say that, in the eyes of Halacha, there is no connection between pirya v'rivya and the olam-hazeh enjoyment of sex, in exactly the same manner that there is no connection between achilas matzah and the olam-hazeh enjoyment of food. The latter is a means of internalizing a historical connection, and the former is a biological imperative, but neither has any connection to olam-hazeh enjoyment. However, that it not to say that halacha is blind to the fact that sex *IS* enjoyable. This is recognized by the mitzvah of Oneg Shabbos, where if the act is to be done once a week, then Shabbos is receommended. Chiyuv Onah also recognizes that if the wife has a taavah for this particular hanaah, then it is the husband's obligation to satisfy her taavah. But pirya v'rivya? No, I don't see evidence of that. I asked: : And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective : rules", is it not? RMB suggested: > Perhaps not. Is OC 1 black-letter halakhah? Is hitting the snooze > button, or even lying around for a few seconds before getting up, > actually assur? For that matter, there is a mitzvah to remember > right vs left when putting on and tying shoes, but do you really > think someone was oveir an issur if they don't? I agree that there are degrees of obligation. A simple verb like "yaaseh" clearly implies a smaller obligation than "chayav laasos". "Must" is much stronger than "should". But if a subject makes it into Shulchan Aruch - as these did - that also shows a stronger obligation than something that appears only in Mesilas Yesharim, or even Gemara for that matter. Yes, I do think that when the alarm clock rings, one has an obligation to seriously consider whether he really *needs* to stay in bed a little longer, or whether he merely *wants* to. And I will admit that - b'shaas maaseh - I rarely consider that as seriously as I should. And that's one of the things I'm trying to improve on. Same thing for tying my shoes - I think that by now I do it correctly by habit, but I'm not really sure, and I'll try to remember to watch myself tomorrow morning. RMB wrote: > Whereas moredes has no parallel because she cannot initiate a gett. And > for that matter, it has no parallel because he is obligated to support > here. For that matter, the assymetry in who supports who is quite > possibly why HQBH set up an assymetric process for gittin. The man who > obligates himself in support can get of it. Yes, I agree that this could be part of why Hashem set it up that way. But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no corresponding safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55c0f0f9c892870f9653ast02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:43:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:43:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <117801d0cedd$1904bea0$4b0e3be0$@com> > But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan > Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went > uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why > aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? Good question. I can't help but thinking that this is one of those (many) halachic issues where the hanhaga of Klal yisroel in certain halachic (or hashkafic) areas has developed to be inline with yechidim than with the majority of chazal/rishonim/etc Why this happens is certainly a discussion - is it societal / siata shimaya guiding Klal yisroel / etc We have many others similar to this (some d'oriasa, some d'rabbanan) - human hair sheitals, chadash, live music after the churban, etc. When this should happen (and when it should be fought), I will leave to the einei haeida. Mordechai Cohen From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:49:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Baruch Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 10:49:07 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Halachic Requirement for Dayanim Evaluating In-Person Facial Expressions of Parties in Bais Din In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: List Mates: In an AMI issue that was reported in VosIzNais, Rabbi Hershel Schachter was quoted as saying: ""*There is a Mishna in Pirkei Avos that the oilam says a vort on. It says, "K'sheyihiyu habaalei dinim lifanecha, yihiyu b'einecha k'resha'im. K'she'yaamdu m'lifanecha yihiyub'einecha k'tzaddikim, shekiblu aleihem es hadin." ["When the litigants stand before you (the judges), they should be in your eyes like wicked people. When they stand up from being in front of you, they should be in your eyes like righteous people, because they have accepted the judgment."] They say from a few different dayanim that they would put a tallis over their face, to not see the face of a rasha. But that is wrong; part of the din Torah is to look at the person and see from his facial expression and how he talks...whether or not he is saying the truth. You have to be able to detect whether he is telling the truth*.'" ( http://www.vosizneias.com/92931/2011/10/11/new-york-in-exclusive-ami-magzine-intreview-noted-rabbi-schachter-slams-set-up-of-rabbinical-court-system/ ) Is there a Halacha that you can direct me to that mandates in-person and face-to-face participation by the parties to a Bais Din for the reasons given by Rabbi Schechter? I found this... The seating configuration of the Sanhedrin ??????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?? ?? The Mishnah describes how the members of the Sanhedrin sat in a row in the shape of a half-circle in order *for each person to be able to see everyone else*. Why was it necessary for everyone to be able to have direct eye contact with everyone else? Rashi explains that it is only when people have direct sight of each other that they can listen and then argue and debate with each other. ?"????? elaborates and says that when people argue and express their views, they often rise from their seats. If they did not sit facing each other, it is quite possible that they would not be able to hear when a person turns as he speaks from a standing position. Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin 1:3) explains that this arrangement was used in order for the President (????) and the Av Beis Din to be able to see everyone. Lechem Mishneh notes that this was a sign of respect for these leaders to sit in the middle and for everyone to easily be able to listen to them. Rashi also addresses why the Sanhedrin sat in a half-circle rather than in a full circle. From a technical standpoint, the witnesses and litigants would have to have a way to enter the circle to present themselves in front of the judges (see Rashi, Chullin 5a). Furthermore, if the judges sat in a full circle, while the witnesses would be facing some of the judges, their backs would be turned toward the others. *The judges might have a hard time hearing the witnesses and litigants, or they would not be able to see them as they spoke. Facial expressions and other subtleties are essential in communication, and the judges must be able to pick up on any and all such nuances during the deliberations*. The Tosefta (8:1) cites differing opinions regarding the seating position of the President of the Sanhedrin. Tanna Kamma holds that the President sat in the center of the semi-circle, with thirty-five of the members of the Sanhedrin seated on each side of him. R' Elazar b. Tzadok says that when Rabban Gamliel sat in the Sanhedrin in Yavne, one of the sages sat to his right, and all the others sat to his left. Rambam (ibid.) writes that the ???? sat with the Av Beis Din to his right, and the rest of the sages to his left, seated according to their ages and their wisdom, with the wisest among them to his immediate left, and the rest seated closer according to their level. Radva"z and Kesef Mishneh ask why Rambam does not rule according to Tanna Kamma, and, as he rules according to R' Elazar b. Tzadok, why the row begins with the Av Beis Din, and not with the ???? himself. Radva"z explains that it was not only the Av Beis Din who sat to the right of the ????, but the ???? sat in the middle, as Tanna Kamma explains, with the Av Beis Din to his immediate right. ??? ???? explains that Rambam rules according to R' Elazar b. Tzadok because he cites the actual case of Rabban Gamliel http://www.dafdigest.org/Sanhedrin/Sanhedrin%20036.pdf -- Respectfully, Baruch C. Cohen, Esq. Law Office of Baruch C. Cohen, APLC Los Angeles, CA 90010 e-mail: BCC4929 at gmail.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:24:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:24:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> From: Kenneth Miller via Avodah >> In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach the Torah uses for Onah. [snip] It seems to me that Onah may have the effect of objectifying males. << Akiva Miller >>>>>> To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without reproduction. Our nitzchius is absolutely dependent on this particular activity, which is why "peru urevu" is actually a mitzva and not "mutar if you wish." It is Hashem's chessed that He made this activity intrinsically pleasurable. If you were a robot or an alien without human emotions and you witnessed this human activity, you would wonder, "What the heck are these humans doing? And why?!" I am not an expert on male physiology but I am under the impression that for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. This reminds me of something else I wanted to say in response to some of RMB's posts. He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her. But human beings derive pleasure from each other all the time, whether the pleasure is a stimulating conversation, "please scratch my back," playing with a delightful, cuddly baby -- I could go on and on -- and it is just absurd to think that if another person gives me some kind of pleasure, I have "objectified" that person. Not to forget the main point I wanted to make: sex /is/ necessary for survival, and therefore some comparison to eating food /is/ valid. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:57:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:57:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> References: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150804185730.GA28011@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 02:24:43PM -0400, RnTK wrote: : To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS : required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human : species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without : reproduction... The question is the difference in relationship a person to their hunger compared to their sex drive. You appear to only be objecting to an overly broad use of "required for survival" by not saying "individual's survival", without touching the point that people relate to each desire very differently. (You also seem to ignore non-reproductive sex -- an infertile couple, post-menapouse, etc...) .... : This reminds me of something else I wanted to say in response to some of : RMB's posts. He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from : being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her... Pleasure is a positive thing, as long as it's not the only thing. It's turning a wife into a cheftzah by which he obtains his pleasure that is literally objectifying. If the husband is forced to think about her perspective, his wife as a person, during relations, the risk of the pursuit of pleasure taking over to that point, the mutual search for pleasure is humanizing and bonding, quite the reverse. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:10:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 14:10:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150804181031.667AC180E06@nexus.stevens.edu> At 01:51 PM 8/4/2015, Noam Stadlan wrote: >If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered >hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. Is it really true that what women in the general society do is some standard for tznius for Jewish women. If so, then the practices of "well undressed" gentile women (as R. A Miller used to call them) of today have eliminated all tznius standards. One sees women in public today dressed in almost nothing. [Email #2] At 01:51 PM 8/4/2015, Noam Stadlan wrote: >Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat >common. Just because something is or was commonly done does not make is correct according to halacha. Many, many people talk loshon hara, yet it is not proper according to halacha. [Email #3] Please see Covering the Hair by Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 13:07:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 23:07:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: >> Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters >> of the alph-bet (I only know one) < [R' Michael Poppers:] > In the Torah, a *pasuq* in P'Va'eschanan (4:34 > ) is usually noted, but it > (containing letter *sin* but no *shin*) works only when the *shin* and the > *sin* are considered the same letter (they are, so long as we're > considering the written form). The other *pasuq* in the Torah of which I'm > aware is Shmos 16 :16 (in it, > the *shin* is extant but there's no *sin*). We still need another 3 pesukim in the rest of Nach including one that has not only the 22 letters of the alphabet but also all the end letters -- Eli Turkel [Well in I already wrote: > Soferim use Tzefania 3:8 to show their penmanship, because it not > only includes all 22 letters, it also includes all the sofios. Is > that a way to denote total ultimate justice (the meaning of the words > ) or what? -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 15:31:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:31:53 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I see your pesukim and raise you a medieval Hebrew poem of four lines, where each line contains every letter of the alef-beit including sofiot exactly once with no repetition: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pagefeed/hebrewbooks_org_38040_154.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 5 02:53:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 05:53:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" Message-ID: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> I think a philosophy book just came out detending a variant of RSSchwab's "two clocks" explanation of ma'aseh bereishis. RSS's shitah appeared in AOJS's Challenge (ed. R Aryeh Carmel, R/Prof Cyril Domb pg 164 onward. surveys the area and summarized RSS as follows: Similarly, Rav Shimon Schwab talks of two types of time, cosmic time and earthly time. The 6 days of creation are counted according to cosmic time, during which period millions of years may have passed according to our measure of time. (Althugh I disagree with their next sentence on REED's position.) Now for the book. I just got this review : > he Fall and Hypertime > Hud Hudson, Oxford University Press, 2014, 211pp., $65.00 (hbk), > ISBN 0198712693. > Reviewed by Trent Dougherty, Baylor University > Hud Hudson's book is a brilliant and creative defense of the following > proposition. > There is a conflict between a literal reading of the book of > Genesis and science only if one assumes that the hypertime hypothesis > is false. > The import of Hudson's thesis is that those who allege a conflict between > science and a literal reading of Genesis are not basing that claim merely > on science but on controversial metaphysics as well.,,, > To understand the hypertime hypothesis (hereafter "HH"), begin > with the "growing block" theory of time, one of the standard set of > options. According to this theory, the past is real and "still exists" > as a "block" as spacetime and the future is "open," i.e. the future > does not exist. The block grows as the quantity of either space or > time increases. Hudson notes that there is nothing more intrinsically > mysterious about the block losing parts than its gaining parts. He > then points out that it is also not more intrinsically mysterious that > a "morphing block" shrink or grow not just in units of hyperplanes > ("slices" of the block) but also in sub-regions of hyperplanes. As a > result, there are no in principle limits to the ways in which a block can > morph, to the "shape" it can take. Furthermore, there is no good reason > why the hyperplanes (or sub-regions thereof) might not be "reshuffled" > in a different order. > Because the universe is here modeled as a spacetime block, the temporal > dimension only measures changes within the block. Hypertime measures, > as we may think of it, changes to the block (though technically blocks > at different hypertimes are numerically distinct,and there remains a > question concerning the status of various essentialisms about blocks > with respect to their parts). That means that at any given moment on > the hypertimeline, there can be a complete spacetime block, a complete > physical universe distinct from blocks at different hypertimes. Given > infinite hypertime, this generates a plurality of worlds not unlike that > of David Lewis. Hudson applies the possibility of this plurality in three > ways: to an understanding of omnipresence (which I will not discuss), to > (three versions of) the problem of evil (one of which I'll discuss below), > and in defense of his main thesis. The way HH helps with an understanding > of omniscience and the problem of evil gives it credit and motivates > it as a viable option so that its application to the main thesis is > not ad hoc (though it's being ad hoc would not prevent its success for > its purpose). I will describe the application to the problem of evil, > offer a criticism, then describe its application to the main thesis. > If there is a plenitude of spatiotemporally discrete universes, then it is > difficult to infer from any empirical observation that the actual world > is not the best possible world. It is important to remember that on the > hypertime hypothesis the spacetime blocks at different hypermoments are > only one portion of total reality. Our observable universe is a drop > in the bucket. So an argument from evil against the existence of God > from ours not being the best possible world would have to argue that > the observable universe could not even be a part of the best possible > world. That is not clearly an easy argument to make. > This move takes the form of what is traditionally called a "defense" > rather than a "theodicy"... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 5 15:22:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 18:22:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesak and Safeik Message-ID: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> Anyone know a source (or at least a theory) that discusses when we treat a machloqes as a safeiq, rather than applying the rules of peaq? The issue comes up in AhS YD 24:42. (Mazal tovs on completing OC will be graciously accepted.) Siman 24 discusses 4 of the 5 halakhos leMoshe miSinai of shechitah. (Shehiyah got its own siman.) There is a machloqes between the Behag and Rashi about the line between aqirah and tereifos. Rashi says that aqira is the displacement of the qaneh or veshet caused by using a nicked knife. Most rishonim hold like the Behag, and then there is a submachloqes about what kind of dislocated simanim are aqirah, ad what are tereifos. Leshitas Rashi, they would all be tereifos. Anyway, here the AhS says that Rama holds that midinei shechitah, we are machmir for every definition of aqirah. But midinei tereifah, which differ in that it would also prohibit the milk or eggs from such an animal, we recognize that the iqar hedin if the Behag, and are meiqil. So okay, one tiny bit of my question is answered -- we have a special rule by shechitah that machloqesin are resolved by safeiq deOraisa lehachmir. But WRT tereifos.... The AhS says that despite the Rama, we are nohagim lehachmir. So, while the Rama thinks this is a case where the rules of pesaq apply, the AhS says "we" disagree and treat it like a safeiq. Why? I also realize the line isn't all-or-nothing. I presume that not every shitah rises to the level of creating a safeiq, so there is some kind of pesaq-like reasoning necessary to assess which do and which don't. So it's more an issue of how balanced do shitos have to be for us to be unwilling to pasqen and just assume it's a safeiq. But still, these two acharonim are setting te line at a different place. So, does anyoe discuss the kelalim of when to bail out from the (other) kelalei pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 07:47:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:47:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] They Found Gat Message-ID: <20150806144710.GA2303@aishdas.org> As you may have heard, a team found the gates of Gat, Golias's home town. And, as I've noticed in the past, the question of whether they find evidence of the events as found in Tanakh or evidence against can be predicted in advance by checking the religious stance of who is running the dig. So you get this story from Haaretz : Philistine City of Gath a Lot More Powerful Than Thought, Archaeologists Suggest Powerful fortifications newly uncovered by Israeli archaeologists suggest the kingdoms of Saul, David may not have been quite as powerful as thought. Nir Hasson Aug 04, 2015 3:08 AM [IDT] ... According to Maeir, the discovery of Gath as a huge, fortified city on the border of Judea during an extended period, without any signs of destruction as a result of a war with Judea, proves the Philistines controlled the Judean plain. Because Khirbet Kaifa existed for a relatively short period -- about 30 years -- it is likely the remnant of a failure of the Israelite kingdom to spread westward and not a sign of its power. "The Judean kingdom is supposed to be big, important and strong," says Maeir. "But it turns out there is a very big city on its western border. For years, I claimed Gath was a big city, but they countered that it has no lower city, and if it has one it is not fortified. After finding a huge fortification, its clearly the most important city of the 10th and ninth centuries." Now, to get a hint of how we would have heard about Gat had the dig been run by a bilical maximalist, here's an element mentioned in : Near the gate, Maeirs team also unearthed the remains of the citys extensive fortification wall, a Philistine temple, ironwork and pottery. While the pottery bears hallmarks of the distinctive Philistine style, elements of Israelite techniques can be seen on the fragments as well, indicating there was more interaction between the two cultures than previously thought. Since Pelishti culture was importing Jewish culture, doesn't that lend MORE credibity to the idea that David haMelekh's kingdom was at east on the same scale if not overshadowing theirs? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 15:28:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 23:28:31 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] : Re: De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> RAM writes: >And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective rules", is it not? In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? And further read the Tur (and the meforshim on the Tur) in Even HaEzer simin 25 to get a fuller picture of the sources (and the original gemora sources) - so you can see the history of the machlokus on how to deal with this issue all the way back. As Rav Lichtenstein articulated it, the question is not so much that we differ from the position of Chazal, as our position (and the one quoted by the Rema) is much more in line with the majority position in Chazal, but why did the major rishonim - Rambam, Ra'avid etc differ so markedly from what appears to be the majority position in Chazal and posken - well like Rabbi Eliezer (shmuti hu?), as then did the Achronim. I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the influence of the outside world. The same sort of influence that reputedly led to the cherem of Rabbi Gershom (Jews who are supposed to be the upholders of morality cannot be seen to have more than one wife in a world where that is seen as immoral). In a world which identified relations with sin and death (standard Xtian theology of the time, and the Muslim theology in many circles was not that different) - it would have been inappropriate, and led to general looseness if the general non Jewish world view had been repudiated to the extent consonant with the positive positions found in Chazal. Hence Orech Chaim, the book most accessible to the masses, contains not a word of the Rema's position, that is buried in Even HaEzer, where it is more likely only the scholarly will look (or from the point of view of Maran, go look in the Tur). But to talk about relations positively in an open way in Xtian Europe would have created temptations for the non Jewish world that would have unleashed a level of vengeance (eg from the priesthood) that could likely not be endured. There was a lot of censoring and self censoring that went on in all sorts of areas, it seems to me also here, especially as there are the minority positions to bring and rely on. Only in the modern day world which has swung so far the other way is it possible to honestly and openly evaluate the position of Chazal, and that is what in effect has been done, by Rav Lichtenstein and others. >Akiva Miller Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 17:28:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 00:28:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? Message-ID: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Apparently, In the U.S., the therapist's duties are owed to the client, subject to statutory obligations such as the mandatory-reporting requirement. There is no exception for the therapist's religious custom or belief, unless, in limited circumstances, the client consents to it. Question-from a torah point of view should it make a difference who shows up at the therapist's (or Rabbi's)door (for any therapy or advice)? How does Halacha balance the needs of the individual, the family, the community, Jewish society and/or society in general? 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 12:56:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 15:56:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" In-Reply-To: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> References: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> What's the difference between this and Gerald Schroeder? KT, GS, YGB On 08/05/2015 05:53 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I think a philosophy book just came out detending a variant of RSSchwab's > "two clocks" explanation of ma'aseh bereishis. > > RSS's shitah appeared in AOJS's Challenge (ed. R Aryeh Carmel, R/Prof > Cyril Domb pg 164 onward. > > > surveys > the area and summarized RSS as follows: > > Similarly, Rav Shimon Schwab talks of two types of time, cosmic > time and earthly time. The 6 days of creation are counted according > to cosmic time, during which period millions of years may have > passed according to our measure of time. > > (Althugh I disagree with their next sentence on REED's position.) > > > Now for the book. I just got this review > : > >> he Fall and Hypertime >> Hud Hudson, Oxford University Press, 2014, 211pp., $65.00 (hbk), >> ISBN 0198712693. >> Reviewed by Trent Dougherty, Baylor University From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 13:32:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:32:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" In-Reply-To: <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> References: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150807203234.GA14121@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 03:56:56PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: : What's the difference between this and Gerald Schroeder? R' Gerald Schroeder is working within physics, using Relativity to try to make the timelines match up. R' Schwab, and for that matter this Hypertime idea are metaphysical, saying that the 6 days were not physical days, meausured using the same kind of time Galileo turned into a variable when he measured pendulum swings, Newton took derivatives with respect to, and Einstein unified with space. Rather, a logically prior idea altogether. This is more in line with the rishonim who said that science as we know it post-dates creation, and therefore time during creation is has to be measured with a different kind of clock than the one of physics. ------- And some day when humanity develops to this point, the two will finally be in sync. Which would fit RAYK's metaphysics in which every duality is an illusion, as everything is the Or Ein Sof from the Absolute Unity. And le'asid lavo, even the division between olam hazah and olam ha'emes will fall. Leshitaso, techiyas hameisim is a consequence of the reunification of the worlds of life and of death. Those souls don't so much come back to life as the distinction disappears. (I do not recall if RAYK invokes "hayinu kekholmim".) And yes, in such a situation, physical time will be back in sync with supernal time. Although one needn't believe in RAYK's eschatology in order to accept the concept that the two definitions of time will be unified, nor do we need to believe in eventual synchronization in order to talk about the 6 days of ceration being on a different kind of clock than physics. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 13:56:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 15:56:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Re; sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R. Levine wrote: "Is it really true that what women in the general society do is some standard for tznius for Jewish women. If so, then the practices of "well undressed" gentile women (as R. A Miller used to call them) of today have eliminated all tznius standards" Response: Of course there are baseline standards of tzniut for Jew, men and women, that are independent of surrounding culture. But hair covering is not one of them.(At least according the sources and shitta that I have brought). R. Levine then brings an article by Rav Breuer. That is his shitta, it doesn't mean it is universally accepted or binding. Much of what he brings is not specific halacha but advice or Nach based(the entire sugya of kol kevuda etc) I would note that the vast majority of shittot do not require single women to cover their hair I will not have access to respond for a week or so, but will be address further responses at that time. shabbat shalom noam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 8 12:02:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 22:02:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] depression Message-ID: Enclosed is a summary of the last shiur of R Zilberstein to the doctors. I am giving a shiur on this in my shul this coming shabbat. Since I feel it is controversial I am looking for input from the list. Question from a psychiatrist - A patient has 3 kids and has mild depression since the last birth. She wont take chemical drugs and instead uses one based on plants which is good for mild depression. It had some side effects and so the patient stopped that also. The dictor suggested various anti-depression drugs and other help which the patient refused, Contacting a social worker it turns out the woman runs a "nursery' (mishpachton) from 8am to 4pm. The social worker says she manages only with a great effort; her husband comes home from work at 1pm and the mother helps. The woman refuses to open a file in the social ministry because of this nursery which they may close down. The social worker pointed out that if something happens the state will prosecute the psychiatrist. Question: On one side there might be a danger to the kids in the nursery and the psychiatrist might lose her license OTOH this is a major income for the young family. She has successfully run the nursery for several months without any complaint with the help of the husband and mother. If this is all explained to the ministry it most likely won't help and they will closer her down Answer: The job of a bet din is to watch out for the welfare of the community. Hence, according to Torah law the doctor must go the rabbi of the city or neighborhood to hear their opinion, R Zilberstein notes that in Bnei Brak there is an agreement with the authorities that the local bet din deals with such problems and calls in the local authority only if they feel this is necessary. Such an arrangement should be set up in every town that the local bet din makes the decision. see YD 336:1 that ba doctor needs the permission of the bet din to practice, Therefore one needs the permission of the local secular authorities to rely on the judgement of the local rabbi. It is well known that the "mara de-atra" have the ability to treat broken and depressed people. In England there was a baby born with Down's syndrone whose Jewish parents disappeared. The local board of health turned to Rav Yoseph Dinner Zt'L what to do, Rav Dunner , who was the 65, (after checking with his wife) said they would adopt the baby since at that time there was no Jewish institution capable of handing this baby. The local board of health accepted this solution. The couple cared for the child until they reached the age of 80. At that point they transfered the child to an instituion in Afula, Each year R Dunner would come to Israel to bake matzot and then visit the child in Afula. The doctors in Britain said the best social workers are the Jewish leaders. In the beit midrash of R. Pam there was born a child with Down's syndrone. R Pam always tried to cheep up the boy. One year the boy complained that on simchat Torah they used all the sifrei Torah except for his paper one. After Musaf R Pam went to the Bimah and announced to everyone that now they were reading from the sefer Torah of this boy. This was the happiest moment for the boy and the angles surrounding "kise hakavod" Conclusion: The psychiatrist should explain to the local rabbi the situation in the nursery. The rabbi should come to some agreement with the local secular authotities to rely on his judgement -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 8 21:21:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 21:21:33 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? Message-ID: you are basically asking when must the rabbi/frum therapist offer halachic therapy and then risk prosecution? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 12:17:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:17:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] human hair sheitals Message-ID: In the thread "De-Chokifying Arayos", I asked: > But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan > Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went > uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why > aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? R' Mordechai Cohen answered: >>> I can't help but thinking that this is one of those (many) halachic issues where the hanhaga of Klal yisroel in certain halachic (or hashkafic) areas has developed to be inline with yechidim than with the majority of chazal/rishonim/etc >>> ... >>> We have many others similar to this (some d'oriasa, some d'rabbanan) - human hair sheitals, chadash, live music after the churban, etc. You are raising a great point. I have wondered this about chadash and music myself, and I'm somewhat surprised that I didn't see the connection. Thank you very much for bringing it to my attention. (Though, to be honest, these examples sharpen my question about Conservative "psak".) But for THIS thread, my question is simple and direct: Tell me more about why you specify "human hair sheitals". Have chazal/rishonim ever distinguished between wigs made of human hair vs other kinds of wigs? I was always under the (possibly mistaken) impression that chazal and rishonim - and even acharonim - only discussed the requirement to cover hair, and how much to cover, and the ramifications of leaving it uncovered. But I don't recall any discussion of the covering itself except by the leaders of very recent chasidic groups. Am I mistaken? Where is this discussed in the seforim? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 13:15:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 16:15:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: In Avodah V33n111, RET noted: >> Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters >> of the alph-bet (I only know one) << > We still need another 3 pesukim in the rest of Nach including one that has not only the 22 letters of the alphabet but also all the end letters < Fact-checking what I found via Google'ing (besides the *pasuq* already noted by R'Micha) provides these fifteen (!) *p'suqim* containing all the letters: -- Y'hoshua 23:13 -- M'lachim Beis 4:39, 6:32 -- Y'sha'yahu 5:25 -- Yirm'yahu 22:3, 32:29 -- Y'chezqeil 17:9 -- Hosheia 13:2 -- Amos 9:13 -- Esther 3:13 -- Daniel 3:22, 4:20, 7:19 -- Ezra 7:28 -- N'chemya 3:7 All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 14:11:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: <<< To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without reproduction. Our nitzchius is absolutely dependent on this particular activity, which is why "peru urevu" is actually a mitzva and not "mutar if you wish." >>> Yes, that's true. But please note that you yourself are referring to "peru urevu". My question concerns a different mitzva, namely Onah, wherein sex is explicitly linked to food and clothing/shelter. I don't think it is a big stretch to say that the common thread of these three things is how important they are to this particular individual, and NOT how important they are to the species. <<< ... for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. >>> I think we may be understanding the word "objectify" in different ways. Contrary to what some might think, not all men are constantly obsessed with having sex. At any given point in time, a particular man might have other priorities - other activities that he'd rather do than this one. But a husband cannot give higher priority to these activities over Onah, just like he can't choose them over minyan, or other mitzvos. He must be sensitive to his wife's needs and wants, and if he senses her mood, he is under a chiyuv d'Oraisa to act accordingly. (Actually, he'll have this chiyuv even if he does NOT sense her mood accurately, in which case he will have been Mevatel the Aseh b'shogeg, though I suppose it could easily be argued that it's more of a "shogeg karov l'meizid" if he hasn't even tried to judge her mood accurately.) But there is no flip side to Onah. The wife has no responsibility to judge her husband's desires. In fact, even if she does realize that he is "in the mood", there is no Chiyuv d'Oraisa for her to ignore her other desires and respond to her husband's desires. Sure, it could well be advisable for her to do so for Shalom Bayis reasons, and one might even call it a "chiyuv" in that context, but the imbalance remains: Her chiyuv would be Shalom Bayis alone, while the husband must deal with both Shalom Bayis and Onah. That's what I meant by "objectify": Much of Orach Chaim 240 is to protect the wife from a forcible rape (for instance, she can't be asleep or drunk), and much is also to protect her from more subtle rape (such as thinking of another woman). But there are far fewer protections offered to the husband. Neither can be drunk, and neither can have decided to divorce, but in general, the wife is within her rights to demand relations whenever she wants, and to me, this can "objectify" the husband. RTK reminds us that the husband *will* have pleasure from this. But that is exactly my point: If someone is required to have a pleasure that (for whatever reason) he does not actually *desire*, it is a sort of rape. RTK also wrote: <<< He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her. But human beings derive pleasure from each other all the time, ... it is just absurd to think that if another person gives me some kind of pleasure, I have "objectified" that person. >>> You are correct. Merely receiving pleasure does not automatically objectify a person. But if one receives pleasure without returning that pleasure to the giver, this carries a danger of objectifying the giver. And if one receives pleasure against the giver's will, that is the very definition of "objectifying" (in my view). R"n Chana Luntz wrote: <<< In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? And further read the Tur (and the meforshim on the Tur) in Even HaEzer simin 25 to get a fuller picture of the sources (and the original gemora sources) - so you can see the history of the machlokus on how to deal with this issue all the way back. >>> Indeed, the first few times I saw that Rema, he seemed to be saying, verbatim, that "you can do anything you want, and whenever you want to do it." A sexual hefkervelt, a world with no rules. But a more careful reading shows that he is only making two specific points: That there are no restrictions on positions, and that (as we've already said in this thread) the timing restrictions of O"C 240 are a "madrega" but not the basic halacha. But aside from these points, I see OC 240 and EH 25 as very similar: Their main focus concerns the *mental* state, and it is in this area (it seems to me) that Shulchan Aruch - including all acharonim until quite recently - endorses a very prishus-oriented approach. RCL again: <<< I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the influence of the outside world. ... In a world which identified relations with sin and death (standard Xtian theology of the time, and the Muslim theology in many circles was not that different) - it would have been inappropriate, and led to general looseness if the general non Jewish world view had been repudiated to the extent consonant with the positive positions found in Chazal. >>> There are many responses I could give to this. Perhaps the simplest would be: So then let Shulchan Aruch be silent; why did they choose to pasken overtly like the prishus view? Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 10 05:08:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:08:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: To continue from my previous post: R"n Chana Luntz wrote: <<< In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? >>> I think it is noteworthy that the Aruch Hashulchan often goes out of his way to justify the common practice in the face of the consensus of poskim, but does *not* do so in this case. In fact, Aruch Hashulchan EH 25:11 quotes the same Tur as the Rama did, but emphatically warns us *against* following it. This suggests that the turning of the tide, from a more prishus-oriented view to something else, occurred more recently than the days of the Aruch Hashulchan. Can anyone suggest a more precise time? Or, to put my question more blatantly: Does the less-prishus-oriented view appear only in recent articles such as the one by Rav Lichtenstein, and in the sort of verbal psakim such as he received? Does it appear anywhere at all in any of the seforim that one might happen to be learning, such as the Igros Moshe, Tzitz Eliezer, or similar? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 07:14:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akirah In-Reply-To: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> References: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150811141458.GA31500@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 6:22pm EDT, I wrote: : The issue comes up in AhS YD 24:42... : There is a machloqes between the Behag and Rashi about the line between : aqirah and tereifos. Rashi says that aqira is the displacement of the : qaneh or veshet caused by using a nicked knife. Most rishonim hold : like the Behag, and then there is a submachloqes about what kind of : dislocated simanim are aqirah, and what are tereifos. Leshitas Rashi, : they would all be tereifos. : : Anyway, here the AhS says that Rama holds that midinei shechitah, : we are machmir for every definition of aqirah. But midinei tereifah, : which differ in that it would also prohibit the milk or eggs from such : an animal, we recognize that the iqar hedin if the Behag, and are meiqil. In response RAF sent me offlist an essay he wrote in Dec 2001, titled "Hagdaras Iqur Simanim baTalmud", which I put up on-line here . The article does a survey of various definitions of ique hasimanim, which vary amazingly widely. He lists some causes: - The discussion is in scattered snippets across Chullin, not one organized sugya. - The rishonim do not agree about the girsa of the gemara that contrasts iqur from tereifah. - The rishonim do not even agree on basic defining features about iqur simanim. RAF also mentioned to me: "I have a very different peshat in ikkur, based on actually looking at the Behag." Sec. 4 does appear to quote a Behag that is at odds with the mesorah about shitas haBehag that the baalei Tosafos received. We've discussed the relationship between errors in reception and whether finding one would change pesaq before. Here, the nafqa mina lemaaseh is small but real, as per above. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: If anyone else has a Torah article they want up on-line, feel free to ask. -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 15:53:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:53:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150811225301.GA13480@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 12:55:06AM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : Here are the sources I have collected, in addition to the fact that a : significant percentage of Modern Orthodox women to not cover their hair in : public except in shul/davening situations. Although there is long evidence of rabbis saying it's a problem, but not a battle they can win. So the mimetic side is dismissable. (Also, how does someone who advocates for more roles for women in shul make a mimetic argument?) : In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of : uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is... : If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered : hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. But saying it's not a breach of tzeni'us doesn't say it's allowed, that's your addition not in the translated text you quote. RYB could mean what the AhS says, that it's terrible things came to this, but you may daven in her presence. Or, that whle it's not a tzeni'us problem, it's still prohibited deOraisa as per the implication in parashas sotah. : Here is a list of easily accessable sources: : Rabbi Marc Angel... Listening to his citing R' Masas and your quoting R Badad, maybe it's a Seph thing? He presumes hair covering is das Yehudis, which makes his a rare shitah. (Again, given the derivation from a pasuq.) But then again, R' Ovadiah Yosef firmly disagrees. But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. ... : I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and : not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. : However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and : everyone can come to their own conclusion. ... which is what he does, that the theory is there, but it's a shitah dechuyah. And noticably, he too quotes R' Yosef Masas, R' Moshe Malka and the Kaf haChaim -- Sepharadi sources. : Rav Yosef Haim... So, assuming the woman doesn't eat qitniyos, may she go with her hair uncovered? And even if she does... At what point is a shitah dechuyah? ... : Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony : of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. : R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: : "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did : not cover her hair? ... : Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in : this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." : I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the : artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with : uncovered hair. : Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat : common... And yet the rabbanim protested. This isn't even admissable as mimetic tradition, any more than noting how often people speak leshon hara or buy off-the-books or anything else rabbis have failed to curb. : uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his : wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. He too, would only need to be convinced is wasn't ervah in the sense of "all those men" sinning. But as we see in the AhS, that doesn't mean it's allowed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 16:00:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:00:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R' Noam Stadlan wrote: <<< Of course there are baseline standards of tzniut for Jew, men and women, that are independent of surrounding culture. But hair covering is not one of them. ... I would note that the vast majority of shittot do not require single women to cover their hair. >>> I both agree and disagree. Hair covering is NOT a "baseline standard", in the sense that it applies only to married women and not to single girls. But hair covering IS a baseline standard for Jewish women, in the sense that it remains in force independent of the surrounding culture. Thus, we have at least three different standards: males, married females, single females. And actually, we have several more than that, if we distinguish among various ages of boy and girl children, not to mention infants. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 21:26:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:26:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: From: Akiva Miller via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) <<< ... for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. >>> [--TK] >> I think we may be understanding the word "objectify" in different ways. Contrary to what some might think, not all men are constantly obsessed with having sex. At any given point in time, a particular man might have other priorities -- other activities that he'd rather do than this one. But a husband cannot give higher priority to these activities over Onah, just like he can't choose them over minyan, or other mitzvos. He must be sensitive to his wife's needs and wants, and if he senses her mood, he is under a chiyuv d'Oraisa to act accordingly.... But there is no flip side to Onah. The wife has no responsibility to judge her husband's desires. In fact, even if she does realize that he is "in the mood", there is no Chiyuv d'Oraisa for her to ignore her other desires and respond to her husband's desires....<< Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) >>>>> There is a great irony in what you have written. You seem to think that there is an inequality, a lack of reciprocity, in the mutual obligations of men and women -- with women having all the power and men all the obligation. It is ironic because the mitzva for men to be sensitive to their wives' feelings derives from the /curse/ that was given to Chava! Look at Rashi on Ber 3:16, "el ishech teshukasech -- your desire will be towards your husband." Rashi says the curse is: You -- the woman -- will desire relations, but will not be so brazen as to request it verbally. Rather, "he will rule over you" -- it is all from him -- the initiative is his -- and not from you. [end Rashi] To modern ears this Rashi might sound strange because the idea that "women are not brazen" sounds so old-fashioned. Modesty has gone out the window in modern society. But even the brazen women -- and certainly the more refined and eidel women -- want to be wanted. By their nature, most women do not want to be the ones taking the initiative or the ones pursuing the men. For most women it is embarrassing to have to ask outright. If you want an example of a woman in the Torah who was brazen even way back then, look at Eishes Potiphar -- "Lie with me." The very fact that she behaved this way shows what a hussy she was, but also, it shows that she was utterly humiliated. Not only was Yosef not seduced by her wiles, but even when she so lost her dignity as to ask him outright, he /still/ refused. It is no wonder she felt such a burning desire for revenge. It was in order to mitigate the harshness of Chava's curse that Chazal instituted the rule that men have to be sensitive to their wives' desires, that a woman should not have to humiliate herself by spelling out what she wants. It is a chessed that a man does for his wife, to mitigate the curse, to somewhat level the playing field in which men have all the advantages! I actually think this a wonderful example of Chazal's extraordinary sensitivity to women. They acknowledge and partially correct an imbalance that favors men at the expense of women, ever since Adam and Chava. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 22:47:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (bk via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:47:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: depression Message-ID: I have worked in the mental health field and have other personal experience with serious depression. The description which you provided "mild depression", would not at all indicate a danger to anyone including daycare children. It seems that the description is very much lacking. Either there is much more to warrant defying her confidence, including/especially to a rav, or someone doesn't understand what depression is all about. I'm assuming that the former is the case. So, the question is, what can we learn from a case in which the problem is not accurate? b'kavod, ChaimBaruch Kaufman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 06:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:19:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waiting Six Hours for Dairy- A Rabbanite Response to Qaraism Message-ID: <20150812131918.925F517FC6A@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/08/waiting-six-hours-for-dairy-rabbanite.html Qaraites are a Jewish group that began around 760 CE. They rejected the Talmud and rabbinic Judaism and insisted that Jews only observe halacha as expressed in the literal text of the Torah. "Qaraite" means "Scriptualist". The movement started in Iraq and Persia by Jews who objected to the authority of the leaders of the Babylonian Talmud Academies, the Gaonim. The Gaonim and their successors, the rishonim, are called Rabbanites because of their stance in defending the Talmud and rabbinic laws. Scholars have noted that many minhagim began as a response to the Qaraite movement. For example, the recital of Bameh Madlikim on Friday evening after davening [1] was started in the times of the Gaonim to reinforce the rabbinic stance on having fire prepared before Shabbos, in opposition to the Qaraite view that no fire may be present in one's home on Shabbos [2]. There is evidence that the reading of Pirkei Avos [3] on Shabbos afternoon, which began in Gaonic times, was to emphasize to the Jewish masses that the Oral Law was passed down since Moshe Rabbeinu as stated in the first mishna of Pirkei Avos. Professor Haym Soloveitchik [4] has argued convincingly that the unique arrangement of Hilchos Shabbos in Rambam's Mishna Torah was organized specifically with anti-Qaraite intent. Briefly, Rambam's formulation of the Shabbos laws does not follow a chronological order or any other expected logical order. See the above URL for more. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:03:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 11:25:27AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : R' Lichtenstein was bothered by this point and answered that we need to : rely on our teachers and Gedolim. : "Probably most significant, however, is our reliance upon our own mentors. : Sensing that modern gedolim, "the judge of your era" -- for our purposes, most : notably, the Rav, but not he alone -- have examined the issue and the evidence : and adopted a positive stance, we, ordinary students of Torah, follow in : their footsteps as we identify with their position... : I understand that for many of us that is not a very satisfying answer and : leads to many questions about why specifically here we follow minority : opinions as opposed to other places (e.g. wombs issues, etc.) but I don't : think there is a better answer. This is the way the halachic system works. To some extent, yes. However, I do not know what halachiccategory is "gedolim". My job is to have my own poseiq, someone ho cnot only knows the halakhah, but knows me and my situation. Or to get as close to that as possible. My rav's job is to have experts to inform him, and to know when a question is either too complicated for his skills, or the stakes to high (eg mamzeirus, potential intercommunal fallout, or....) to not consult others, starting with his own rav. Yes, you will eventually reach the few at the head of the pyramid, so I guess we can call them "the gedolim", and their opinions will end up shaping policy on big or broad issues. But I do not think RYBS would be happy learning that he had a talmid in the job of mara de'asra who had so little confidence in his own ability to map theory to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronos and desires of the people in it that he hands the job off to people who know less of that reality. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:19:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:19:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> References: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150812201911.GB8165@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 11:28:31PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the : influence of the outside world. The same sort of influence that reputedly : led to the cherem of Rabbi Gershom (Jews who are supposed to be the : upholders of morality cannot be seen to have more than one wife in a world : where that is seen as immoral)... I understood this as well as the Sho'el uMeishiv's take on intellectual property in a single way, and slightly different than your explanation. The Sho'el uMeishiv invokes "lo sehei Torah shelanu kesichah beteilah shelahem. If they recognize a kind of property as a right our native sense finds moral, we obviously must obligated to protect it as well. This is not DDD, as the protection isn't to the extent of the civi law, but to the extent of the halakhos of property. He is identifying a moral obligation we must halachically defend, not the civil law in and of itself... My understanding is that it's not that we learned morality from their law, but their law reflects a new social contract. The new expectations are a change in metzi'us. Now that we expect to have intellectual property, that is part of the new situation, to which a new pesaq applies. Similarly, I understood Rabbeinu Gershom's mandating monogamy in the same terms. He was less worried about being seen as immoral, or learning morality from Xian marriage norms. Rather, once society created different expectations of what marriage is, we had no ability nor obligation to reset to the old expectations (after all, even chazal referred to sister wives as "tzaros"), and therefore have to support a moral solution to the new expactations. A woman gets married expecting a man for herself. Rabbeinu Gershom mandated treating that woman morally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:22:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150812202233.GC8165@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:04:47PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : ... But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent : the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no corresponding : safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. Given the size of the two porn industries, or the difference between what "porn" usually refers to and locating smut in a romance novel, I would think that it's not just Chazal who would conclude the threat of objectfication is assymetric. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 16:24:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:24:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> References: , <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <13CC426F-297A-4E3A-AC33-979E5391FA35@sibson.com> > > But I do not think RYBS would be happy learning that he had a talmid in > the job of mara de'asra who had so little confidence in his own ability > to map theory to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronos > and desires of the people in it that he hands the job off to people who > know less of that reality. > > I agree but I think it's also true That RYBS would not be happy learning that he had a talmid in the job of mara de'asra who had so so much confidence in his own ability to create the theory to map to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronosand desires of the people in it that he doesn't hand the job off to those more qualified to break new ground. Kol tuv 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 20:21:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:21:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: I wrote: : ... But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent : the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no : corresponding safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. R' Micha Berger responded: > Given the size of the two porn industries, or the difference > between what "porn" usually refers to and locating smut in a > romance novel, I would think that it's not just Chazal who > would conclude the threat of objectfication is assymetric. Chazal were aware of the differences between those two industries, and they suggested reasons for it on the top few lines of Kesubos 64b. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 12:36:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:36:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Copyright Message-ID: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> Back in Jun 2001, Napster was in the news, and I heard a shiur from R Zev Reichman, then of REITS' Kollel Elyon. So at the first on-list mention of copyrights, I used it as an excuse to post a summary on-list at and . It's been 14 years, and I just learned of a beautiful einfahl by R' Asher Weiss on the subject. So, I'm reviewing the list, and adding to it. (v7n58 #13 is marked ">", #4 is marked ":".) > 1- Dina dimalchusa issues: > According to Tosafos on Gittin, dina dimalchusah dinah is only on > taxation. > The Beis Yitzchak does rule that ddd applies here. However, RZR opined > that ddd still wouldn't apply apply to Sony Bono's law that was aimed > specifically at Disney, allowing them to extend their copyright on some > animated characters. It's not an evenly applied rule. > 2- I already cited the most chamur, the Sho'el uMeishiv 1:44, who goes > beyond ddd. : The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral : obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it : is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership : of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal : (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights : are lehalachah also eternal. : Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for : that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a : halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos : of copyright. : I just want to note the SuM's assumption, and the importance he assigns : moral rights identified by the surrounding culture. > RZR wondered if the SuM would also recognize the French philosophy of > copyright: that the artist could sell reproduction and profit rights, but > eternally retains rights to controlling how the idea is changed. (So even > if you sell a painting, the owner is allowed to copy it, but not modify > it.) After all, this is also a secularly identified moral right. Would > it be a halachah only in France? > 3- Hasagas gevul: > There is an old cheirem, invoked in many if not most haskamos for a few > centuries, against copying sefarim. (The SuM mentions it.) The cheirem > is at least as old as the publication of Tomer Devora (about a century > after it was written) -- because it's mentioned in the haskamos. That > if one copies the sefer beli reshus, or buys such a copy he is subject > to the cheirem and will lose all the berachos showered on people who > learn TOmer Devorah listed in the begining of the haskamah. > The Chasam Sofer traces the cheirem back to the Maharam Padua's edition of > the Rambam. After he invested all the time and money preparing the plates, > a non-Jewish publisher, Justinian, took those plates and printed his > own copy of the Yad, charging one gold coin less than the original. The > Rama said that anyone who bought a Justinian edition was under cheirem, > as they prevented him from recouping his loss. > Given this lashon, the CS concludes that the problem is hasagas gezul. > However, as RZR noted, hasagas gevul only applies to unfair competition, > not to give copies away as a tzadakah or a fundraiser. > This is also the conclusion of R' Moshe. R' Bleich, back when he was > a talmid at Torah Vadaas found a rare publication of a notebook of R' > Chaim and had it published as a TvD fundraiser. The original publisher > found out about it and cried "hasagas gevul". They went to R' Moshe who > ruled in favor of R' Bleich. > 4- Issur geneivah: > R' Bleich himself, when writing on the subject, quotes "ein berei'ach > mishum me'ilah", and that there is no geneivah without a cheftzah. > 5- Hezek > Now we're in "Micha's 2 cents" territory. Li nir'eh that even for a > tzedakah to do it, even if not hasagas gevul, you are causing hezek to > someone who would otherwise earn money. > Even if not quantifiably assur, I would want to invoke bal tishaktzu on > this one. > 6- Chilul Hashem > In a case like Napster, where the case will have a kol and a trial in > the press, I would think that the risk of chillul Hashem, and therefore > *dinei nefashos*, is enough to assur it -- even in cases where the > copying would be found to be technically legal. 7- Chamas So I heard from R' J Ziring (YUTorah.org) that R' Asher Weiss in a 2013 shiur compared the theft of intellectual property to the dor hamabul (after revisiting some of the above). I found a blog post of RJZ's that describes it or : Chazal explain that the sin of the dor hamabul was that they would each steal less than a shaveh perutah. Thus, in the aggregate they would destroy people's livelihood, but none of them could be prosecuted in court. From here he argued that there is an issur to do something, which while not formally theft, lends to a society that destroys other people's financial well being. If no one respects intellectual property, then inventors, writers, and the like will have no way of supporting himself. Thus, even if no one can properly be called a gazlan, they have all participated in chamas. Tir'u baTov! -Micha > PS: While on the subject, I should point out that we obtain reshus to > include any emails that are reposted on Avodah. When asking, I make it > clear that a copy will appear in the web archive as well. -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 15:08:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baal Nefesh in the Igeros Moshe Message-ID: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> R' Elli Fischer contrasted the use of baal nefesh yachmir in the MB with its use in the IM. (Also heard via R' Jonathan Ziring.) The MB uses baal nefesh yachmir to refer to chumeros where the person is acting in a way to fulfill all shitos. The MB lists the more recent opinions, and then advises that the baal nefesh follow the most stringent. (Although I believe we found in previous iterations that the MB doesn't actualy use the expression particularly often. The IM argues that chalav hacompanies is actually chalav yisrael, so that there is no textual reason to only drink milk that was literally Yisrae'el ro'ahu, as opposed to using anan sahade eidus. But leshitaso, FDA certified milk is kosher even according to the Peri Chadash. (YD 1:47) In 1:48 he dismisses all other possibilities, and then says baal nefesh yachmir. RMF's baal nefesh is not being chosheish for all shitos, he dismissed those other shitos. Instead he is keeping minhag yisrael saba beyond halakhah. Pretty much the opposite of the MB's baal nefesh, who is ignoring accepted pesaq in order to make sure all the textual bases are covered. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 20:27:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 05:27:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Baal Nefesh in the Igeros Moshe In-Reply-To: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> References: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55CD6005.7020707@zahav.net.il> I don't have it open in front of me, but IIRC, in his psak on eating veal RMF makes it very, very clear that the baal nefesh will not eat it and anyone who does is (to use my words) walking on thin ice. The way he relates to a baal nefesh in the CY issue (it is a nice thing to do but if you don't keep, no big deal) vs the veal issue (you really shouldn't be eating this stuff) is stark. Ben On 8/14/2015 12:08 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In 1:48 he dismisses all other possibilities, and then says baal nefesh > yachmir. RMF's baal nefesh is not being chosheish for all shitos, he > dismissed those other shitos. Instead he is keeping minhag yisrael saba > beyond halakhah. > > Pretty much the opposite of the MB's baal nefesh, who is ignoring accepted > pesaq in order to make sure all the textual bases are covered. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 14 12:13:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Heather Luntz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 20:13:15 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> I have been struggling with this thread, but have not found it easy to explain why, although I will do my best: On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:153am EDT, R Saul Guberman wrote: : RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & : the Tosafists. : http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ : Our *Torah shebe'al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish : history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a : great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, : but the *Torah shebe'al peh* would have survived without him. However, : without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, : any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe'al peh* today. And RMB then wrote: >Which is a different statement than the subject line. >I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to >the survival of mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue understanding the gemara. I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? I really struggle with that statement. Now, if you want to limit the claim, and say that Rashi and Tosphos are far more key than the Rambam to what people do in modern day yeshivas all day, including (if not particularly) the Briskers, then it would be hard to disagree. But is what people are doing in yeshiva all day in the 21st century "the mesorah" or is the Shulchan Aruch "the mesorah"? What are the consequences if we relegate the Shulchan Aruch and elevate the Tosphists in terms of halacha as she is practiced? Somehow these seem troubling directions in which to be heading, but I must log off as shabbas is coming very soon in this part of England (and I, for one, am not about to rely on Rabbanu Tam, Tosphotist par excellence, regardless of his mesorah, I don't know about you,). -Micha Shabbat Shalom Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 14 13:48:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:48:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 08:13:15PM +0100, Heather Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> Which is a different statement than the subject line. : :> I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah :> through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who :> stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of mesorah :> than the parshanim... : : I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan : Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the : Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, : we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. : : Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the : Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? Let me make it far more more explicit. The subject line differs from my understanding of RGS' expansion of RYGB's idea in that it claims "Mesora ONLY through Rashi" (emphasis added), whereas I heard them talking about cofication being "less critical". Comparative terms, not absolute ones. IOW, the mesorah could survive without codes, if we had to. But it couldn't survive without parshanim. Without them we couldn't handle any new case that isn't in a code, nor even have the skills to always determine which are the new cases. In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that discusses how the conclusions are reached. Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The parshan connects the past to the now. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 15:41:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:41:09 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> I wrote: : I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan : Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the : Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, : we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. : : Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the : Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? And RMB replied: <<>Let me make it far more more explicit. The subject line differs from my understanding of RGS' expansion of RYGB's idea in that it claims "Mesora ONLY through Rashi" (emphasis added), whereas I >heard them talking about cofication being "less critical". Comparative terms, not absolute ones. >IOW, the mesorah could survive without codes, if we had to. But it couldn't survive without parshanim. Without them we couldn't handle any new case that isn't in a code, nor even have the >skills to always determine which are the new cases.>> Firstly of course, the Rambam wrote his perush on Mishnayos, so I don't think it is merely parshanut that distinguishes the two. Secondly, in the Rambam's code there are various "nire li" statements where he comes across areas where the answer from the gemora is not clear, and he therefore inserts his own view. It seems slightly bizarre to suggest that he or the Shulchan Aruch ever assumed that their code would make determining new cases more difficult, nor does that seem accurate historically. >In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that >discusses how the conclusions are reached. So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no Rambam and no Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any distinction at all between the halacha of the Orthodox and the halacha as championed by the Conservative movement? Is that not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would of necessity lead (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent than we have today - one that would perforce have to embrace the Conservative movement, and certainly all the forms of Open Orthodoxy that RGS is so vehemently against. Part of RAM's distress on one of the other threads on this list at the moment, regarding modern day psak vis a vis sexual relations versus the postion of the Shulchan Aruch has to do with the fact that Orthodoxy in general (although not, I would note, at least some of the Chassidic movements, such as Ger, and possibly increasingly not other groups within the Charedi world) has without appearing to notice, abandoned the position as set out in the Shuchan Aruch (albeit for one that can be said to be the more majority position of Chazal). But take the codes out of the equation and *all* these multiple rishonic positions become tenable, allowing a general free for all within the vastness of the parshanut tradition. The codes therefore are a critical part of what might be considered a dual process - equivalent to the situation where one first brainstorms ideas, and then whittles away to those most tenable. There are of course, situations where Sephardim do not posken like the Shulchan Aruch, and there are even more situations where Ashkenazim do not hold like the Rema, preferring a Shach, Taz or Magen Avraham (or even a Bach). But in the post-Shulchan Aruch world the conversation that RAM has been leading on the other thread is fundamental and critical - if we do not posken like the Shuchan Aruch in the particular case in question - we need to understand and investigate precisely why not, because by and large, the Shulchan Aruch draws the line as to where we go or do not go halacha l'ma'aseh. Without the Shulchan Aruch, we are only left with the brainstorming side of the halachic endeavour, and that means - as I intimated in my closing remarks, that if you find Rabbanu Tam's shkia analysis compelling (or indeed, that of a more minor rishon), there would seem to be little to prevent you holding like it halacha l'ma'aseh. What would hold us together? Indeed you are, I see, engaged in a debate regarding hair covering on another thread. But surely those who seek to justify the practice of many, many women who otherwise led and lead fully halachic lives are full square within the mesorah of tosphos. It is only those who also have an eye to the codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in the light of common practice. >Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The parshan connects the past to the now. That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation handed over to the next. And the generation of the Shulchan Aruch, in accepting it as "The" Code which shall be followed in most circumstances (with exceptions) handed that down to all generations following - making the Shulchan Aruch the mesorah par excellence. I can debate the nature of shkia with the Tosphotists in a conversation down the generations, but my mesorah regarding Shabbas is unlikely to be based upon any such conversation, nor is it expected to be. If you want to redefine the word mesorah to mean only that which Rashi has given us, then of course the title of this thread becomes 100% correct, just rather pointless. Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more of them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the Rambam, were able to formulate their halachic conclusions. Without them it would be far more difficult to have anything like the number of people we have today engaging with the gemora. The Rambam in contrast might well not see the point - if you can't manage without Rashi and Tosphos, then, in his view, maybe you shouldn't be trying, and should be relying on his code instead, leaving gemora engagement to the true elite who should be leading the people. That aspect of the Rambam's view has not dominated as "the mesorah" - using the more commonly understood use of the term. While we might debate the length of time that should be spent in yeshiva, and whether one should do work/army instead of long term yeshiva study - there is pretty close to universal agreement within Orthodoxy that all Jews should spend at least some significant time engaging with the fundamental texts, even if they are of only average intelligence. But what people do in yeshiva is still, in my view, only a small slice of "the mesorah", as it is commonly understood (as opposed to as redefined by RYBS) and a far greater slice is the Shuchan Aruch itself, and for that, the Rambam's influence is surely pre-eminent. >-Micha Shavuah tov Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 13:35:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:35:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim Message-ID: Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? [image: --] Shui Haber [image: https://]about.me/shuihaber *"The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are."* ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 19:20:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:20:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55CFF350.3030205@sero.name> On 08/15/2015 04:35 PM, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: > Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? Devarim 6:13, 10:20. Hil' Yesodei Hatorah 2:1 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 22:14:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:14:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R. Micha offered the following critiques: > Although there is long evidence of rabbis saying it's a problem, but > not a battle they can win. So the mimetic side is dismissable. (Also, > how does someone who advocates for more roles for women in shul make a > mimetic argument?) If the same rabbi's whose wives were not covering hair were the same ones saying it is a problem, this critique makes sense. otherwise, there is no reason to say that those whose wives were not covering their hair were unhappy with the mitziut. The mimetic argument here is that the shitta existed and was followed. It doesn't mean that it is obligatory. So I think this is apples and oranges regarding roles of women in shul. >: In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of >: uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is... >: If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered >: hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. > But saying it's not a breach of tzeni'us doesn't say it's allowed, > that's your addition not in the translated text you quote. RYB could > mean what the AhS says, that it's terrible things came to this, but you > may daven in her presence. Or, that whle it's not a tzeni'us problem, > it's still prohibited deOraisa as per the implication in parashas sotah. I think that you are making a moving target, one rationale knocked down and another rationale surfaces. Obviously hair covering could be mandated for a number of different reasons, but all of them? I am not sure it is necessary to be yotzei l'chol hadayot and even if so, the sources who permit, permit it regardless of the rationale against. I also have to go back and look at the source because I think it said more than the quote. >: Here is a list of easily accessable sources: >: Rabbi Marc Angel... > He presumes hair covering is das Yehudis, which makes his a rare > shitah. (Again, given the derivation from a pasuq.) > But then again, R' Ovadiah Yosef firmly disagrees. He obviously is not paskening like R. Ovadiah > But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And > two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. There are Ashkenazim among the sources as well.....I am illustrating that not only the shitah exists, but was followed and continues to be followed by a significant segment of the MO community. And, were it not for the shoah, it seems that a large segment of Lithuanian Jewry would still be following it. ... >: I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and >: not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. >: However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and >: everyone can come to their own conclusion. > ... which is what he does, that the theory is there, but it's a shitah > dechuyah. And noticably, he too quotes R' Yosef Masas, R' Moshe Malka > and the Kaf haChaim -- Sepharadi sources. >: Rav Yosef Haim... > So, assuming the woman doesn't eat qitniyos, may she go with her hair > uncovered? Again, apples and oranges, or peanuts and sesame. It isn't just a Sephardi shita. > And even if she does... At what point is a shitah dechuyah? Good question. From my limited point of view, if it makes sense and some Rabbonim of at least some stature (and I think Rav Messas et al quality) hold that position, it is not dechuyah. What is your definition? ... >: Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony >: of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. >: R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: >: "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did >: not cover her hair? ... >: Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in >: this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." >: I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the >: artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with >: uncovered hair. >: Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat >: common... > And yet the rabbanim protested. This isn't even admissable as mimetic > tradition, any more than noting how often people speak leshon hara or > buy off-the-books or anything else rabbis have failed to curb. I do not agree. Many in Meah Shearim protest that all women do not wear long thick stockings but that doesn't mean that every rabbi holds that long thick stockings are obligatory. if it is the rabbi whose wife didn't cover her hair, you have an argument. otherwise I suggest that those who protest do not speak for everyone. >: uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his >: wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. > He too, would only need to be convinced is wasn't ervah in the sense of > "all those men" sinning. But as we see in the AhS, that doesn't mean > it's allowed. It is a possible option, but not the probable one. It seems you are going out of your way to figure out how this could occur in consonance with your pre-selected approach, rather than accepting the most likely and obvious rationale. kol tuv. Noam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 16 14:05:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:05:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150816210531.GE28046@aishdas.org> : I think that you are making a moving target, one rationale knocked down : and another rationale surfaces... You gave two counterarguments: 1- Ashkenazi mimeticism 2- A list of sources that appear to be predominantly if not entirely Sepharadi. I therefore gave a teo part reply: 1- Ashk mimeticism was consistently gainst rabbinic will. Even the AhS who weighs halakhah-as-practiced as a major factor in pesaq laments the ubiquitous sin of neglecting this din. He also says it's not ervah. So, the sole person who does spell out Ashk position gives me no reason to equate either (1a) ubiquity nor (1b) a textual statement ruling out ervah with permissability. 2- Those sources are not only Seph, but are possibly dechuyos in their community as well. But at the end of the day, I did write: :> But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And :> two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. (And I still find it ironic that someone making a mimetic argument about hair covering wants to also change the role of women by looking at tets to the exclusion of 3-1/3 millenia of common practice.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 17 08:59:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 11:59:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Soloveitchik on Single Women Lighting Shabbat Candles Message-ID: <20150817155949.GA11283@aishdas.org> http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/single-women-lighting-shabbat-candles Snippet: Torah Musings Halakhic Positions of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik Single Women Lighting Shabbat Candles By Aharon Ziegler on Aug 14, 15 1:00 am in Halakhic Positions ... ... Those who have family customs and if their minhag [custom] is that the single women do not light their own candles then they should certainly not deviate from their custom- "Ve'al Titosh Torat I'mecha"... ... .... As a matter of fact Rav Soloveitchik suggested that Le'chat'chila, all women should indeed first turn off the electric lights, light the Shabbat candles, open the electric lights and then recite the Beracha. Regarding single girls, Rav Soloveitchik noted that this was the practice in Europe, even in his town, and that is how the Rav practiced with his daughters when they were single-that they lit their own candles, even with a Beracha, even when his wife also lit candles with a Beracha. Interestingly, RYBS promoted mimeticism in not taking on the practice of lighting candles if one's mother and grandmother didn't light when they were single and still living with their parents. Yet in the same discussion, he acknowledges how the new reality of electric lights makes relying on the mimeticism of making the berachah on the candles / oil alone just a bedi'eved. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 01:22:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 04:22:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Copyright In-Reply-To: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> References: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55D2EB40.1060303@sero.name> On 08/13/2015 03:36 PM, in a message that Gmail, for some reason, decided was spam, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Beis Yitzchak does rule that ddd applies here. However, RZR opined > that ddd still wouldn't apply apply to Sony Bono's law that was aimed > specifically at Disney, allowing them to extend their copyright on some > animated characters. It's not an evenly applied rule. This isn't true. > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, > it is impossible that the Torah is less moral. This assumes its own conclusion. The exact same reasoning could have been used during the Jim Crow era to "prove" that the Torah requires racial segregation of shuls and yeshivos, or during Prohibition to "prove" that the Torah requires teetotalism. > Now we're in "Micha's 2 cents" territory. Li nir'eh that even for a > tzedakah to do it, even if not hasagas gevul, you are causing hezek to > someone who would otherwise earn money. Even if not quantifiably assur, > I would want to invoke bal tishaktzu on this one. Why should he earn that money? You could invoke the same idea against giving anything away to someone who might otherwise have bought it. Every wedding takes parnassah away from wherever the guests might have bought their dinner that night. Sellers do not own their customers, and have no rights to them. > Chazal explain that the sin of the dor hamabul was that they would > each steal less than a shaveh perutah. [...] From here he argued > that there is an issur to do something, which while not formally theft, Stop right there. Stealing less than a shaveh pruta *is* formally theft. The thief is over on lo sigzol. It's not *returnable*, which is an entirely different matter. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 17 22:18:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:18:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Splendor of Clothes Message-ID: <20150818051824.9B2F7183235@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/the-splendor-of-clothes/ Rav Soloveitchik further added that wearing a Yarmulke, a Kippa, is more dignified than a baseball cap. He said, "If the President of the United States suddenly appeared and wanted to take a picture with me, would I wear a Russian hat, a baseball cap,- or a Kippa? That is the way we should stand Shemoneh Esrei when addressing the King of the Universe, HaKadosh Baruch-Hu. See the above URL for more. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 15:08:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:08:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150818220842.GA26873@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:35:26PM +0300, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: : Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? While it's obligatory (see Zev's citations), I am not sure it's halakhah rather than something prior to halakhah. As in Moshe rabbeinu's list: Mah H' sho'el mei'imakh, ki im - leyir'ah es H' Elokekha - lalekhes bekhol derakhav - ule'avah oso - vela'avod es H' Elokekha... - lishmor es mitzvos H' ve'es chuqosav... It would seem that MRAH is excluding these for thing from the realm of mitzvos and chuqim, and yet still mandatory. Even though the Rambam calls "lalekhes bekhol derakhav" to be "HILKHOS Dei'os". I don't know how to shtim this with the pasuq. It seems more like the Rambam's approach, that there is a duty of pursuing qedushah, yashrus and tov in ways beyond the limits of black-letter halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 10:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:17:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halachic Requirement for Dayanim Evaluating In-Person Facial Expressions of Parties in Bais Din In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150819171747.GA2506@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:49:07AM -0700, Baruch Cohen via Avodah wrote: : ... The Mishnah describes how the members of the Sanhedrin : sat in a row in the shape of a half-circle... : Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin 1:3) ... : The Tosefta : (8:1) cites differing opinions regarding the seating position of the : President of the Sanhedrin. Tanna Kamma holds that the President sat in the : center of the semi-circle, with thirty-five of the members of the Sanhedrin : seated on each side of him. R' Elazar b. Tzadok says that when Rabban : Gamliel sat in the Sanhedrin in Yavne, one of the sages sat to his right, : and all the others sat to his left.... My apologies to RBC that I don't have any thoughts about his intended topic, but he got me thinking about something else... To quote myself from 2010 : > REMT quoted the IE, which I found at Shemos 25:37, in what Bar Ilan > calls the short version of the IE: > Neiroseha: And the qadmonim said that one lamp was in the middle > ve"hashisha ne'erachim ze achar ze bachatzi iggul" (to cut-n-paste > from REMT's post) > And after the scripture said "vehei'ir al eiver paneha", and the > reason for "al eiver" one [eiver], behold the shape is clear. Not semicircular as seen from the front, but the lamps in that pattern as seen from above. Continuing: > The IE appears to very explicitly places all the lamps on the same side > of the middle one. Similarly, in the long version of the IE, Shemos 27:21: > Yaarokh: baavur hayos haneiros bechatzi igul. Ve'od adaber al zeh. Notice that leshitaso, the layout of the Sanhderin parallels the layout of the neiros in the keli most associated with chokhmah. Which makes it interesting that the definition of neir ma'aravi also parallels the machloqes about where the nasi sat. We generally assume it's the middle lamp, on the central shaft. However, Tamid 33a speaks of the two western lights, which we also find implied in Abayei hava mesader, "hatavas shetei neiros" being at a different time than "hatavav 5 neiros". >From which Rashi (see also Rashi Menachos 86b "mimenah hayah madliq") concludes that the neir ma'ariv was the 2nd in the row. So it looks like a two machloqes, leshitasam, setup. But... IE's semicircular menorah is based on the idea that the middle lamp was westmost, the other lamps curving off toward the NE and SE directions. A variant on the shitah that the menorah stood so the lamps run north to south. The idea that the 2nd was the ner hama'ari has the lamps running from west to east. The 2 neiros on the west are lit on their own. The second from the west end is the neir hama'arivi, a title not given the westmost candle because it is lit facing the NhM, with the wick on the east. But that leshitasam looked so pretty! Anyone want to help me salvage it? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 12:25:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:25:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? In-Reply-To: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> References: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150819192519.GB2506@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 12:28:27AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Question-from a torah point of view should it make a difference : who shows up at the therapist's (or Rabbi's)door (for any therapy or : advice)? How does Halacha balance the needs of the individual, the : family, the community, Jewish society and/or society in general? Confidentiality and for that matter focusing on the needs of the client serves society in general in the long run. Society needs not only therapists, but therapists clients are willing to get help from. If we tell therapists that they are to compromise client trust for the sake of the family, community or society, we will lose that. So, even if halakhah requires factoring others' needs in to a greater extent, it might not change things all that much. (After all, the profession developed those standards for a reason. That reason needn't reflect a different set of values.) There are also the secondary effects of the law... If someone loses the opportunity to offer therapy because disobeying those standards open them up to threat of suit or legal consequences, we still lose the therapy. Which has to be factored in to the halachic decision. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 14:45:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:45:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Bais Hamussar] The Small Things Message-ID: <20150819214542.GD812@aishdas.org> ----- Forwarded message from Bais Hamussar ----- Bais Hamussar Al Sheim HaRav Shlomo Wolbe zt"l Shoftim - Elul Rav Wolbe (Daas Shlomo) cites a mind boggling Medrash (Bereishis Rabba 2:7). Reb Avahu said, "From the beginning of time Hashem gazed at both the actions of the righteous and the actions of the wicked. Yet, it is not clear whose actions He desired. Once the Torah writes, 'And Hashem saw the light that it was good' it is clear that He desires the actions of the righteous and not the actions of the wicked." What is this supposed to mean? Could there be a possibility that Hashem prefers the actions of the wicked over the actions of the righteous? Rav Simcha Zissel Ziv, the Alter of Kelm, offers a beautiful explanation. Indeed, even the wicked perform good deeds. However, they limit their good deeds to grandiose actions whose effects can be heard around the world. They will found organizations, create moral ideologies and give their lives for the sake of their country. In contrast, the righteous focus on the small, even minuscule, actions. Chazal were asking who's good deeds are superior -- those performed by the righteous or those performed by the wicked? The answer was provided by the Torah: Hashem prefers the small actions of the righteous over the high-flying deeds of the wicked. A similar idea is mentioned by the Rambam. He asserts that for one who wishes to give tzeddaka, it is better that he give many small donations than one big donation. Many small mitzvos are preferential to a single big action. Rav Yisrael Salanter writes that the focus of teshuva also must be on the small actions. Many are overcome with despair when faced with the prospect of teshuva. "There is no possible way for me to stop speaking lashon hara" or "I simply can't overcome this middah" they lament. However, there is no room for despair when the topic is teshuva. They are absolutely right; at the present time they cannot entirely overcome their inclinations. Nevertheless, they can greatly reduce the severity of their actions if they would merely desist at the times when it is easy for them to refrain from transgressing. If they would take small steps and resist for five minutes here and there, they will already have progressed tremendously down the road of teshuva. With this in mind, our understanding of Chazal's well known statement becomes even more profound. "Hashem says to Klal Yisrael, 'Open for me a hole like the eye of a needle and I will open for you gateways that wagons and carriages will be able to pass through!'" Hashem specifically is interested in the small holes. Teshuva must begin with a focus on the small actions. "Just five minutes" is a mantra that can change your life. I will refrain from lashon hara just for five minutes. I will learn just for five minutes. I will spend just five minutes on helping another Yid. The truth is that sometimes one doesn't even need five minutes. A wave of the hand to motion that one can't talk now can save a person from pages of bittul Torah or loads of lashon hara. Moreover, Hashem guarantees that He will reciprocate our small gesture with a huge dose of Heavenly assistance, as He waves us through big gateways of teshuva! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 20:49:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:49:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: I'm really very unsure what this thread is asking. Let's take, for example, this paragraph from R' Micha Berger: > In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the > BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, > but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that > discusses how the conclusions are reached. What can you possibly mean, that we COULD HAVE limped along without it? We ARE limping along without it! There is so much that is ALREADY missing from the Mesora! There are so many masechtos missing from the Bavli, for example. I suppose it is possible that Ravina and Rav Ashi never saw a need to compile them, but it's much more likely that they were written and then lost, no? Now, imagine, if you will, a halacha which was decided (by a rishon, acharon, it doesn't matter) because of one obscure gemara that some ingenious thinker found and applied to a particular situation. Without this gemara, the halacha pesuka would have been different than we are accustomed to, but because that gemara -- obscure though it might be -- WAS found, and is a legitimate part of our Mesora, the halacha as we know it came to be. There must be hundreds of such halachos, maybe even thousands. But what if that particular gemara was not hiding in Chullin or Makos? Suppose it was a gemara in Terumos? Then that halacha would never be known to us, because that gemara has been lost. R"n Chana Luntz wrote: > Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more > of them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the > Rambam, were able to formulate their halachic conclusions. You do realize, of course, that there was no such person as "Tosphos". The Tosaphists were very real, and very important, but they were not the ones to decide on the inclusion or exclusion of any particular comment. That was the choice of the publisher of the gemara, and if his whim had gone in another direction, who knows what other views would have gotten more press coverage. (Yes, I know that there are many volumes filled with the writings of even the most obscure Tosaphists, but the fact remains that getting included in the standard printed edition is the path to widest influence.) My point is that while RMB and RCL are trying to imagine what Torah would look like without Tosaphos, as I see it, even the Tosaphos that we do have is a somewhat random document. If Hashgacha (or, some might prefer, blind luck) had gone in another direction, Tosaphos would be very different, and practical halacha with it. But it doesn't stop there. Need I remind anyone that even our Torah Sheb'ksav is a reconstruction (or, some might prefer, an approximation) created by the Baalei Mesorah? If the sources that they worked from had been just a bit different, then our Sifrei Torah today would be different too. And yet, somehow we manage. We use the Torah that we have today, because it rendered the previous versions (the source material of the Baalei Mesorah) to be passul. What an amazing concept! One day, these several Sifrei Torah, all with known yichus, each had its own chezkas kashrus. And the next day, a new document, different from those that preceded it, comes to center stage and replaces the others! I would like to suggest that this is exactly how it would have worked if there was no Rashi, or no Rabenu Tam, or no Rambam, or no Rav Yosef Karo: We would use whatever we did have, and that would be our Torah. It would be different than the Torah that we do have, but so what? Rashi's Torah was different too! IN CLOSING, RCL asked: > So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no > Rambam and no Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any > distinction at all between the halacha of the Orthodox and the > halacha as championed by the Conservative movement? Is that > not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would of necessity lead > (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent than > we have today ... If you've been following me, then my answer to this should be clear: No! This "much broader tent" is pure speculation. If we had no Rav ABC to guide us, the void would have been filled by Rav XYZ, whose views might have been to the right, to the left, or the same. And in *exactly* the same manner as how we are obligated by the new Torah created by the Baalei Mesorah, the possibility of differences is much less important than our confidence and emunah that this Torah is the right one FOR US. Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller on gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:19:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:19:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mesorah only through rashi Message-ID: <> Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against the concept. Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own interpretation and not rely or be bound by any text. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:29:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:29:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mimetism Message-ID: <> I understood mimetism and trying to follow the custom of one's family. This is of no help when the physical circumstances have changed. Would anyone suggest using outdoor toilets because that is what our ancestors did and would object to an indoor bathroom. Plumbing changed the halacha. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:25:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:25:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] splendor of clothes Message-ID: > Rav Soloveitchik further added that wearing a Yarmulke, a Kippa, is > more dignified than a baseball cap. He said, "If the President of the > United States suddenly appeared and wanted to take a picture with me, > would I wear a Russian hat, a baseball cap,- or a Kippa? That is the > way we should stand Shemoneh Esrei when addressing the King of the > Universe, HaKadosh Baruch-Hu. The average person would also not wear a black hat while taking a picture with the president. I have noted before there has become a new minhag of wearing a hat all the time not only when wearing davening or saying a bracha. I went this week to a charedi wedding and most of the men wore their hats throughout the meal. OTOH I also went to a shiur of Rav Zilberstein this week. Throughout the shiur he wore a kippah. In the break he took some food and put on his hat for the bracha and then removed it for the shiur. This is also what I observed from RYBS If so why do other rabbis insist on giving a shiur wearing a hat? [Email #2.] BTW I just received a copy of a formal photo of RYBS with Ed Asner. RYBS is wearing a black kippa -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 05:10:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 08:10:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] splendor of clothes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 3:25 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > I have noted before there has become a new minhag of wearing a hat all > the time not only when wearing davening or saying a bracha. I went this > week to a charedi wedding and most of the men wore their hats throughout > the meal. For me, at least, this is a practical matter: There is often no place to leave a hat, not even in the coat room; and certainly no place from which the hat can be easily retrieved before bentching. --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 16:16:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 19:16:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:49pm EDT, R Akiva Miller wrote: : I'm really very unsure what this thread is asking... Part of the difficult of this thread is that we came in mid-conversation. RGS quoted Qinot Mesorat haRav. The quote is long, so I'm just giving part: Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebe'al peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... This is a comment RYBS frequently made in shiur. Picture sitting in a brisker shiur, where every talmid needs a reference set of shas and Rambam. It is logical for the rebbe to need to remind people that they couldn't play this game of comparing that Yad back to shas if we didn't have Rashi and Tosados opening up shas to understanding. Interestingly, RGS compared this to the Yam Shel Shelomo: Rav Shlomo Luria, the Maharshal, famously said that Rabbeinu Tam was greater than the Rambam (introduction to Yam Shel Shlomo). In discussing Kinah 42, Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik suggests that the French and German Tosafists were more important than the Rambam, without discussing who was greater. The Maharshal was very opposed to the SA. He had a hostile attitude toward the whole notion of codification which goes way beyond RYBS's intent in ways RYBS wouldn't agree to. He and the Maharal (his brother) were of the "many" in RET's response. On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:19am IDT, R Eli Turkel wrote: : Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against the : concept. : Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own : interpretation and not : rely or be bound by any text. This coming in in the middle caused language confusion and consequent frustration for RnCL. On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:41:09PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the :> Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The :> parshan connects the past to the now. : That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. : Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation : handed over to the next. Yes, but if you want to know what RYBS meant, it requires knowing what the word means in RYBS's lexicon, with the connotations he assumed. Notice my suggestion about how "mesorah" was being used fits the quote from the qinos and the example of the Yerushalmi. I understand the frustration of thinking you were discussing a statement that meant one thing and only after formulating a log response being told that it likely meant something else. But that's a straightforward misunderstanding due to your being outside the target audience when RYBS was saying / learning Qinos, and therefore not being used to the connoctations he assumes; and Lewis Carrol refferences aren't needed. I intend to write a post on the meaning of the word "mesorah" as developed in RYBS's and RHS's thought as the start of its own thread. Because it not only comes up here, it comes up in the discussions raging elsewhere (Torah Musings, Cross Currents, Facebook) on RWMO's objections to Open O and feminism. RnCL argues for the importance of codes in that post: : So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no Rambam and no : Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any distinction at all between : the halacha of the Orthodox and the halacha as championed by the : Conservative movement? Is that not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would : of necessity lead (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent : than we have today... ... : But take the codes out of the equation : and *all* these multiple rishonic positions become tenable, allowing a : general free for all within the vastness of the parshanut tradition... ... : It is only those who also have an eye to the : codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in : the light of common practice. Actualy, it's only those who have an eye on common practice. After all, we discuss machloqesin between Rashi and the Rambam in halakhah lemasseh contexts all the time. And if Ashkenazim accepted Rashi's ruling, or one found in Tosafos, the Rama has no problem limiting his pesaq to that rather than that of the Rif, Rambam or Tur. And had there not been a Rama, then some shu"t or parshan could as well. For that matter, there is also the middle ground, the shu"t writer (eg the Ritva) who discusses halachic sevara and lomdus without either using a study of a pre-existing text as his organizing principle nor trying to codify a complete set of rulings. For that matter, the Beis Yoseif and AhS also sit in the middle ground -- code-like works that spend more space discussing how they understood the sources to get there. Returning to RAM's post for his reply to RnCL's question: : If you've been following me, then my answer to this should be clear: No! : This "much broader tent" is pure speculation. If we had no Rav ABC to guide : us, the void would have been filled by Rav XYZ, whose views might have been : to the right, to the left, or the same. And in *exactly* the same manner as : how we are obligated by the new Torah created by the Baalei Mesorah, the : possibility of differences is much less important than our confidence and : emunah that this Torah is the right one FOR US. Without the parshanim, there is no way to fill in the holes between se'ifim, to know how the conclusions were reached so that halakhah can survive beyond the limited set of cases in the Rambam or SA. However, without the codifiers, it's hard to find Rashi's ruling, but not impossible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 02:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:02:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha Message-ID: RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear as ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) 1) Prozbul - while the originial takanah was for individuals that made loans and meant a trip to bet din today it has become a piece of paper signed given to the rabbi or some ad hoc bet din (similar to hatarat nedarim). 2) nonJewish produce during shemitta - whther bought directly from nonJews or through heter mechirah the end result is that the consumer feels little difference between a shemitta year and a regular year. Only consumers that use Otzar bet din have to account for shemitta rules (of course it affects the farmer) 3) mechirat chametz - In the extreme one goes away for the entire Pesach, sells everything in the house and returns after Pesach to eat whatever is around, no need to even put away the chametz. For the rest of us it means putting what we sell in some closet and for some getting rid of "real" chametz like cakes 4) heter iska - again originally meant making a document for a specific loan and allowing a possibility pf loss. Today (in Israel) the banks and other financial insitutions have the document on the wall somewhere and most customers are not even aware of it. Because of court cases the heter iska has been refined so that the possibility of loss to the bank is essentially zero. In addition the heter iska today applies to non business loans - eg renovating a house, buying a car or going on a pleasure trip In addition to things that appear as cereonies to the average layman there are halachot called "ha-aramh" which is a trick way of avoiding the usual halacha. Again some eamples (again including inyana de-yoma" 1) paying the chazan for RH and YK for singing the first night of selichot 2) returning to shemitta - buying the lulav and throwing in for free the etrog 3) R Tarfon "married" 300 women so they could eat termah In an actual case involving yibum a couple without children and the husband was senile and near death while the brother-in-law lived in New Zealand. The solution was for the brother-in-law t "marry" the wife's sister and then divorce her but now the wife no longer needs a yibum or chaitzah. Note that pruzbol and heter iska began as ha-aaramah and later became a ceremony. I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview it. Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 11:57:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 14:57:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah Message-ID: <20150821185758.GA8815@aishdas.org> The word "mesorah" is overloaded with too many meanings. Literally, it's "that which was passed on". So logically, a common usage would make it synonymous with TSBP. And yet it's also used for the near opposite -- we speak of the mesoretic text, its vowels and its trope -- the ultimate in TSBK. And the collections of notes that describe that text are also called "mesorah". (So the mesorah describes the mesorah?! And you can join the email list if you wish to discuss the mesorah, diqduq, nusach hetefillah and the like.) More along the lines of the direction I want to head in, unlike talking about TSBP and thus focusing our attention on Divine origins, when we speak of mesorah we focus out attention on the chain of people. And so there is the usage of "mesorah" to mean mimetic tradition, and is often posed in contrast to textual TSBP. Notice R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik not only defines "mimetic tradition" as knowing what a kezayis is because you remember what your father and greandfather ate at the seder but also considers such cultural mesorah (my term) rather than textual transmission to be the carrier of value and emotion. It is the loss of mimetic tradition that he blames for the loss of dread of the Yamim Noraim and (in speech, not writing) for the loss of what his father RJBS called the "Erev Shabbos Jew" (from "On Repentance, pp 97-98): Even in those neighborhoods made up predominantly of religious Jews, one can no longer talk of the 'sanctity of Shabbat.' True, there are Jews in America who observe Shabbat... But it is not for Shabbat that my heart aches; it is for the forgotten 'erev Shabbat'.... There are Shabbat-observing Jews in America, but there are no 'erev Shabbat' Jews who go out to greet Shabbat with beating hearts and pulsating souls. There are many who observe the precepts with their hands, with their feet, and/or with their mouths - but there are few indeed who truly know the meaning of the service of the heart!" Then we speak of someone "having a mesorah" in two different uses: both if they have a received practice and cultural (as above) and if they have a known rebbe-talmid lineage. Still in contrast to texts, we're talking about the importance of all that Torah that doesn't fit into books. We also talk about those in the hands-on kelei qodesh, such as a sofer, a mohel, a shocheit, etc... also of "having a mesorah" from the one who taught them the craft. And that too is all about the kind of thing you need to learn with your senses and muscles, and not know from books discussing the topic in the abstract. To pasqen mar'os, a rav must also have a mesorah in that sense. It's a skill, a craft, that is learned from practice under the guidance of a mentor. Usually called "shimush". For regular pesaq too there is an element that is a craft, an art, a skill, the kind of thing one needs to learn from shimush, not by studying from abstract texts. Qara veshanah velo shamash TC, harei zeh am ha'aretz. ... - Sotah 22a This is why I like R/Dr Moshe Koppel's metaphor of laws of grammar for some usages rather than always comparing halakhah to civil law. (More as per his sefer "Metahalakhah" than in the essay "Judaism as a First Language" .) As I wrote in Feb : The "First Language" model is much like R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik's mimeticism, but also somewhat different. Halachic rules are an approximation of something that is inherently more complex in kind than rules and algorithms. Much the way grammar is only approximated by ever more complex rules which still never get a foreigner studying the language in class to the same feel for grammar that the native-speaker has. (And why TSBP loses something when not be'al peh.) So the ESL student may know what a past pluperfect is, and I don't, but the native speaker is more likely to know what is valid poetic license and what will produce non-English results. Similarly, a poseiq needs to pick up that feel, not the formal rules. Unstructured knowledge. I have two rather lengthy quotes that help create a feel for what I am talking about. They're quite beautiful, so I appreciate this excuse to share them. Notice how RYBS explicitly defines the word "mesorah" at the beginning of this first quote, UBiqashta miSham 10:1, pp. 63-65 (tr. RARR, The Rav, vol. I, pp. 247-250): Let me stress the idea of the Mesorah by telling you a personal story. I remember that when I was growing up I was frightened and lonely boy. I was afraid of the world. For me, the world was a cold and strange place. I imagined that everyone was mocking me. But I had one friend; do not laugh at me, it was the Rambam [Maimonides]. How did we become friends? Simply, we met. Rambam was a constant guest in our home. During the days when my father was newlywed, supported by my grandfather... father studied Torah day and night. A small group of outstanding young scholars gathered around him and eagerly absorbed his teachings. My father studied with his disciples in the room where my bed was located. My wont was to sit on my bed and listen to my father's words. He constantly quoted Rambam. His method was to first open the Talmud and analyze the text under discussion and the relevant commentaries. He would generally say: these are the explanations of Tosafot. Now, let us analyze the explanations of Rambam. My father would inevitably discover that Rambam rejected the basic explanation of the text and differed with Tosafot. My father would declare, as if to complain, that we cannot comprehend the approach and conclusion of Rambam towards the Talmud text. It was almost as if my father were directly saying to Rambam: "Rabbi Moshe, why have you taken this approach?" My father would continue, "at first glance, the Ra'avad (commentary on the Rambam) is correct at his criticism." The students would jump forward and each would express his thoughts. My father would carefully listen but would refute their proposed interpretations. Once again he would exclaim that the words of Rambam were incomprehensible. Nevertheless, my father would not give up. He would place his head on his hand and soon be engrossed in deep thought. The students would not disturb his thought process. Finally, my father would gradually lifts his head and begin to expound the true meaning of Rambam. Sometimes he would be lengthy, and on other occasions brief. I would strain my ears to catch my father's every word. In my young and impressionable mind, there developed a duel impression: First, that the Rambam was being attacked by enemies who wanted to hurt him, and second, that the Rambam's only defender was my father. I felt strongly that without my father, who knows what would happen to the Rambam? It was as if the Rambam himself were with us in the room, listening to my father's words. The Rambam sat next to me on my bed. What did he look like? I don't know exactly. He seemed to look like an exceedingly handsome and good father. His name was also Moshe, just like my father. Intensely following my father, the students absorbed his every word. Slowly but surely, the tension evaporated. My father continued his discourse with strength and courage. New ideas were clarified; the laws under discussion were classified and carefully articulated. A new light emerged; the questions were resolved and the topic properly explained. Rambam emerged triumphant, and my father's face was filled with happiness and delight. He had defended his friend, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon. The Rambam was comforted and smiled. I too was delighted and joined in the feeling of joy in the room. I would jump from my bed and run to my mother and cry out the good news: "mother, mother, the Rambam won; he beat the Raavad. Father helped him. Look how wonderful my father is!" But once in a great while my father did not succeed, and despite all his efforts the enemies of the Rambam defeated him. Their questions were as strong as iron. Although my father mustered all his strength, he could not save the Rambam from his detractors. Salvation did not come for the Rambam. Deep in thought, my father would lean on his head on the palms of his hands on the table. The students and I, and even the Rambam, waited in great tension for my father's words. But my father would raise his head and sadly state: "there is no answer. The words of the Rambam are difficult. The shiur ended with no explanation. The students were sad, and even my father was depressed. A sense of despair descended upon all of us. I cried. Even the eyes of the Rambam glistened with tear-drops. With a broken heart, I would walk slowly to my mother and cry out to her: "Mother, father cannot answer the Rambam. What will we do? He did not succeed today." And my mother would tell me: "Don't worry. Father will find and answer to the Rambam. If he does not succeed, then when you grow up perhaps you will find an answer to the Rambam. Always remember, my son, the important thing about Torah is to study it in happiness and enthusiasm." It is true that this story is part of my youth. It is not, however, the fantasy of a young child or the creation of mystical feelings. This story is an historic and psychological reality that guides me at all time. When I sit down to learn, the giants of the Mesorah are with me. Our relationship is personal. The Rambam sits to my right, Rabbeinu Tam to my left. Rashi sits at the head and explains, Rabbeinu Tam asks, the Rambam decides the halacha, and the Raavad objects. All of them are with me in my small room, sitting around the table. They look at me with fondness. They world the text out with me, and life a father, they encourage and strengthen me. Learning Torah is not just a didactic, formal, and technical experience whose purpose is the creation and exchange of ideas. Learning Torah is the intense experience of uniting many generations together, the joining of spirit to spirit, and the connecting of soul to soul. Those who transmit the Torah and those who receive the Torah are invited to meet one another at the same historic juncture. And Reflections of the Rav, vol II, pp. 21b-23 (original language in: RARR's The Rav vol II, pp 186-189) this quote winds up with mention of the mesorah: The old Rebbe walks into the classroom crowded with students who are young enough to be his grandchildren. He enters as an old man with wrinkled face, his eyes reflecting the fatigue and sadness of old age. You have to be old to experience this sadness. It is the melancholy that results from an awareness of people and things which have disappeared and linger only in memory. I sit down; opposite me are rows of young beaming faces with clear eyes radiating the joy of being young. For a moment, the Rabbe is gripped with pessimism, with tremors of uncertainly. He asks himself: Can there be a dialogue between an old teacher and young students, between a Rebbe in his Indian summer and students enjoying the spring of their lives? The Rebbe starts his shiur, uncertain as to how it will proceed. Suddenly the door opens and an old man, much older than the Rebbe, enters. He is the grandfather of the Rebbe, Reb Chaim Brisker. It would be most difficult to study Talmud with students who are trained in the sciences and mathematics, were it not for his method, which is very modern and equals, if not surpasses, most contemporary forms of logic, metaphysics or philosophy. The door opens again and another old man comes in. He is older than Reb Chaim, for he lived in the 17th century. His name is Reb Shabtai Cohen, known as the Shach, who must be present when civil law (dinai mamonot) is discussed. Many more visitors arrive, some from the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, and others harking back to antiquity -- Rabbeinu Tam, Rashi, Rambam, Raavad, Rashba, Rabbi Akiva and others. These scholarly giants of the past are bidden to take their seats. The Rebbe introduces the guests to his pupils, and the dialogue commences. The Rambam states a halacha; the Raavad disagrees sharply, as is his wont. Some students interrupt to defend the Rambam, and they express themselves harshly against the Raavad, as young people are apt to do. The Rebbe softly corrects the students and suggest more restrained tones. The Rashba smiles gently. The Rebbe tries to analyze what the students meant, and other students intercede. Rabeinu Tam is called upon to express his opinion, and suddenly, a symposium of generations comes into existence. Young students debate earlier generations with an air of daring familiarity, and a crescendo of discussion ensues. All speak one language; all pursue one goal; all are committed to a common vision; and all operate with the same categories. A Mesorah collegiality is achieved, a friendship, a comradeship of old and young, spanning antiquity, the Middle Ages and modern times. This joining of the generations, this march of centuries, this dialogue and conversation between antiquity and the present will finally bring about the redemption of the Jewish people. After a two-or three hour shiur, the Rebbe emerges from the chamber young and rejuvenated. He has defeated age. The students look exhausted. In the Mesorah experience, years play no role. Hands, however parchment-dry and wrinkled, embrace warm and supple hands in commonality, bridging the gap with separates the generations. Thus, the "old ones" of the past continue their great dialogue of the generations, ensuring an enduring commitment to the Mesorah. So there is a community of baalei mesorah that carries down a mimetic tradition of how to pasqen. A tradition of informal knowledge that cannot be codified into books and that creates a feel and emotional consequence. This is RYBS's usual usage of the word, "mesorah". No better or worse than any of the other usages, but more relevant to two of the conversations we've (we as in various members of the A/A chevrah, not necessarily here on Avodah) been having lately. In the discussion of feminism and Torah (which hasn't been here, but we have had identical cycles here before), RHS's piece "Preserving Our Mesorah in Changing Times" and others like it are often cited. RHS opens: What is Mesorah? Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today.[1] The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers.[2] 1. Avot 1:1. 2. For a more extensive discussion of mesorah, see Nefesh HaRav, pp. 34-58 and Beikvei HaTzon, pp. 21-37. Firmly in line with what we've seen from his rebbe, mesorah is used in the sense of the chain of transmission down time that conveys the art and culture of halakhah decision-making and Torah as a whole. And a bit further down he discusses "Who Is Authorized to Institute Change?" {emph mine): Changes in practice require delicate evaluations that only a master Torah scholar, a gadol baTorah, can properly conduct. Only someone with a broad knowledge and a deep understanding of the corpus of halachah, with an intimate familiarity with both the letter and the spirit of the law, WITH A MASTERY OF BOTH THE RULES AND THE ATTITUDES OF THE MESORAH, can determine when a change is acceptable or even required. The more wide-reaching the proposed change, the greater the expertise required to approve it. The evaluator must not only be a master of the mesorah, but he must also be able to consider new practices based solely on values internal to the mesorah, removing external influences from the deliberation.[14] 14. See Halakhic Mind, n. 98. But I think this example from a teshuvah (tr and poor title by YWN is more on-topic: Indeed, the Rav would often say (see drasha to Parshas Korach), that every person must recognize that he needs a Rav or a Rebbe. Even a Talmid Chochom whose Rebbe had passed away must constantly ask himself in truth (when they present questions to him) what his Rebbe would have said in such a scase, and what stance he would have taken. ... The expression that some of those who have permitted this utilize that according to the technical halacha a certain act is permitted, and that which people wish to prohibit it is because of political considerations is incorrect. For even a matter such as changing the mesorah the traditions of the Jewish people is in and of itself an integral section of halacha. When one rules on the donning of Tefillin for women it is not enough to merely examine the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch in Hilchos Tefillin and in the sources there and treat it as a simple question. The version of mesorah in RYBS's usage is the same concept RHS invokes to reject a "but it can be fit to the technical halakhah so your objection is merely political" attitude. Change must conform to mesorah to be valid, even if the textualists are satisfied. This is not an invocation of "daas Torah", because we're talking about questions of Torah, not politics or other metzi'us; we are invoking knowledge, if cultural and informal knowledge rather than book knowledge, and not invoking any metaphysical or mytical power; and because we do not expect a single correct answer that "the gedolim hold". But it still makes halachic decisionmaking when it comes to significant change subject to the skill of a few, and the rest of us are forced to submit to their understanding. The other use we've been knocking around, and this was here on-list, is RYBS's statement (Qinos Mesorat haRav, quoted by RGS here : Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebeal peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... RYBS identifies mesorah as the ineffible skill to think like a poseiq. And that we do get from those who explain how the prior generations developed the law, how the community down the ages conversed about the law, from living in the culture whose mimeticism is mesorah. And we saw Sotah's opinion of someone who learns without shimush. From only a little further down in that sugya (22a): Tanna: Hatannaim (those who repeat codified law) are swallowers of the world. Could you really think [they] are "swallowers of the world"? Ravina said: For they are morah halakhah from their repetition of the law. There is a a beraisa like this: R' Yeushua said, "And are they 'swallowers of the world? Aren't they settlers of the world, as it says 'halikhos olam lo' (Chavaquq 3)? Rather, because they are moreh halakhah from their repetition of the law. You can't pasqen from codes, from legal knowledge. It takes knowledge of how the codes reached their conclusion -- both textual knowledge obtained from the meforshim, and the skills to pasqen obtained by shimush. As R Yochanan quotes besheim Rashbi (Berakhos 7b), "gedolah shimushah shel Torah yoseir meilimudah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 22 16:06:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 00:06:16 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:41:09PM +0100, RMB wrote: :> Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the :> Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The :> parshan connects the past to the now. I replied: : That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. : Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation : handed over to the next. And RMB further replied: <> I read the quote and the original RGS posting before commenting on the thread because I generally try not to jump in mid-conversation without understanding what has previously been said. And that is precisely what I am objecting to. Because the RGS piece (including the quote) - is actually about our mesorah *regarding learning* (ie a much narrower slice of the wider definition). In that, as I said, I think it correct - our mesorah regarding how to learn - how to sit in Yeshiva and deal with the texts owes far more to Rashi and Tosphos than to the Rambam. But as stated in the quote, this suddenly becomes "our mesorah" in general and that is what I find problematic as I will try and articulate below. So let us look at the quote again: RGS quoted Qinot Mesorat haRav. The quote is long, so I'm just giving part: Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebe'al peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... The point I am making is that "any mesorah, "any chain of tradition" is much, much wider than what is done in Brisker yeshivas as part of the learning process. <> Now, if the point you are making is that RYBS was addressing yeshiva bochrim within a yeshiva setting (albeit explaining kinos on Tisha B'av) and hence explaining what it is that they do all day learning-wise- then the use of such language is probably excusable without the modifier - ie in this context mesorah is simply short for "mesorah with regard to how to learn". But the problem is that this language has now been pulled, by way of RGS's article (and lends itself to being pulled by its sheer breadth), into a wider application and wider audience, and not modified as such. It was then pulled across into Avodah, and the reference questioned, which I think it should be, because RGS's argument is implicitly if not explicitly far wider. And that I think is a problem, because what is true for one slice of "the mesorah" is not necessarily true for the whole. Whether this imprecision is RYBS's or RGS's is hard for me to be sure, as you say, this is a quote taken out of context. <> And this is where this slide from discussing one slice of the mesorah - what to do in Yeshiva, to a much wider slice of the mesorah becomes problematic, because of the implication you have just made which is that what is true of the section applies to the whole. And in this context you are dealing with what is called in common parlance the mesorah, not about conversations down time. So by slight of hand what you are doing is taking a definition which you acknowledge is a very limited and idiosyncratic one, but then sliding the conclusions that arise from that definition into the more standard debate, and claiming that was RYBS's opinion regarding the debate about what is more commonly known as "the mesorah". Let us therefore back up for a minute and discuss that aspect of RGS's post which in my view is unquestionably correct, even using the usual definition of mesorah: RGS comments that he and his father tried to learn meseches Nedarim just using the meforash, in the absence of Rashi, and were not able to do so (they were then only able to do it using the Ran, a much later commentary) - thus demonstrating the point of the post, which is, without Rashi, most of the Talmud Bavli would be a closed book to most people of average, and even above average, intelligence (like the Talmud Yerushalmi). This is unquestionably true. The Rambam was also aware of this problem (after all he learned all of Talmud Bavli without Rashi and everybody he knew either did so or tried to do so). His solution to RGS's problem was to tell RGS and his father, and people like him, not to try and learn Talmud Bavli, but to learn his, the Rambam's, Code instead. Ie instead of trying to tackle Maseches Nedarim, he would suggest that RGS and his father learn Hilchos Nedarim from the Mishne Torah. Now the truth is that if RGS and his father had in fact learnt all of Hilchos Nedarim from the Rambam, and all of the rest of the Mishne Torah, backwards and forwards and inside out - they are likely then to be well set up to tackle the Talmud Bavli without Rashi. Ie you *can* use the Rambam as a guide back into the Talmud if you are bright enough (because you have most of the concepts already explained by him), but it is not an easy way to do it. The Rambam assumed that the average person would stop with his Code, and only the best and brightest would need then to go back to the Talmud, to help determine the ambiguous cases not caught by his code, in a method not a million miles away from the one use by smicha students in learning Hilchos Shechita or Kashrus - first learn the Shulchan Aruch, then work your way back to the underlying gemoras so you are in a position to posken those cases the Shulchan Aruch doesn't catch. Our mesorah is like Rashi in this regard and not the Rambam (except when it comes to smicha students). We open up the Talmud Bavli even to children using Rashi and hundreds of thousands are sitting in yeshiva following Rashi. The problem is that people (it would appear including you) then generalise from "how we learn" to "how we posken" - which is what really is involved in the discussion regarding Open O and feminism. And they are not the same thing at all. Indeed, the fact that smicha students (those that are being set up to posken) are taught in a totally different way to the more general way of learning in yeshiva, and one that owes far more to the Rambam than to Rashi and Tosphos should alert you to that. I am then going to diverge a bit to discuss RAM's post, because he is discussing something completely different again: I wrote: > Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more of > them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the Rambam, were > able to formulate their halachic conclusions. And RAM replied: <> But you here (and it is even more explicit later) are discussing something completely different to what I was and am discussing. To best differentiate, I would say that you are discussing *content* and I am discussing *process*. Yes with regard to *content* it makes a difference which particular one of the Tosphosim were included on the page, and which weren't - but that is not what I am discussing. Rather I am discussing *how to learn* - ie how to make sense of this Talmud Bavli which (as RGS elucidated so eloquently) is so difficult for people to get into without help. What Rashi did was to provide a clear and simple explanation of the words on the page. What Tosphos did (and in this regard the whole commentary called Tosphos - despite the fact that it was made up of many different people, in fact teaches pretty much the same thing) was to teach people to say "hold on a minute, if we take the simple explanation provided by Rashi, then: a) there is a contradiction with what the gemora says somewhere else; or b) there is a contradiction with what in fact people do - so therefore we need to try and solve this problem. I then further goes on to teach people to say: very commonly we can solve this problem by: (i) re-interpreting this gemora; and/or (ii) reinterpreting that gemora; and/or (iii) finding some way of harmonizing the two gemoras, or the gemora and people's practice, or if we cannot manage to that (but only in extremis), (iv) working out that a certain gemora is more authoritative or the people are wrong. Note that when you are considering the process, it doesn't matter which particular sets of Tosphos' questions made it onto the page and which didn't - what is far more important is the fact that the commentary in general teaches people to ask these questions and mechanisms for trying to answer them. That is what a (eg child) who is first taught to study the gemora with Rashi suddenly encounters when he moves on to Tosphos. Hold on, Rashi's commentary may make a lot of sense in localised context, but we now have to try and consider the whole. Now of course the Rambam had not only to be his own Rashi, but he had to be his own Tosphos. He could not have written his Code if underneath the surface he did not deal with the fact that the gemora appears to contradict itself all over the place, and also to contradict what people are actually doing. The fundamental job of most meforshim on the Rambam is therefore (a) to explain how the Rambam understood the simple explanation of the gemora (ie what the Rambam would have said if he had written Rashi) and (b) how the Rambam resolved the contradictions in the various gemoras and with common practice (ie how the Rambam deals with the kinds of problems raised by the Tosphosim). But all of this is under the surface. All we have from the Rambam is the result, what we have from Tosphos are the questions. And it is the questions which give people a better window into how to learn gemora. So that is why, when discussing *process* it does not matter that: <> Because while we might have different Tosphos questions (ie content) on (or off) the page if hashgacha had gone in a different direction, or if there were gemoros on some of the mesechtos on which we have none, the process of *how* Tosphos (or the Rambam) would have dealt with that content is still the same. But if we would have had no Rashi and no Tosphos at all, ie the process they originated, but only the Rambam, we would all have learnt the code backward and forward, and a few bright sparks would have then used that to understand the gemora - a very, very different process of learning. In that regard our mesorah of learning comes from Rashi and Tosphos. On the other hand, RET is correct: <> Although I would modify that statement not to say "and not be bound by any text", as most at that point agreed that they should be bound by the gemora (and the Tanach as understood by the mishna/gemora), just not beyond that. And that is the point. There are two different concepts being discussed here, the mesorah of "how to learn" and the mesorah of "how to posken" (which then leads into what it is that people do). And when the Shulchan Aruch came out a lot of people strongly objected to the way of poskening that is a consequence of the codes. They thought that each posek should re-learn the relevant underlying gemoras, and work out their own harmonisation of them without being influenced, and certainly not bound, by what the Shulchan Aruch said. Some people perhaps thought that was a bit extreme, and that at least they should learn the underlying gemoras with all the rishonim, and, to the extent there was rishonic view, at least make a judgement within that spectrum (but not necessarily prioritise eg the Rambam, Rif and Rosh, or the Trumas HaDeshen and the Mordechai, being the most recent, over the others). The problem you have though is that - well, according to the gemora there are at least 50 ways of determining that a sheretz is kosher. Even if you then say that the gemora draws certain lines in the sand, there is no question that - well, let us take the hair covering question as illustrative. There are clearly (at least) two ways of reading the question: (a) hair covering for married women is an absolute and immutable d'orisa principle; (b) hair covering for married women is a tznius related convention - and given the convention at the time of the gemora (and earlier) it is required in those societies where it is practiced by modest Jewish women by virtue of rabbinic decree. If you can't see that the underlying sources (eg the mishna and gemora) *could* lead to either interpretation, then you are either wilfully blinding yourself or you can't learn. If you purely follow Rashi and Tosphos, then *if* you can read the underlying gemora sources in such a way as to harmonise with common practice today (even if you believe it is a bit of a dochek), then you would be free to do so, or at least, have no basis to criticise others who do this. However, nobody has that conversation today. The conversation you are having is about "how authoritative" are the various poskim (and from which tradition) who do appear to rule in one way or another. The power of Rav Broyde's article for example - is that he argues that the Rosh (and hence the Tur) and even the Rambam actually posken (b) out of the options, and this can be seen in the Shulchan Aruch. That is the kind of conversation we have today - with others of course rejecting that this is what can be read into the Shulchan Aruch. Hence I said: : It is only those who also have an eye to the : codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in : the light of common practice. And RMB replied: <> But neither Rashi nor Tosphos gave us any method of limiting where psak went, and indeed the Ri can hold one thing and Rabbanu Tam another within the same Tosphos. The Codes are far less open. And the language of the Shulchan Aruch is in the vast majority of cases the language of the Rambam thereby leading back to the thought process of the Rambam. The Rema then picks up a few of the cases where Ashkenazi practice differs and used a Code process to insert Rashi's explanation into the Code (although often where it had already been filtered through the Rosh and the Tur first). That is taking Rashi content and using it in a Rambam like way. Which is why the mesorah for how we posken is much closer to the Rambam than it is to Rashi. And what we do outside of the yeshiva is more about how we posken than about how we learn. Which is why I disagree: >Without the parshanim, there is no way to fill in the holes between se'ifim, to know how the conclusions were reached so that halakhah can survive beyond the limited set of cases in the Rambam >or SA. Of course there is, you have to go back to the original gemora - having first learnt through all of the related si'ifim in the Codes, and then make sure you understand how the rulings that are in the Codes relate to the underlying gemora. Once you have done that you can start to fill in the gaps, But only the select few who need to actually posken need to know this method - which is why it only needs to be taught to smicha students. But it is obvious that is the method used by the Rambam when answering questions outside of his own code in his teshuvos. <> And if you don't find it, it probably doesn't matter - because without the attitude of the codifiers, you really only need Rashi to understand the gemora and if you can do it without him, then great. And if you can't understand the gemora without him you wouldn't have a hope of formulating any ruling as the gemora would be a closed book. >Micha Shavuah tov Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 04:38:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:38:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Daf HaKashrus August 2015 Message-ID: <20150823113822.1203D183A0B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/daf_hakashrus_aug_2015.pdf This issue includes articles about bishul on Shabbos and dairy bread as well as other topics. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 02:10:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:10:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: [Email #1, in reply to R' Akiva Miller.] > My point is that while RMB and RCL are trying to imagine what Torah would > look like without Tosaphos, as I see it, even the Tosaphos that we do have > is a somewhat random document. I believe this is somewhat of an exaggeration. The school of Tosafot was basically begun by Rabbenu Tam followed by Ri (haZaken). Unfortunately we don't have much of their notes and Sefer haYashar is fragmentary. However, from Tosfat Shantz through Tosafot Tuch we have several manuscripts. It is true that the early publishers (or more exactly the rabbis chosen by these publishers) used whatever material they had however, I don't think that in most cases the differences between different talmidim were that great. Obviously some were more verbose and some less so and each included their individual rebbes and their own opinions. Nevertheless on the whole they were similar. Tosafot haRosh was the main version used in much of Spain. For reasons that are not clear to me this version was lost for many centuries before reappearing relatively recently. In individual cases one learns something new from Tosafot haRosh but I am not sure that on the whole it is that dramatically different from the printed versions [Email #2, in reply to me. -micha] > To pasqen mar'os, a rav must also have a mesorah in that sense. It's > a skill, a craft, that is learned from practice under the guidance of > a mentor. Usually called "shimush". I recall seeing recently (on avodah?) a machloket of poskim whether one needs shimush in order to pasken on maaros or it is sufficient to learn from seforim. In general some poskim feel that for many areas shimush is no longer needed now that we have detailed seforim. A number of gedolim of the 20th century essentially learned alone with minimal input from teachers. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 07:20:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 17:20:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] child conversion Message-ID: The recent court to allow conversion of under bar/bat mitzvah children is controversial. The bone of contention is whether it is considred a zechut for children to become Jewish when they grow up in a non-religious setting. R. Rosen recently gave a list of rabbis that allow it (at least bideved) and those that forbid it. I found the list interesting and not what I would have guessed Machmirim and not allowing the conversion: R Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor, Sridei Eish,R. Kook and R. Yisraeli Mekilim (at least bideved) Bet Yitzchak, Mateh Levi, Achiezer, RMF, R. Elyashiv, ROY -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 15:03:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:03:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150823220352.GA13158@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:10:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : In general some poskim feel that for many areas shimush is no longer : needed now that we have detailed seforim. A number of gedolim of the : 20th century essentially learned alone with minimal input from teachers. Well, RYBS's notion of "mesorah" is broader than that, as Rashi and Tosafos are considered part of it. Yes, shimush is more central to relaying a feel for how halakhah should be decided, but books that spell out past decisions also apparently play a role. But the truth is most of the gedolim in the 20th cent (Slabodka alumni aside) learned one-on-one often moving in with their rebbe. What you call "minimal" I would call "short and intense". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 25 18:27:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:27:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion Message-ID: The assumption is that it is better to be a non-religious Jew (thereby violating numerous halakhos) than a moral non-Jew. (I am being over simplistic as being non-Jewish citizen in Israel is more of a liability than elsewhere, so there may be a zechus to be a non-religious ger katan.) The irony as many have noted is that those who are most lenient about child conversion tend to be those who are also lenient in accepting that one could lead a perfectly good life as a non-Jew. Those who think that it is better to be Jewish than non-Jewish by extension should accept the conversion of a ger katan who will be raised by a non-religious family. The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for reasons of Nationalism. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 25 18:50:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:50:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) Message-ID: To parachute into an ongoing discussion, I have found that people use Mesorah in four different ways: 1) Personal Mesorah from a Rebbe to a Talmid. What a scholar or layman learns from his teacher. 2) Mesorah as the unbroken chain of Torah going back to Sinai. Rambam zt"l has the most famous mesorah chart, though I like Micha Berger's. (Parallels can be in Hadith transmission traditiona, Sufi traditions or the Catholic Church's assumption of an unbroken chain back to Peter). 3) Communal norms and traditions. This is how the term is commonly used in the Chareidi communities and also how it is being used in the ongoing discussion. This is the idea that there are legitimate practices, norms, values or halakhic understandings. For example different methodologies of learning. Or, as my brothers-in-law say to me, well if that is the mesorah of your community, then it is legitimate, even if they don't relate to this practice. (Personally, I do not relate to such a usage. Either an approach is valid/true or not valid/true.) I discussed the last category in an essay that Gil was kind enough to post: http://www.torahmusings.com/2011/07/two-types-of-orthodox-judaism/ There are probably other uses of the term *mesorah*, but I cannot think of them at the moment. Best wishes, Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 26 00:43:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:43:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] smart lighting Message-ID: can one use smart lighting on shabbat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_lighting -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 05:00:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:00:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov Message-ID: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? KVCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 10:37:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:37:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:00:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party : to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not : actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) My own lexicon: hakaras hatov: realizing that a good thing came into your life hoda'ah: acknowledging the one who / One Who provided that good Say Avi gives Berakhah a ball. Berakhah's hakaras hatov has an primary object, which is the ball -- the tov she received from Avi. Not taking life's gifts for granted. But her hoda'ah has a primary object -- which is Avi, and a secondary object, the ball. As in the grammar of "Modim anachnu Lakh al..."; the prespositional phrase giving you the secondary object is a list of all the things Hashem does for us. I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. Which, if you think about it, is what Chazal say about the early makos and how Moshe would not be the one to launch a makah that afflicts the water that saved him as a baby or the sand that hid the body. I'm not thrilled with the whole idea of exchanging favors, creating a market. It turns everything back on self-service -- every positive act is tainted by expectation of being repaid. : How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? Perhaps kibud av va'eim and kavod harav are their own concepts for a reason. And that hakaras hatov might explain the issur against hurting or cursing one's parents, but not kavod and yir'ah. I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 10:55:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:55:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". Tir'u baTov! -Micha Zechiyah uMattanah - Chapter Seven Translated by Eliyahu Touger Halacha 1 It is a universally accepted custom in most countries that when a man marries, his friends and acquaintances send him money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Then the friends and acquaintances who sent him this money come and eat and drink with the groom during all - or part - of the seven days of wedding celebration; everything should be done according to the accepted local custom. The money that he is sent is called shushvinut, and the people who send the money and then come and eat and drink with the groom are called shushvinin. Halacha 2 Shushvinut is not an outright gift. For it is plainly obvious that a person did not send a colleague 10 dinarim with the intent that he eat and drink a zuz's worth. He sent him the money solely because his intent was that when he would marry, he would send him money as he has sent him. Therefore, if the sender marries a woman, and the recipient does not return the shushvinut, the sender may lodge a legal claim against the recipient and expropriate the money from him. KVCT 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 12:01:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:01:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55DF5E92.9020405@sero.name> On 08/27/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". I believe the reference is to the law of shushvinin. But that is not a matter of hakaras hatov; it's an explicit quid pro quo arrangement. If you don't pay it back when it falls due, you're cheating the person of a quantifiable amount of money that you explicitly owe him, so he can sue you for it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 12:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <55DF64EA.6000201@sero.name> On 08/27/2015 01:55 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Mistranslation: This should be "...the expenses of the feast." -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 11:40:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 11:40:40 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus Message-ID: if there is a general assumption that one eats in another shomer shabbos' house without going thru their pantry, does the same hold in a shmitta year in israel where there are also multiple minhagim ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 14:08:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:08:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> On 08/28/2015 02:40 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > if there is a general assumption that one eats in another shomer > shabbos' house without going thru their pantry, does the same hold > in a shmitta year in israel where there are also multiple minhagim ? Lich'ora, since there is no consensus about shmita standards among shomrei shabbos, one who has a stricter practise can't assume that a randomly selected shomer shabbos is at least as strict as his. Therefore, without ascertaining this he can't eat those things which (according to his practise) are subject to shmita, but can eat those things which are not. Most importantly, though, he *can* eat from the other person's kelim, even if he *knows* that his shmita practices are more lenient than his own; for this purpose he can rely on "stam keilim einam benei yoman", even though normally one may only rely on this bediavad. This is the famous kula of "keilim divnei rhenus". -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 13:56:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:56:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov Message-ID: R' Micha Berger: <<< I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. >>> "Mah ashiv laShem, kol tagmulohi alai?" Akiva Miller On Aug 28, 2015 2:46 PM, "via Avodah" wrote: > Send Avodah mailing list submissions to > avodah at 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 at lists.aishdas.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." > > > A list of common acronyms is available at > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi > (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Child Conversion (Kaganoff via Avodah) > 2. Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) (Kaganoff via Avodah) > 3. smart lighting (Eli Turkel via Avodah) > 4. hakarat hatov (Rich, Joel via Avodah) > 5. Re: hakarat hatov (Micha Berger via Avodah) > 6. Re: hakarat hatov (Rich, Joel via Avodah) > 7. Re: hakarat hatov (Zev Sero via Avodah) > 8. Re: hakarat hatov (Zev Sero via Avodah) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:27:59 -0400 > From: Kaganoff via Avodah > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion > Message-ID: > oOARsdknGfHD5uwwUfKrmZGA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > The assumption is that it is better to be a non-religious Jew (thereby > violating numerous halakhos) than a moral non-Jew. > > (I am being over simplistic as being non-Jewish citizen in Israel is more > of a liability than elsewhere, so there may be a zechus to be a > non-religious ger katan.) > > The irony as many have noted is that those who are most lenient about child > conversion tend to be those who are also lenient in accepting that one > could lead a perfectly good life as a non-Jew. > > Those who think that it is better to be Jewish than non-Jewish by extension > should accept the conversion of a ger katan who will be raised by a > non-religious family. > > The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious > Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also > for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for > reasons of Nationalism. > > Yonatan > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150825/68f7e72c/attachment.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:50:52 -0400 > From: Kaganoff via Avodah > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) > Message-ID: > JWwz1eftmfgGuULn71A at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > To parachute into an ongoing discussion, I have found that people use > Mesorah in four different ways: > > 1) Personal Mesorah from a Rebbe to a Talmid. What a scholar or layman > learns from his teacher. > > 2) Mesorah as the unbroken chain of Torah going back to Sinai. Rambam zt"l > has the most famous mesorah chart, though I like Micha Berger's. (Parallels > can be in Hadith transmission traditiona, Sufi traditions or the Catholic > Church's assumption of an unbroken chain back to Peter). > > 3) Communal norms and traditions. This is how the term is commonly used in > the Chareidi communities and also how it is being used in the ongoing > discussion. This is the idea that there are legitimate practices, norms, > values or halakhic understandings. For example different methodologies of > learning. Or, as my brothers-in-law say to me, well if that is the mesorah > of your community, then it is legitimate, even if they don't relate to this > practice. (Personally, I do not relate to such a usage. Either an approach > is valid/true or not valid/true.) > > I discussed the last category in an essay that Gil was kind enough to post: > http://www.torahmusings.com/2011/07/two-types-of-orthodox-judaism/ > > There are probably other uses of the term *mesorah*, but I cannot think of > them at the moment. > > Best wishes, > Yonatan > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150825/4814ca39/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:43:29 +0300 > From: Eli Turkel via Avodah > To: Avodah > Subject: [Avodah] smart lighting > Message-ID: > < > CAGDtJ1GVgO0Ez55DoorrtQw_kfhbpGcPtQS8J8mV2rq-8rjYAA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > can one use smart lighting on shabbat > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_lighting > > -- > Eli Turkel > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150826/394e7ffd/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:00:05 +0000 > From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" > To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group (avodah at lists.aishdas.org)" > > Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: > <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de at VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party to > return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not > actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) > How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? > KVCT > 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. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150827/99422da9/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:37:32 -0400 > From: Micha Berger via Avodah > To: "Rich, Joel" , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <20150827173732.GA29088 at aishdas.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:00:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > : Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party > : to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not > : actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) > > My own lexicon: > hakaras hatov: realizing that a good thing came into your life > hoda'ah: acknowledging the one who / One Who provided that good > > Say Avi gives Berakhah a ball. > > Berakhah's hakaras hatov has an primary object, which is the ball -- > the tov she received from Avi. Not taking life's gifts for granted. > > But her hoda'ah has a primary object -- which is Avi, and a secondary > object, the ball. As in the grammar of "Modim anachnu Lakh al..."; > the prespositional phrase giving you the secondary object is a list > of all the things Hashem does for us. > > I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although > there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, > Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an > obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. > > Which, if you think about it, is what Chazal say about the early makos > and how Moshe would not be the one to launch a makah that afflicts the > water that saved him as a baby or the sand that hid the body. > > I'm not thrilled with the whole idea of exchanging favors, creating a > market. It turns everything back on self-service -- every positive > act is tainted by expectation of being repaid. > > > : How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? > > Perhaps kibud av va'eim and kavod harav are their own concepts for a > reason. And that hakaras hatov might explain the issur against hurting > or cursing one's parents, but not kavod and yir'ah. > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, > micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just > http://www.aishdas.org beginning. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:55:37 +0000 > From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" > To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group (avodah at lists.aishdas.org)" > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: > <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7 at VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > > Zechiyah uMattanah - Chapter Seven > Translated by Eliyahu Touger > > > Halacha 1 > > > It is a universally accepted custom in most countries that when a man > marries, his friends and acquaintances send him money to support the > expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Then the friends and > acquaintances who sent him this money come and eat and drink with the groom > during all - or part - of the seven days of wedding celebration; everything > should be done according to the accepted local custom. > > The money that he is sent is called shushvinut, and the people who send > the money and then come and eat and drink with the groom are called > shushvinin. > > > Halacha 2 > > > Shushvinut is not an outright gift. For it is plainly obvious that a > person did not send a colleague 10 dinarim with the intent that he eat and > drink a zuz's worth. He sent him the money solely because his intent was > that when he would marry, he would send him money as he has sent him. > > Therefore, if the sender marries a woman, and the recipient does not > return the shushvinut, the sender may lodge a legal claim against the > recipient and expropriate the money from him. > > KVCT > 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. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:01:38 -0400 > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > To: Micha Berger , The Avodah Torah Discussion > Group > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <55DF5E92.9020405 at sero.name> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > On 08/27/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > I believe the reference is to the law of shushvinin. But that is not > a matter of hakaras hatov; it's an explicit quid pro quo arrangement. > If you don't pay it back when it falls due, you're cheating the person > of a quantifiable amount of money that you explicitly owe him, so he > can sue you for it. > > -- > Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you > zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in > the street and commands me to surrender my purse, > I have a right to kill him without asking questions > -- John Adams > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:28:42 -0400 > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > To: "Rich, Joel" , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <55DF64EA.6000201 at sero.name> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > On 08/27/2015 01:55 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > > money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. > > Mistranslation: This should be "...the expenses of the feast." > > -- > Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you > zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in > the street and commands me to surrender my purse, > I have a right to kill him without asking questions > -- John Adams > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Avodah Digest, Vol 33, Issue 117 > *************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 30 20:32:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 23:32:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz - Lu'ach 5776 Message-ID: <20150831033207.C42DF1831DF@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 00:33:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 03:33:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz - Lu'ach 5776 Message-ID: <20150831073325.1618E182644@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 18:44:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 21:44:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: <20150901014419.GA6761@aishdas.org> Something I noticed... After the animal is shechted, a lung could be hollow, or full of liquid, and it's still kosher. But if there is a pinhole in both membranes around the lung, it's treif. Similarly the brain -- if the outside is solid, the inside could be rotten and the animal is still kosher. These are laws of tereifah that we refuse to change recardless of whether veterinary medicine disagrees about survivability. So I assume there is some point being made about chiyus in general in all this. However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is more important than penimius. Maybe something more like "fake it till you make it" -- as long as you keep the externals going, there is hope that the internals will fill in. But I'm fishing for better suggestions. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 19:18:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 22:18:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Factory Farming and Panicking the Animals Message-ID: <20150901021819.GA14109@aishdas.org> If the lung is tzemuqah (dried enough to be wrinkly like a raisin, but not dry enough to be called yeveishah)... There is a halakhah leMoshe miSinai that if it was due to fright caused by a person, the animel is tereifah if it's caused by HQBH (eg a lion attack), the animal is kosher. (AhS YD 36:70) If you do not know what the cause was, you check the lung -- man-made rei'ah tzemuqah won't rehydrate when soaked in water for 24 hours. But, this test is only used if the cause of the fright wasn't known (se'if 74); the cause of the stress is the iqar, not the dryness. Interesting is a comment at the end of se'if 70: Therefore it is correct that shoechtim be careful not to shecht one ba'al chai in front of another ba'al chai so that the lungs not get wrinkly and will require checking, ae will be explained. Also, there is tza'r ba'alei chaim in it ve'issur gamur hu and so wrote a number of gedolei ha'achronim. So I'm wondering, is our factory-style slaughter mutar? Can you say that this speed is a tachlis that makes the tza'ar needful, and thus mutar? Do people disagree with the AhS and his unnamed acharonim? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 20:52:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 05:52:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus In-Reply-To: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> References: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> Message-ID: <55E5210A.9050302@zahav.net.il> I would just add that like any other kashrut issue, a lot depends on why one has a particular practice. If one refuses to eat heter michira vegetables (that is the real issue) because he feels the HM is simply invalid, that is quite different than not using HM products because one wants to be machmir (assuming of course that not relying on the HM is a chumra). Ben On 8/28/2015 11:08 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > Lich'ora, since there is no consensus about shmita standards among > shomrei shabbos, one who has a stricter practise can't assume that > a randomly selected shomer shabbos is at least as strict as his. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 10:49:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 13:49:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another Tereifos Observation Message-ID: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> As I mentioned yesteday, any hole in the surface of the lung large enough to leak air would make the animal tereifah. What if the hole heals? AhS YD 36:7 (and elsewhere) says that a qerum (membrane) she'alah machmas makkah doesn't count. In se'if 14 he learns peshat in Rashi (Yavamos 76a "eino qerum") that there are two sevaros: 1- because this kind of closure isn't permanent 2- the closure is new. Akin to Chullin 68b "kivan shenitrefah, shuv ein lah heter) But in reality, the AhS says, "be'emes chad ta'amah hu" -- what makes the closure temporary is that it is made from the liquids of the makah. And therefore once the makah is healed, it has no cause. RYME notes that this is bedavqa when a new membrane is closing the hole. But if the side grow in until it closes, the lung is kosher. What about "kivan shenitrefah"? He writes "keshehaheter hayah mukhan be'eis hatarfus, lo chal alahh sheim tarfus ba'olam." Continuing what I wrote yesterday, that there must be much lehislameid from the halakhos of tereifos, given how we etched them in stone despite many of the rules losing their veterinary explanations.... We are told to have bitachon that before sending troubles, "Ein HQBH makeh es Yisrael ela im kein borei lahem refu'ah techilah" (Megillah 13b) This rule of tereifos, that the chalos sheim "tereifah" doesn't apply if the means by which the hole would close were pre-existing, seems to imply something further. In a sense, the makah itself isn't real because the refu'ah is already prepared. It is not that the bad times cause the good ones. Because they aren't permanent enough to be the root of permanent solutions. Rather, it is because it's all one process, the bad times being a bump in a road that from the moment you strarted traveling it leads to good. Or as Nachum ish Gam Zu said, "gam lu LEtovah" (emphasis mine), not "gam zu tovah". What redeems the bad times is that the route from them to tov is there before they even begin. ---- Language note: I noticed that rei'ah means "lungs", even though the term is in the singular and the translation is in the plural. There is no term of art for a single lung -- the main body of each lung is an omah and the lobes are onos or in Hebrew "aznayim". Tir'u baTov! -Micha Off-topic PS: I am seriously finding the beginning of YD turning me off to meat. -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 09:55:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 19:55:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Kosher Switch, Grama and Rav Osher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://podcast.headlinesbook.com/e/8-15-15-headlines/ where Rav Osher Weiss explains in detail his approach to grama, and electricity on Shabbos in general. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 11:17:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 14:17:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another Tereifos Observation In-Reply-To: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> References: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55E5EBB7.7060400@sero.name> On 09/01/2015 01:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Language note: I noticed that rei'ah means "lungs", even though the term > is in the singular and the translation is in the plural. There is no > term of art for a single lung -- the main body of each lung is an omah > and the lobes are onos or in Hebrew "aznayim". Yes, Chazal conceived of the lungs as a single organ. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 18:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 21:45:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > Similarly the brain -- if the outside is solid, the inside > could be rotten and the animal is still kosher. > ... > However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that > chitzonius is more important than penimius. > > Maybe something more like "fake it till you make it" -- as > long as you keep the externals going, there is hope that > the internals will fill in. > > But I'm fishing for better suggestions. I will offer another data point which also seems to suugest that chitzonius is more important than penimius. Mechaber 78:1 and Mishne Brurah 78:2,3 are obviously talking about a person who unfortunately suffers from incontinence. If he urinates while davening, he must pause, but can continue when the flow stops. This applies even if his legs and undergarments are totally wet, but NOT if the urine is on his outer garments. It seems that the cleanliness of one's outer garments is more important than the cleanliness of his undergarments, or even of his body itself. Similarly, if one needs to defecate, but he can hold himself for 4 mil, he will be yotzay davening b'dieved -- Mechaber 92:1. But that leniency is because it is mere pnimius; Mechaber 76:4,5 seems to be stricter once the tzoah has gone external. (Note: I think that it would not be difficult to show that chitzonius *is* important. The problem as I see it is that we've found some cases where it is *more* important than pnimius.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 00:17:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 10:17:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] bavli variants Message-ID: We are pleased to announce the launch of a new version (1.2) of the ' *Hachi **Garsinan*' Site for Variant-Readings of the Talmud Bavli. The site is freely accessible to all through the Friedberg portal: http://jewishmanuscripts.org . Version 1.1 of the website shows all hand-written text witnesses of the Talmud Bavli from the Cairo Genizah, with digital images (more than 4,600) and their transcriptions, in the framework of a software that allows the display of all text-witnesses of a specific Talmudic text in parallel columns in small units. Identical excerpts in a specific text-witness and in the Vilna can be marked, in order to spare the user the effort of comparing the texts. There are also additional helpful functions such as Save and Print, as specified in the website Homepage. *In the new version (1.2) - text witnesses from the following early printings have been added:* - *Guadalajara**(1480?), Spain / Portugal (Toledo? 1480-1490), Portugal (Faro? before 1498), Faro (1497?), Fez (1516-1521)* - *Soncino (1484-1489), Italy (1489-1498), Barco (1498-1499), Pesaro (1509-1516), Constantinople (1505-1509)* - *Venice** (1520-1523) * *(for details on tractates included in early printings - see Homepage). * *Furthermore, a function has been added to enable the user search for **terms or expressions in the Vilna** edition and each of the text witnesses that take part in the current version (Genizah and early printings) as well as a function to display the lexicon (**list of different words and their frequency**) of Vilna and of each of the other text-witnesses. Finally, the new version allows each user to alter the way that the text units are displayed on the variant-readings screen, using special editing tools designed for this purpose.* -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 05:05:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 08:05:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In my previous post, I cited some halachos which seem to demonstrate - surprisingly - that externals are *more* important than internals. Perhaps the source pasuk for those halachos might help us out. Devarim 23:15: "... v'hayah machanecha kadosh, v'lo yir'eh v'cha ervas davar..." "... your *camp* will be holy, and nothing unseemly will be seen in *you*..." We learn much from each of these phrases, but does anyone compare the relative importance of the reisha to that of the seifa? Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 08:31:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 11:31:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150902153128.GB27954@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 09:45:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Mechaber 78:1 and Mishne Brurah 78:2,3 are obviously talking about a person : who unfortunately suffers from incontinence... : Similarly, if one needs to defecate, but he can hold himself for 4 mil, he : will be yotzay davening b'dieved -- Mechaber 92:1. But that leniency is : because it is mere pnimius; Mechaber 76:4,5 seems to be stricter once the : tzoah has gone external. I am not sure these are examples. It may have to do with when tzo'ah smells, or when it starts being "tzo'ah" rather than part of the person. : (Note: I think that it would not be difficult to show that chitzonius *is* : important. The problem as I see it is that we've found some cases where it : is *more* important than pnimius.) Thinking about it more, I have more confidence in my earlier guess, that chitzonius is a better indicator of future penimius than current penimius is. Someone who is a passionate eved H', but for some reason isn't acting on it will likely lose that passion, and someone who develops the right habits in attempt to develop the feelings, mitokh shelo lishimah, ba lishmah. So it's not that it's more important; it's still of derived value. And yet, this reasoning explains Yahadus's focus on halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 18:30:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 21:30:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In Avodah V33n118, R'Micha wrote: > However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is more important than penimius. < Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what can be seen? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 06:30:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:30:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We recently had a thread which discusses the meaning of the word "mesorah". Coincidentally or not, I'd like to ask about the meaning of the verb "moser" as it occurs in the context of the Prozbul. I'd like to begin by giving two different *colloquial* uses of "moser": It can refer to the act of literally handing a fellow Jew to the authorities, but it can also refer to merely informing the authorities about a fellow Jew. My question about Prozbul is this: When the Prozbul says that the lender is "moser" the loans to Beis Din, does he actually hand them over, or does he merely inform? For decades, I had thought that the lender actually gives the loans to the Beis Din, in a manner similar to how anyone can use a commercial collection agency: Usually, if someone owes me money, I can sell that debt to a collection agency, but in the context of Shmitta, I give it as a gift to the beis din. Then, the beis din authorizes me to collect the debt on their behalf, and will allow me to retain 100% of it as my service fee. With the above, I have accomplished three important things: (1) When Rosh Hashana arrives, no one owes me anything, so I have no possibility of violating any halachos of Shmitas Kesafim. (2) When I collect from the borrower, I'm merely acting as an agent of beis din, to whom Lo Yigos does not apply, so I'm not violating anything. (3) Although the lender did not repay anything to me directly, my finances did not suffer, and future Shmitos will not influence to me avoid lending. BUT - From what I've learned, when a Prozbul is done, no kinyan ever occurs between the lender and the Beis Din, not even a kinyan sudar of the sort that I do when authorizing the rav to sell my chometz. Without a kinyan, I can't see how the loan ever leaves the ownership of the lender. So it is clear to me that Prozbul does NOT follow the "collection agency" model. Is there some other model that it does follow? The Mechaber Choshen Mishpat 67:8 talks about a situation that I will presume occurs before Erev Rosh Hashana: "If one claims money, and the other denies it, and the first sues in beis din and wins, and the psak din is that the second one must pay - this is a gibui, and shmita does not cancel it." If I'm understanding this correctly, then when a court verdict declares the A must pay B, this is not the sort of debt that shmita cancels, because the requirement to pay does not come from any interaction between the two men, but directly from the beis din's power. In other words, the lender can ask the borrower for money, but he is not asking for the loan to be repaid; rather, he is enforcing the court's ruling. This is a new obligation upon the borrower, which was created by the court, and is therefore exempt from Shmitas Kesafim. Perhaps this is how Prozbul works: Without any evidence or documentation, or even an itemized list, a person approaches the beis din and tells them that there are debts which are owed to him. The beis din responds with a court order that those debts must be paid. He can now collect them, because it is the *Beis Din* that wants them to be paid (irrespective of the fact that the lender wants them paid). This explanation solves the problem of Lo Yigos: The lender is not pressing the borrower for repayment of a personal loan; he is pressing the borrower to pay the court judgment. But the personal loan does still exist, doesn't it? The lender would still have an obligation to be personally m'shamet the loan at some point, but I think most people think that the Prozbul relieves them of that obligation. I'm stumped. When the lender is "moser" the loan to Beis Din, exactly what is happening? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 11:26:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 18:26:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0b20dda77d534fbdbec18095eaf0ce72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> We recently had a thread which discusses the meaning of the word "mesorah". Coincidentally or not, I'd like to ask about the meaning of the verb "moser" as it occurs in the context of the Prozbul. Akiva Miller ================================= Listen hear for discussion on point http://www.torahbase.org/prozbul-concept-halachos-5775/?lang=en Rav Asher Weiss-Prozbul ? Concept and Halachos 5775 Kvct 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 13:07:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:07:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch Message-ID: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> S"A O"C 55:11 as recorded in the 1st volume of the mishna brurah (it's not in my regular S"A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of the S"A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn't apply "now" because dina dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? KVCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 14:41:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2015 23:41:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What am I missing? Message-ID: <55EB6184.5050706@zahav.net.il> Re prozbul, I seem to be missing something. Personally I haven't loaned out any huge sums such that if I don't get them back, I would be reticent about loaning in the future. If I did loan out something small, why should I sign the prozbul? If the borrower doesn't pay me, well he doesn't have to (right?). If the borrower does pay me, he gets a bracha and everyone is a winner. What am I missing? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 21:10:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 00:10:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <55EBBC9C.9070304@sero.name> On 09/04/2015 04:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > S?A O?C 55:11 as recorded in the 1^st volume of the mishna brurah (it?s not in my regular S?A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of the S?A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn?t apply ?now? because dina dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? The note appears in the first edition, so presumably it was put there by the original publisher, in order to get it past the censor. Or perhaps it was inserted at the censor's insistence. In any case it houldn't need saying that it was not intended to be taken seriously by the intended audience. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49623&pgnum=170 (BTW, the censor's approval is dated 23-Dec-1882, the Hebrew date on the front page is 5683, but the secular date on the front page is 1884. Presumably that's how long publishing took.) -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 21:04:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 00:04:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Factory Farming and Panicking the Animals Message-ID: From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> If the lung is tzemuqah (dried enough to be wrinkly like a raisin, but not dry enough to be called yeveishah)... There is a halakhah leMoshe miSinai that if it was due to fright caused by a person, the animel is tereifah if it's caused by HQBH (eg a lion attack), the animal is kosher. (AhS YD 36:70) ....Interesting is a comment at the end of se'if 70: Therefore it is correct that shoechtim be careful not to shecht one ba'al chai in front of another ba'al chai so that the lungs not get wrinkly and will require checking, ae will be explained. << Micha Berger >>>> I remember reading that Temple Grandin had designed a spiral ramp with high walls for cattle to walk along before reaching the slaughtering spot. The design was such that the animal could not see out the sides or very far ahead as it walked, and would thus not witness other animals being slaughtered. This was meant to keep the animal calm and not frightened. I did not find the article with a quick google search but I am sure it's available somewhere. Temple Grandin is a famous expert in humane methods of animal slaughter. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 01:19:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 11:19:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? Message-ID: Most of selichos is us beseeching Hashem (poetically) for forgiveness and declaring that we are unworthy and sinners. However, the main part of selichos is the recitation of the 13 middos. However, the recitation of the 13 kiddos seems like almost magic, something we say because Hashem told us to as we say in the preceding paragraph "Hashem you commanded us to say the 13 [middos] ... as you told Moshe [the anav] ...". What is our kavannah supposed to be when we say the 13 middos? What should we be thinking? Why is saying the 13 middos so important? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 16:25:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 19:25:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150906232531.GA15175@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 11:19:51AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Most of selichos is us beseeching Hashem (poetically) for forgiveness and : declaring that we are unworthy and sinners. However, the main part of : selichos is the recitation of the 13 middos. However, the recitation of the : 13 kiddos seems like almost magic, something we say because Hashem told us : to as we say in the preceding paragraph "Hashem you commanded us to say the : 13 [middos] ... as you told Moshe [the anav] ...". What is our kavannah : supposed to be when we say the 13 middos? What should we be thinking? Why : is saying the 13 middos so important? Actually, the wording in the gemara is Whenever Israel sins *ya'asu* lefana keseder hazaeh, and I will pardon them. The point isn't to say the 13 Middos, they're just a reminder that we're supposed to do them. If we remember the essential, to be merciful people in His Image, HQBH is ready to pardon everything else. (I am defining "mocheil" as pardon as in being mochel a debt, in contrast to full forgiveness. That's a choice among how acharonim take selichah, mechilah and kapparah, so your mileage may vary.) I passionately recommend printing up and keeping it with your selichos and YK Machzor. It's a summary of the 13 Middos as per Tomer Devorah mapped to the version of the Thirteen Middos in Shemos that we say in Selichos. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 16:58:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 19:58:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 08:07:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : S"A O"C 55:11 as recorded in the 1st volume of the mishna brurah (it's : not in my regular S"A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of : the S"A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting : for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn't apply "now" because dina : dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. However, the MBs Poland wasn't it. Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 07:31:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 10:31:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: Let's go back to one of the sources: Yoma 72b - "Any talmid chacham whose tocho (inside) is not like his baro (outside) is not a talmid chacham." Is this speaking only of one who appears fine externally, but is deficient internally? Or does it also apply to one who is fine internally, but doesn't look it to an outside observer? If it applies to both, does anyone compare the two? I have always presumed that the one who is not-so-good on the inside is a bigger problem than the one who is okay on the inside. But if I understood them correctly, RMB and RMP brought independent reasons why one should focus on the externals. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 01:32:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 11:32:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What am I missing? Message-ID: R' Ben Waxman asked: > Re prozbul, I seem to be missing something. Personally I haven't loaned > out any huge sums such that if I don't get them back, I would be > reticent about loaning in the future. If I did loan out something small, > why should I sign the prozbul? If you have money in the bank in Israel then you have lent the bank money and therefore Shemitta will cancel your loan and the bank could keep your money. Now, the fact is that all the banks in Israel have a hater iska so that they can pay interest, but even with a heter iska half the amount is an iska but half is a loan, so the half that is a loan would be cancelled by shemita. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 17:56:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 20:56:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> I passionately recommend printing up . It explains the 13 Middos as found in Shemos and therefore Selichos in terms of the version in Michah and the Tomer Devorah thereon. Rather than repeating the same words / names over and over throughout selichos and much of Yom Kippur, it can become an opportunity to commit and recommit to emulating them. As the gemara (RH 17b) says Whenver Israel sin, they shall perform before Me like this structure (ya'asu lefanai keseider zeh), and I will forgive them. Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:27:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:27:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 08:56 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > As the gemara (RH 17b) says > Whenver Israel sin, they shall perform before Me like this structure > (ya'asu lefanai keseider zeh), and I will forgive them. > > Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:18:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:18:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55ECF3DF.8090003@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 04:19 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > However, the recitation of the 13 middos seems like almost magic, > something we say because Hashem told us to as we say in the preceding > paragraph Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we say them and invoke that promise. Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a magical power that the holy ketores has. The Malach Hamaves told Moshe Rabbenu about this trick, and when the occasion arose Moshe told Aharon to use it. "There are more things in heaven and earth..." -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:22:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:22:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was > written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? No. > Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law > and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't > practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. > > However, the MBs Poland wasn't it Yes, it absolutely was. > Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 12:08:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 15:08:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dr. Leo Deutschlander - Father of the Bais Yaakov Movement Message-ID: <20150907190830.A1951181640@nexus.stevens.edu> The name of Sarah Schneirer is invariably associated with the Bais Yaakov Movement. However, she was not the only one who was responsible for the success of the movement before WW II. Sarah Schneirer was an idealist who decided that religious schools for girls were needed in Poland and who set out to found such schools. However, WADR to Sarah Schneirer, she had a very limited academic background and her Jewish education was quite basic. (This was the case for most girls who lived when she did.) Thus others were needed to assist her in the development of the Bais Yaakov Movement. One such person was Dr. Leo Deutschlander. Up until today I knew very little about him. I did know that there had been an article in the Jewish Observer about his life, but I did not have access to it. Today a friend mine, who has a complete collection of all issues of the JO, brought me a copy of the article about Dr. Deutschlander. I have put it at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/deutschlander.pdf Note that other people who helped Sarah Schneirer with the development of the Bais Yaakov movement are mentioned and almost all of them have a Frankfurt background which means they attended the school that RSRH started in Frankfurt that educated both boys and girls. Thus in a certain sense RSRH is to be considered the grandfather of the Bais Yaakov Movement. Judith nee Rosenbaum Grunfeld played a key role in the development for the Bais Yaakov movement. See her article about Sarah Schneirer at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/sara_schenierer.pdf Anyone really interested in the history of the Bais Yaakov movement should read Rabbi Abraham Atkin's PhD thesis which is titled The Beth Jacob Movement in Poland 1917-1939. I have put this document at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/beth_jacob_movement_poland.pdf Note that the article about Dr. Deutschlander says that he never had children. To the best of my knowledge, he never married, yet he taught Bais Yaakov girls of seminary age and perhaps even younger, something that would be considered scandalous today! Given that Dr. Deutschlander never married, I find him being characterized by Chaim Shapiro as the "Father of the Bais Yaakov Movement" somewhat amusing. >:-} YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 11:41:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 14:41:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar Message-ID: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> Please click here to download a back issue of Halachically Speaking on eating before Shofar. ---------- From the article Custom of Some Gedolim The Steipler zt"l used to recite the zohar and other tefillos during the break. In his later years he recited portions of tehillim.[1] He did not make kiddush before tekios.[2] Harav Moshe Feinstein zt"l did not eat before tekios.[3] Harav Elyashiv zt"l [4] and Harav Yisroel Belsky Shlita do not eat or drink before tekios. [1] Orchos Rabbeinu 2:page 182:4. Refer to Darchei Chaim V'sholom 716:page 251. [2] Orchos Rabbeinu 2:page 181:1. Refer to Chelek Levi 189. [3] As related by Harav Aron Felder Shlita. [4] As quoted in Chag B'chag page 113:footnote 79. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 14:13:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 17:13:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar In-Reply-To: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <55EDFE13.7010505@sero.name> I have to admit that this is one of the Lubavitcher customs that puzzle me. All year, not just on Shabbos but also on weekdays, the official Lubavitch minhag is to allow eating before davening (after saying sh'ma, on weekdays in tefillin), on the grounds that it's difficult to daven properly without it. In the Tzemach Tzedek's words, "it's better to eat in order to daven, than to daven in order to eat". If you find that you're davening in order to get to breakfast, you'd do better to get breakfast over with and then daven with kavanah. And yet on Rosh Hashana, when one often doesn't get to kiddush until 2 or 3 in the afternoon, and when one needs kavanah in davening more than ever, Lubavitchers fast until kiddush! I don't understand it. If you can make it on Rosh Hashana, why not on any other day? And if you can't daven on an empty stomach on a weekday without thinking about breakfast, then how can you daven on an even emptier stomach on Rosh Hashana without thinking about lunch? -- Zev Sero KVChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 16:32:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:32:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:18:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. : Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we : say them and invoke that promise. : Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores : to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a : magical power that the holy ketores has.. Where is this made explicit? On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:27:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. : That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". Who said that remembering something in tefillah, unlike lekhishah, talks about the words themselves without internalization? What's the verb for tefillah, anyway? In any case, the idea that it's about saying the words until we're committed to emulating them isn't mine, it's R' Elimelekh miLetzhinsk's, the Chafeitz Chaim's and R YL Chasmin's. The latter two relate this gemara to "mah Hu 'Rachum' af atah..." Hashem is not only just, He's not a Vatran. The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 16:43:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:43:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:22:37PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was :> written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? : No. Source? :> Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law :> and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't :> practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. :> However, the MBs Poland wasn't it : Yes, it absolutely was. Again, source? Actual excommunications were commonplace. Comes up in teshuvos on agunah. :> Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. : Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could : be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the : MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. In the CC's hayday, Radun was in the Vilna Voivodship, Poland. And I didn't ask about censortship, I asked about autonomy, as in having courts empowered to punish, and the Jewish community certainly did. At least, azoi shteyt YIVO The Polish government never recognized Jewish communal autonomy de jure, but autonomy existed de facto in hundreds of local communities, school systems, and youth movements during the interwar period. Because regardless of whether this appeal to dina demalkhusa was real or to satisfy a censor, the mileau that created this footnote had to have such a law. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 17:42:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 20:42:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EE2EF6.2060509@sero.name> On 09/07/2015 07:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:18:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. > : Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we > : say them and invoke that promise. > > : Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores > : to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a > : magical power that the holy ketores has.. > > Where is this made explicit? It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell? Also, the gemara deduces that this is where Moshe must have got it, because how else could he possibly have known about it? Now if it was about the kavanos or the zechus of the mitzvah stopping plagues, then why couldn't Moshe Rabbenu have worked it out from first principles? This shows that it isn't anything that could be worked out, there's no reason why it should be so, it just is. In other words, magic. > > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:27:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. > > : That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". > > Who said that remembering something in tefillah, unlike lekhishah, talks > about the words themselves without internalization? What's the verb for > tefillah, anyway? "Lehazkir" doesn't mean to remember, it means to mention, to pronounce words. For that matter, the word "yaasu" that you're basing yourself on refers not to the midos themselves but to the "seder tefillah", i.e. the ritual of naming the midos. > Hashem is not only just, He's not a Vatran. The notion of magic words > that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah > would be very problematic. But that is what the gemara seems to say. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 18:06:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 21:06:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EE34A8.7060303@sero.name> On 09/07/2015 07:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:22:37PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was > :> written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? > > : No. > > Source? There is no source that it was banned then. Why would you even imagine that it would be? There is no such note in any edition of the Shulchan Aruch. In any case, the concept of banning cherem doesn't seem to have come up until the late 18th century. http://t95.el.sl.pt > :> Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law > :> and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't > :> practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. > > :> However, the MBs Poland wasn't it > > : Yes, it absolutely was. > > Again, source? Actual excommunications were commonplace. Comes up > in teshuvos on agunah. Catherine the Great banned cherem in 1795. Of course they ignored the law and did it anyway, but to get a sefer past the publisher they had to pretend to be obeying the law, so if the sefer mentioned cherem they had to note that this was written before it became illegal. > :> Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. > > : Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could > : be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the > : MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. > > In the CC's hayday, Radun was in the Vilna Voivodship, Poland. What Poland? There was no such place as Poland. It was Russia, and there was no autonomy. > And I didn't ask about censortship, I asked about autonomy, as in having > courts empowered to punish, and the Jewish community certainly did. > At least, azoi shteyt YIVO > > The Polish government never recognized Jewish communal autonomy de > jure, but autonomy existed de facto in hundreds of local communities, > school systems, and youth movements during the interwar period. Read what you just wrote: "The Polish government". What period could this paragraph possibly be talking about? The period when there was a Poland and a Polish government. IOW not the time we are discussing. And indeed if you look at the page again, you will see that it is explicitly discussing the interwar period, after Polish independence. > Because regardless of whether this appeal to dina demalkhusa was real > or to satisfy a censor, the mileau that created this footnote had to > have such a law. Yes, it did. Catherine's law that I mentioned above. And it also had a strict censorship law, which this sefer was subject to. If you need any further convincing, note the language of the censor's stamp. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 20:16:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 23:16:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Joel Rich wrote: > Listen hear for discussion on point > http://www.torahbase.org/prozbul-concept-halachos-5775/?lang=en > Rav Asher Weiss - Prozbul - Concept and Halachos 5775 Thank you very much for showing me this. I listened to it a few times, and it seems that he gives his conclusions right at the beginning: (00:42 to 01:05) "The takana of Pruzbul is that there is no need to physically give over your notes to Beis Din and there is no need Beis Din should be the ones to collect your money. Hillel was metaken: it is enough if you declare, either orally or in writing, Mosrani lachem..." (02:00-02:24) "The takana of Hillel was: It is enough if you write 'Mosrani lachem ploni v'ploni'. It is considered AS IF you transferred your notes to Beis Din, and when you collect the money, you would be considered AS IF you would be shliach of Beis Din even though it's not really the real thing in practicality. But that was the takana of Pruzbul." But how does it work? He clearly says (at 8:40 to 9:23) that the functions of a Beis Din do not include acting as a collection agency. There ARE (9:49 to 10:30) are very limited circumstances where Beis Din does have that function, such as collecting for yesomim, because that *is* one of the roles of the Beis Din, as "avi yesomim". One the other hand, (10:30 to 10:52) yesomim do not need to make a pruzbul at all, because Beis Din is *automatically* the Avi Yesomim, and their loans will not be cancelled by shmitta. So he suggests (12:19 to 12:40) that although it is not Beis Din's practice to accept the responsibility of collecting loans except for unusual cases, perhaps the difficulties posed by Shmitta put other loans in this category, and so if someone would be moser his loans to Beis Din, then Shmitta will not cancel them. But exactly why are such loans exempt? He explains (14:20 to 14:40), "You have to be m'shamet loans, but the moment you gave your notes, your loans over to Beis Din, it is k'gavui dami - it is as if those monies were already collected." He then compares this situation to the case where the lender has collateral for the loan, and that too is "already collected" and exempt from Shmitas Kesafim. It seems to me that this is how Rav Weiss understands the Pruzbul: The loan was and remains property of the lender, but Beis Din accepts the responsibility to go to the borrower to demand payment. From that point, it is considered as "already collected". Since it is already collected, not only is he allowed to request the money after Rosh Hashana, but there's no need to even state "M'shamet Ani". There is no need for any kinyan, because the loan remains property of the lender, and the role of Beis Din is simply to accept responsibility for collecting the loan; this occurs automatically at the inception of the loan where the lender is an orphan, and it also occurs automatically at the execution of a Pruzbul per Ezra's takana. ON THE OTHER HAND, over Shabbos a friend lent me his copy of Sefer Dinei Shviis Hashalem, published by Keren Hatarbut Degel Yerushalayim, which contains a photo of a pruzbul on the stationery of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and (apparently) in his handwriting, dated 29 Elul 5754. It contains a very interesting clause. Other pruzbuls avoid details, and simply say something like "I am moser my loans to beis din", but this one adds some very significant points. Here is the full pruzbul, as best as I can render it: "[B'mosav tlasa bei dina k'chada havinu] We were three dayanim sitting together, [uva l'faneinu...] and R' Aharon Dovid Goldberg came [v'amar lanu] and said to us: [Hen shana zu hee shnas hashviis] This year is the seventh year, [v'yesh li chovos b'shtar uv'al peh] and I have loans - both in writing and orally - [al ayzeh anashim] against certain people. [V'hareni moser lachem pruzbul] I am now moser a pruzbul to you, [viyhavis l'chon b'matana] and give it to you as a gift [b'kinyan dalet' amos karka] with a kinyan of four amos of land, [me'arah d'ees li] from the ground that is mine. [V'al gabayhon] And through that, [arshees yas'chon] I give you permission [limigbah kol chovos] to collect all my loans, [d'ees lee al inshee] which I have against people. [Mayatah t'havoon li daiyna] Henceforth you will be my dayanim, [v'sagbuhu uskabluhu li] and you will collect and accept payment for me. [V'im lo tagbuhu atem] And if you do not collect it yourselves, [mayata kayvan shemasarti lachem pruzbul zeh] then since I was moser this pruzbul to you, [ani goveh kol chov] so I can collect any loan [sheyesh li ad hayom etzel kol adam] which I have up to today against anyone, [kol zman she'ertzeh] any time I want. [next paragraph] - "[Anachnu beis din] We the court [shamanu dvarav] heard his words, [veefinu kocho] and affirm its validity, [shelo t'shamet lay] that he will not have a cancellation, [v'yigbeh kol chovosav] and he can collect all his loans, [al ydei pruzbul zeh] via this pruzbul, [k'takanas Hillel v'Chazal] in accordance with the takana of Hillel and Chazal. [next paragraph] - "[Banu al hechasum] We have signed below [yom kaf"tes l'chodesh Elul, shnas heh-tav-shin-nun"dalet] this day, 29th of Elul 5754 [poh Ir Hakodesh Yerushalayim] here, the holy city of Yerushalayim. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach [I cannot read the other two signatures]" (end of pruzbul) I don't understand the purpose of the four amos of land. (Yes, I'm quite aware of the requirement in halacha, I just don't understand why that requirement was included. That's a topic for another thread.) And I quite likely made some errors in the transliteration and the translation. But I think that I understood it well enough to state with confidence that it seems that RSZA does indeed subscribe to the "collection agency" model, which Rav Asher Weiss had so clearly rejected. RSZA explicitly uses the word "kinyan". One could argue that the "matanah" which the lender is giving to the beis din is merely the pruzbul and not the loans. One could also point out that after the kinyan has occurred, the lender continues to refer to the loans (which beis din would collect) as "MY loans", suggesting that they are still owned by the lender and not the beis din. But if that is so, then what does it mean to make a kinyan on the *pruzbul*? This pruzbul is merely a record of the court proceedings, and it seems very likely to me that the intent is for the court to acquire the loans themselves, in very much the same way that a modern collection agency works. If anyone disagrees, and feels that RSZA does *not* subscribe to the "collection agency" model, please explain how you think this pruzbul works. And if anyone does agree with me, then I wonder if any other poskim hold that way, because every explanation of pruzbul that I've seen describes the document itself, and no one ever mentions any requirement of kinyan. Thank you Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 02:10:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 05:10:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar Message-ID: And if you can't daven on an empty stomach on a weekday without thinking about breakfast, then how can you daven on an even emptier stomach on Rosh Hashana without thinking about lunch? Kal v?chomer, how can you daven on T?B and Y?K when you wake up without having even drinking or eating and then must go another good 12 hours on an empty stomach? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 03:51:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:51:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote; > "It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that > ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to > have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there > the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so > obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. > How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell?" Rashi in Chumash quoting the Mechilta offers a second explanation of why the ketores was used to end the plague. Bnei Yisrael were complaining about the ketores that it was a sam hamaves, that it killed people. The ketores killed Nadav and Avihu, it killed the 250 people, therefore Hashem said watch that it can stop the plague and that sin is what really kills people. We see clearly from this explanation that there was nothing magical about using the ketores, rather Hashem wanted to make a point to the Jewish people about the ketores. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 07:35:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:35:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very problematic. (Or perhaps "confusing" would be a better description, as it moves the focus away from a "problematic halacha", chalila, and towards my obligation to understand it.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 08:14:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 11:14:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:35:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a : measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very : problematic... And I don't believe there is such a thing, so I have no problem. I suggested twice now 2007 http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol23/v23n174.shtml#12 and 2010 http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n130.shtml that itzumo shel yom mechaperes only someone who acknowledges and embraces the etzem shel yom. >From 2007: > My understanding is that itzumo shel yom is mechapeir, but without inuyim, > one isn't connected to that etzem. IOW, someone who eats on YK doesn't > get kapparah, but someone who observes YK gets kapparah from YK itself, > not the zekhus of observance. > And it's clear from R' Elazar ben Azaryah on Yuma 86a that YK is never > effective in and of itself. > - For an asei, teshuvah is effective > - For a regular lav, teshuvah must first achieve selichah (removal of > onesh) before YK can effect kaparah > - For a chayav kareis, one needs teshuvah and YK for selichah, and onesh > brings kaparah > - For chillul Hashem, only misah brings kaparah. > The philosophical problems are > (1) The justice in YK being mechapeir > (2) Given a ba'asher hu sham approach, why would onesh or misah in and > of itself help? > I couldn't make heads or tails of it without stretching the notion, > and saying that YK is mechapeir to the extent that one allows oneself to > experience the soul-changing nature of YK, and thus change the ba'asher > hu sham. Similarly oneshim or misah. I know all this could be seen as dachuq BUT, Divine Justice is the 11th iqar. I would prefer to take a number of chazal's statements as colloquial shorthand for more nuanced ideas than to dismiss what we have blessed as a defining feature of Yahadus. Or IOW, given that Ani Maamin and Yigdal made it into the siddur, I feel the burden rests on those who take itzumo shel yom in its simple sense. (And yes, "problematic" should be tken as "a problem for us to understand.") Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 10:08:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:08:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 midos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55EF15F0.8060200@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 06:50 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote; >> "It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that >> ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to >> have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there >> the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so >> obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. >> How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell?" > Rashi in Chumash quoting the Mechilta offers a second explanation of > why the ketores was used to end the plague. Bnei Yisrael were > complaining about the ketores that it was a sam hamaves, that it > killed people. The ketores killed Nadav and Avihu, it killed the 250 > people, therefore Hashem said watch that it can stop the plague and > that sin is what really kills people. > > We see clearly from this explanation that there was nothing magical > about using the ketores, rather Hashem wanted to make a point to the > Jewish people about the ketores. Yes, this is an alternative explanation, offered because the primary explanation leaves some question unanswered. But it is the second explanation rather than the first, because the problem with it is obvious: Hashem didn't tell Moshe to do this. Moshe told Aharon on his own initiative, which is why the gemara wonders how he knew that it would work. This is also why the Malach Hamaves challenged Aharon's right to stop him; if the instruction had come from Hashem he would have had no reason to object to being stopped. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 12:04:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:04:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55EF3124.3060704@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 05:10 AM, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: > Kal v?chomer, how can you daven on T?B and Y?K when you wake up > without having even drinking or eating and then must go another good > 12 hours on an empty stomach? Absolutely. But you don't have a choice. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 12:07:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:07:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> References: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EF31E7.5090303@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 11:14 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:35:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > : True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a > : measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very > : problematic... > > And I don't believe there is such a thing, so I have no problem. > > I suggested twice now 2007 > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol23/v23n174.shtml#12 and 2010 > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n130.shtml that > itzumo shel yom mechaperes only someone who acknowledges and embraces > the etzem shel yom. Rebbi is the one who says Itzumo shel yom mechaper, and he explicitly says that one who eats on YK is automatically forgiven the moment he swallows the food, so that the only way to get kares for eating on YK is to choke on the food and die before swallowing it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 10:18:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:18:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] thermostats Message-ID: as thermostats for the house get more sophisticated do they present a shabbat problem? http://www.cnet.com/products/nest-learning-thermostat-third-generation/?ftag=CAD1acfa04 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 10:37:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:37:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 12:11:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 15:11:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> References: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F08476.8010605@sero.name> On 09/09/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay > (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan. Whether it's allowed is a different question from how it works. Moser Shtorosav leveis din worked even when shmitah was d'oraisa. Tosfos says that Hillel didn't invent it, he merely legitimised it. Before his day it was known, but it was considered unethical, and no reputable beis din would go along with it. To do it required finding a fly-by- night beis din willing to entertain it, so upstanding lenders didn't take advantage, and instead were reluctant to lend. Then Hillel decreed his "solution for rich and poor", which was to instruct botei din to accept and even encourage such applications, so that people would be willing to lend. And he only felt comfortable doing so because shmita was d'rabonon. -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 15:32:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 18:32:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 09:30:46PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V33n118, R'Micha wrote: :> However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is :> more important than penimius. : Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what can : be seen? How is the surface of a lung or brain more visible than the innards? The only difference is how much cutting is required. In general, halakhah only deals with what can be seen in principle, not what happens to be visible in this instance. You can't eat unchecked lettuce any more readily because the light bulb blew in the room you're in. And in principle, these things can be checked. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 17:23:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:23:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> Re: Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom - Rabbi Natan Slifkin From: Ben Rothke via Areivim <_areivim at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:areivim at lists.aishdas.org) > >> "The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom" is the latest book by Rabbi Natan Slifkin. I found it to be a fascinating work. My review is here: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/book-review-the-torah-encyclopedia-of-the-ani mal-kingdom Let me know what you think. << --Ben Rothke >>>>> I think the book is magnificent. I've seen the first volume and read a good chunk of it (the projected second volume is not out yet). It is a fascinating work based on tremendous research, and also aesthetically beautiful. The first volume is about wild animals mentioned in the Torah. The projected second volume I believe is about domestic and kosher animals. The book definitively answers, at least to my satisfaction, a question I've wondered about for a long time: What is a re'em? According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). In Moshe's brachos to the shevatim he says Yoseph has "the horns of a re'em" (Dev. 33:17). Bil'am says when Hashem took the Jews out of Egypt He had "like the strength of a re'em" (Bamidbar 23:22). R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs, a huge and powerful horned animal, a wild ox, nearly the size of an elephant, that lived in Europe, Asia and North Africa. It went extinct only about 400 years ago. The last recorded aurochs died in Poland in 1627. BTW a description and drawing of the aurochs can be seen on pages 17 - 18 of a lovely 28-page monograph that is particularly appropriate for this season. See *Exotic Shofars: Halachic Considerations* by R' Natan Slifkin. http://zootorah.com/assets/media/essays/ExoticShofars.pdf --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 21:37:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:37:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> ------------------------------ I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem?s love for His people: ?If you sin, even if you?re not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here?s a ?ticket? of sorts that I?m giving you _now_ to show my love for you, that if you ?remind? me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate that you see yourselves as close to me, and I?ll give you some measure of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah.? The best Mashal I could think of for this is a PBA placard ? you buy it and put it in your car, and when the cop pulls you over for speeding, you show it to him and he goes easy on you, because he sees that you?re really a friend of the police. NOT because you demonstrated regret for speeding, necessarily. Does that make sense? KT, MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:14:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:14:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Thinking about, knowing about, and knowing G-d In-Reply-To: <000601d0eb81$09d77c90$1d8675b0$@gmail.com> References: <20150901180343.GC11612@aishdas.org> <20150903002115.GA1793@aishdas.org> <55F08884.3010503@sero.name> <000601d0eb81$09d77c90$1d8675b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150910191452.GD3345@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:27:43AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Areivim wrote: : R' ZS: :> The Nachum in your story is too busy to think about HKBH, and that's not :> good, but OTOH HKBH Himself said "I wish they would forget me and keep my :> Torah", so this Nachum is better than someone who is constantly :> thinking about HKBH but doesn't keep mitzvos. But this is why Tanya :> (ch 41) says to interrupt ones learning once an hour to think about why one :> is learning. : This discussion reminds me that there's another step - not only to think : about Hashem, but to _know_ about Hashem, as in the old story (excerpted : from a piece I wrote for "A Daily Dose of Torah"): : R' Levi Yitzchok of Berditchev studied for an extended period of time with : the Maggid, R' Dov Ber of Mezeritch. When he returned, his father-in-law - : who did not approve of R' Levi Yitzchok's leanings towards chassidus - asked : him, "What did you learn there?" R' Levi Yitzchok answered, "I learned that : Hashem exists." His father-in-law, annoyed, protested that everyone knows : that, and to prove it, asked the maid, "Does Hashem exist?" She answered, : "Certainly!" : "She says it," R' Levi Yitzchok responded, "but I know it!" : Certainly pertinent to Malchiyos. I often quote something R/Prof Shalom Carmy wrote in (Aug '01): > [RGStudent: ] >> However, in his Al HaTeshuvah (pp. 195-201), R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik >> investigates what it means to "know" God. As he points out, it is >> impossible to know God. Rather, the Rambam means that we are obligated to >> constantly recognize God's existence. As it says in Mishlei (3:6), "In all >> your ways know Him." Cf. Rabbeinu Yonah's commentary to Mishlei, ad loc. > People who throw around big words on these subjects always seem to take > for granted things that I don't. > The people who keep insisting that it's necessary to prove things about > G-d, including His existence, seem to take it for granted that devising > these proofs is identical with knowing G-d. > Now if I know a human being personally the last thing I'd do, except as > a purely intellectual exercise, is prove his or her existence. RMYG's point is similar to that in the quote from RGS. There is a difference between knowing about Gcd and knowing Gcd. The latter is experiential, and doesn't demand proof. And IMHO more related to Malkhios. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:23:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:23:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150910192331.GA25852@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 04:56:04PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger: :> I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although :> there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, :> Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an :> obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. : "Mah ashiv laShem, kol tagmulohi alai?" I do not see obligation here. Rather, how can I possibly repay, given that everything I have is from Him. Even if voluntarily. Therefore (next pasuq), I will simply recognize what He gave me (kos yeshu'os esa) and that He was the One Who gave it (uvsheim H' eqra), follow through on what I already promised.... Do you see new obligations in this pereq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:47:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:47:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:02:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. : I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear as : ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) ... It's an intersting point, but relating it to RYBS's position just confuses the matter. You're using the word "ceremony" in nearly the opposite sense. And while you note that: : I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview it. : Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not : ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view This isnt' merely an answer, it's an indication that you're discussing two different topics. There is no question, just a miscommunication. Anyway, the contrast between the usages of the word "ceremony" interested me. You listed a number of cases where a halachic legality can be accomplished through something the lay-person considers meaningless ritual: pruzbul, mechiras chameitz, heter isqa, ha'aramos, etc.. RYBS made that statement about ceremony in the sense of ritual in which the person finds meaning, but lacks halachic structure. The two examples that most readily leap to mind are (1) his disparaging kiruv that focuses on white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos candelabra, and (2) his modifying the minhagim of the Three Weeks and Nine Days because leshitaso, the minhagim must follow the same forms as ones found in hilkhos aveilus. I posted about this in Aug '08 at . I also noted in 2011 that RYBS's position that minhag must mirror halachic structure is in opposition to the Brisker Rav's (his uncle's) shitah. RYZS holds that one makes berakhos on minhagim that have a cheftzah shel mitzvah (eg lighting a Chanukah menorah in shul), and that the Rambam and Rabbeinu Tam don't argue about that. What they do argue about is whether Chatzi Hallel is close enough to Hallel to qualify for a berakhah. However, leshitas RYBS, there are no such minhagim that wouldn't require a berakhah. If Chatzi Hallel didn't require a berakhah because it's not close enough to the cheftzah shel mitzvah, it would be "ceremony", and not a valid minhag. He therefore would have to reject his uncle's chiddush. Neo-Chassidus is basically a MO rebellion to this kind of Halakhic Man approach to Yahadus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 10:54:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:54:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle Message-ID: <20150910175503.5E910182948@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6500 Picture, if you will, the hallowed halls of almost any Yeshivah, almost anywhere in the world, on Rosh Hashanah morning. As the strains of Shiras Chanah conclude, followed by the post-Haftarah brachos, there suddenly is a loud bang on the Bimah and the Gabbai calls out "Kiddush!" Most of those assembled take a break for a quick Kiddush and then return for the day's main Mitzvah - the Tekiyas Shofar, the Blowing of the Shofar. The reciting of 'Lamnatzeach' soon reach a crescendo, not unlike a deafening roar, as the congregation eagerly anticipates and prepares for the Shofar Blowing. Although this is indeed the common custom in almost every Yeshivah, curiously, the idea of making Kiddush and eating prior to the main Mitzvah of the day is considered an anathema to some. In fact, the Matteh Efraim, who is considered the authority on issues relating to the Yomim Nora'im, writes that it is actually prohibited to eat before Tekiyas Shofar, barring if one is weak, and, even only then, a small 'Te'imah', tasting of food, in private, is allowed.[1] If so, why do so many make Kiddush[2] and eat before Tekiyas Shofar? To sum up the matter, and although this dilemma is quite complicated, one must ascertain from his knowledgeable halachic authority, as well as taking his personal situation, strength level, and minhag into account, as to what to do on Rosh Hashanah morning.[23] Postscript: One interesting upshot of this machlokes seems to be the recent proliferation of Vasikin Minyanim on Rosh Hashanah. In this way, it is possible to daven all of Shacharis and Mussaf and still be able to make Kiddush after completing davening but still before Chatzos, as well as gain all the spiritual benefits of 'Davening Haneitz'.[24] A seemingly excellent way to avoid spiritual conflict on the Day of Judgment, all the while literally fulfilling the Rambam's famous dictum (Hilchos Teshuvah Ch. 3: 4) of 'Uru Yesheinim Mi'shnascham, Wake up you slumberers, from your sleep', for the clarion call of the Shofar. See the above URL for more. ---------- Any one living in Flatbush is welcome to come to the YI of Ave J Haskama Minyan on RH morning. We start at 7:15 and davening will be over by 11:30 (with Musaf). Then there is plenty of time to go home and make kiddush before Chatzos. Davening is on the second floor in the Simcha Hall. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 08:46:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:46:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha responded to me: >> Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what >> can be seen? > How is the surface of a lung or brain more visible than the innards? > The only difference is how much cutting is required. And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an external tool is required in order to 'see' something. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 13:00:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:00:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:46:32AM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: : And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external : magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an : external tool is required in order to 'see' something. You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying glass. To me that seems obvious. But to articulate it, I find myself going to words like cheftzah, which is a bit too technical to be appropriate language for relaying why I find it self-evident. The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. The magnifying glass compensates for the fact that water bears and other microscopic beasties are not in the realm of experience. We aren't getting the situation right, we are compensating for something with the cheftzah itself. To put it another way, maggot eggs do not have halachic existence. Do tiny crustaceans cease to exist and come back into existence if you flip the light off or on? (This is just different kind of appeal to cheftzah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 13:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:19:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha noted: > You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. < I omitted the blown lightbulb because IMHO the level of required light is a murky subject (poor attempt at humor :)). > I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying glass. < And I am disagreeing: you need an external tool to reach that inside area. Since you're pushing your "kasuv hashelishi", you also need to define what level of light is "normal" -- surely you're not saying that a bug which can only be 'seen' when the level of light exceeds *olam-hazeh* norms (e.g. the lumen level exceeds that of the sun at its strongest) qualifies as visible? > The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. < I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:46:32AM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: > : And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external > : magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an > : external tool is required in order to 'see' something. > > You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen > by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. > > I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing > the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying > glass. > > To me that seems obvious. But to articulate it, I find myself going > to words like cheftzah, which is a bit too technical to be appropriate > language for relaying why I find it self-evident. > > The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, > the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside > the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an > aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is > within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. > > The magnifying glass compensates for the fact that water bears and > other microscopic beasties are not in the realm of experience. We aren't > getting the situation right, we are compensating for something with the > cheftzah itself. > > To put it another way, maggot eggs do not have halachic existence. > Do tiny crustaceans cease to exist and come back into existence if > you flip the light off or on? (This is just different kind of appeal > to cheftzah.) > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole > micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." > http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, > Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 17:40:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:40:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911004049.GA29555@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 05:20:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> The recent court to allow conversion of under bar/bat mitzvah children is :> controversial. The bone of contention is whether it is considred a zechut :> for children to become Jewish when they grow up in a non-religious setting. I thought we dissuade geirim (non-qetanim) in part because this is not true. Alternatively: How do the meiqilim justify this practice, particularly in venues (Golden Age of Spain, much of the world today) where there is comparatively little antisemisim? Rashi (Yevamos 74a, "de'amar) is concerned about the sinning convert's influence on other Jews. This being R' Chelbo's "qasheh ... kesapachas". Tosafos understand R' Chelbo as referring to the extra issurim of mistreating a geir, or that they make us look bad. The Semag (Lav 116, quoted by the BY YD 268) says we dissuade the ger to make sure he knows exactly what he is accepting, avoiding a "meqach ta'us" (my term). On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:27:59PM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious : Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also : for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for : reasons of Nationalism. Or, that being a Jew in Israel is so much better that zakhin le'adam shelo befanav applies. IOW, not by reasons of nationalism, but by taking nationalism into account as part of the metzi'us. Similar to those who rule that we do not dissuade a non-halachic convert, since they will be living among the Jews and their children will quite likely marry Jews either way. And in the latest volume of IM (vol 9, EhE 14), RMF similarly tells a BD to be proactive in convertain someone who thought until now they were Jewish. He even invoked the case of Timna, saying that to not do so would be to be repeating the avos' mistake. So we do see that facts on the ground about whether it is beneficial for the life they will be leading do matter. The bigger problem I have is qabbalas ol mitzvos. RnCL and I argued at length about whether the following qualifies as QOM, but whatever you want to call it.... Upon reaching adulthood, the geir has to affirm their acceptance of the mitzvos. While people pictures this means coming to BD on their 12th or 13th birthday, that is impossible -- the affirmation would have to be tokh kedei dibur of growing shenei sa'aros. Instead, BD sees if during that span of their lives they were observant, and if they were, we consider the geirus affirmed. This din is real enough that the gemara asks about a giyores from when she was less than 3, who is married of to a kohein as a qetana may be given terumah. After all, she might annull the geirus, in which case should would retroactively not have been an eishes kohein! The gemara answers based on rov (most children do not choose to convert out of the religion they were raised with), not that the affirmation is optional. So, what's going to happen to these qetanim when they reach adulthood? How can they be said to have effectively accepted ol mitzvos? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 17:20:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:20:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan >>> Agreed. But there still has to be rules, logic, framework. My original post was a request for help in identifying those rules. (And for now, Rav Asher Weiss' explanation seems quite plausible.). Example: If the streets in my town are a reshus harabim, there's no way to carry on Shabbos without actual walls. If the streets are merely karmelis, then we can make a haarama to say that the area is surrounded by a series of doorways. But they have got to be real halachic doorways; if even one lechi has the string on the side instead of above, forget it. So too here. I don't mind being moser to beis din, if only I was clear on what it is that I'm giving them, and how that happens, and what it accomplishes. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:04:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:04:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911010426.GA12008@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 08:20:47PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I actually thought pruzbul only works because : ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan >>> : : Agreed. But there still has to be rules, logic, framework... I was mostly dismissing your mentioning the lack of qinyan sudar. We can make a shaliach without one, for a ha'aramah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:25:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:25:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> References: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150911012558.GA18449@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:37:41AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: :> The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without :> necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> : I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem's love for His people: "If you : sin, even if you're not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, : here's a "ticket" of sorts that I'm giving you now to show my love for : you, that if you 'remind' me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate : that you see yourselves as close to me, and I'll give you some measure : of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah." But spending time demonstracting our desire for or actual closeness to HQBH is itself arguably a measure of teshuvah. And in any case avoids my problem with ascribing power to a sequence of syllables in and of themselves. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:29:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:29:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:23:44PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job : 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and : 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). : R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs... He argues that it's an auroachs. Calling any identification of this sort a "demonstration" is overly confident. Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we can use mythical creatures as metaphors. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 20:00:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:00:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I was mostly dismissing your mentioning the lack of qinyan sudar. We can make a shaliach without one, for a ha'aramah. >>> I presume you mean like how I can make the rav my shaliach for mechiras chometz without any kinyan. (In practice we do make a kinyan, but only as a chumrah.) So I don't need a kinyan at pruzbul either, and I can make the beis din a shliach without any kinyan. Okay. But if so, then exactly what is it that I'm making the beis din my shaliach FOR? What are they doing on my behalf? If I am making them my shaliach to collect my loans on my behalf, then that sounds like Rav Asher Weiss' explanation. Sure, beis din is patur from lo yigos, but it was a big chidush to me that that's enough to exempt me from being m'shamet a loan that I still own. (But if one wants to go with the Collection Agency idea, then shlichus is irrelevant - beis din would need to own the loan.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 20:51:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:51:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: <1a9316.271c37fb.4323a9c7@aol.com> In a message dated 9/10/2015 9:29:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, micha at aishdas.org writes: Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. >>> That is a fascinating and insightful point! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 02:00:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:00:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha In-Reply-To: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> References: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > Please elaborate BTW The Jewish Action had a recent article on the popularity of MO neo-chassidut. I went to a wedding this week where the chatan learns in a yeshiva from Ofra. To my sight it looked like a Breslov Yeshiva. Big white kippot with extreme dancing. The boys mostly has long peyot. The Rosh Yeshiva/mesader kedushin put on a tallit for the chuppa which I had never seen. He stressed that the chatan's tallit had techelet and he should make a shecheyanu but no bracha on the tallit since it was night, etc However, this was a RZ wedding with a bracha for the soldiers etc. On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:02:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > : RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. > : I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear > as > : ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) > ... > > It's an intersting point, but relating it to RYBS's position just > confuses the matter. You're using the word "ceremony" in nearly > the opposite sense. And while you note that: > : I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview > it. > : Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not > : ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view > > This isnt' merely an answer, it's an indication that you're discussing > two different topics. There is no question, just a miscommunication. > > Anyway, the contrast between the usages of the word "ceremony" interested > me. > > You listed a number of cases where a halachic legality can be accomplished > through something the lay-person considers meaningless ritual: pruzbul, > mechiras chameitz, heter isqa, ha'aramos, etc.. > > RYBS made that statement about ceremony in the sense of ritual in which > the person finds meaning, but lacks halachic structure. > > The two examples that most readily leap to mind are (1) his disparaging > kiruv that focuses on white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos candelabra, > and (2) his modifying the minhagim of the Three Weeks and Nine Days > because leshitaso, the minhagim must follow the same forms as ones found > in hilkhos aveilus. I posted about this in Aug '08 at > . > > I also noted in 2011 that RYBS's position that minhag must mirror halachic > structure is in opposition to the Brisker Rav's (his uncle's) shitah. RYZS > holds that one makes berakhos on minhagim that have a cheftzah shel > mitzvah (eg lighting a Chanukah menorah in shul), and that the Rambam > and Rabbeinu Tam don't argue about that. What they do argue about is > whether Chatzi Hallel is close enough to Hallel to qualify for a berakhah. > > However, leshitas RYBS, there are no such minhagim that wouldn't require > a berakhah. If Chatzi Hallel didn't require a berakhah because it's not > close enough to the cheftzah shel mitzvah, it would be "ceremony", and not > a valid minhag. He therefore would have to reject his uncle's chiddush. > > Neo-Chassidus is basically a MO rebellion to this kind of Halakhic > Man approach to Yahadus. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, > micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just > http://www.aishdas.org beginning. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 09:03:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:03:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> I have been asking this question to various people, and several have suggested that the answer is somewhere in the range of "hefker bes din" and "amiraso legavoah kimsiraso lahedyot". IOW, beis din doesn't need to make a kinyan; its inherent power is sufficient to take possession of your loans as soon as you verbally relinquish them. -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 08:02:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:02:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony Message-ID: <> It would seem that RYBS's definition of a ceremony is almost a tautology. If it is anything of religious significance then its not a ceremony. Otherwise who cares. It is only modern customs that present a difficulty because we don't establish new categories. In the old days customs like lighting the menorah in shul or havdala in shul became invested with religious significance because they were public customs Question minyana d-yoma Is the custom of "simanim" on RH a ceremony? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:53:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:53:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911175305.GC18449@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 06:02:04PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : It would seem that RYBS's definition of a ceremony is almost a tautology. : If it is anything of religious significance then its not a ceremony. If a ritual is of halachic significance then it's not a ceremony (as RYBS used the word in coining the aphorism we're discussing). Now, to Halakhic Man, one can say there is no Yahadus except halakhah, and therefore ceremony is not part of Yahadus. So, RYBS's position on ceremony is a natural consequence of Halakhic Man, but they aren't a tautology according to other derakhim. To other hashkafos, white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos licht may not define Shabbos, but they can for many help foster the atmosphere hilkhos Shabbos create. Which is why I mentioned the spread of Chavaquq-like Judaism in YU. Because Chassidus is big on ritual. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 05:49:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:49:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. >>> R' Michael Poppers responded: <<< I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. >>> The lungs of a *dead* cow are easily accessible if one has a knife; no super-vision is needed there. It is only the lungs of a *living* cow where one would need super-vision (especially if I need the cow to stay alive for more milk next week). Hmmm... Do we consider the lungs of a living cow as visible like a large insect, or as nonexistent like beitzei kinim? The nafka mina is the kashrus of that cow's milk. I would *like* to say that the lungs are invisible and inconsequential. But IIRC we can drink the milk because of rov - most lungs are kosher. There is a real possibility that the lungs are treif, and we deal with that possibility in a manner *other* than "lo nitna Torah l'malachei hashareis". Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 09:47:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:47:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] asmachta Message-ID: see point 5 , on the idea that could asmachta be a talmudic example of , well let the reader decide http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/09/artscroll-and-more.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:23:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:23:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? Message-ID: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, but again whatever Hashem does is good.) Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 11:06:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:06:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150911180646.GE18449@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 01:23:04PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" : (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever : Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the : year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, : but again whatever Hashem does is good.) >From my blog post at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov :-)BBii! -Micha Shetir'u baTov The Bostoner Rebbe (of Boston) commented once on the expression "Shanah tovah umsuqah - a good and sweet new year", which is related to the famous custom of having apple and honey on Rosh haShanah.What does "umsuqah -- and sweet" add, beyond the notion of "tovah -- good"? As Rabbi Aqiva often said, "All that the All Merciful does, He does for the good". An echo of the words of one of his rabbeim, Nachum ish Gamzu, who would greet events that would disappoint or depress most of us with "Gam zu letovah -- this too is for the best." So actually, wishing one another a good year could be thought of as being redundant. Everything is good, how could this year be any different? However, not everything I was told was "for my own good" was particularly pleasant. Therefore, the rebbe teaches, we wish that the year not only be tovah, good, but also be mesuqah, sweet to our perception as well. Along the same lines, I had a thought about a phrase in Shabbos and Yom Tov davening : Our L-rd, and the L-rd of our fathers, sanctify us bemitzvosekha (through Your mitzvos), and put our portion beSorasekha (in Your Torah), satisfy us mituvekha (from Your Goodness), and make us (or: our souls qua living force) biyshuasekha (in Your salvation)... The predicate prefix has an oddity: it says bemitzvosekha, beSorasekha, and later, beyshu'asekha. But by goodness, the prefix is "mituvekha" -- "from", not "be-" ("in" or "through") like by the others. The reason, I believe, is because we are asking for something inherently different. We can ask G-d to make us more holy by allowing us to do more mitzvos, or give us the opportunity to learn more Torah, or make us happier by saving us more often. This is "be-", we are asking for more of a gift by asking for more of the vehicle He uses to give it to us. Since everything G-d does is good, we can't be asking for G-d to give us more good, and thereby make us more satisfied. There is no more good for us to get. Rather, we are asking for more satisfaction with the goodness He already provides. This is why the "mi-" prefix is used. This is also in contrast to Rebbe's words (Berakhos 50a) about benching, that a wise person says "uvtuvo chayinu -- and through His good we live", and a boor, "umituvo chayinu -- and from His good, we live". Rebbe says that "umituvo" is incorrect because it says that we live through some of His Good, implying that Hashem gives meagerly. Perhaps it's different here, when we ask for happiness, because the truth is that if we had a full realization of even a small part of His Good would be enough to satisfy. Like the piyut we sing at the seider. We list fifteen things Hashem did for us when taking us out of Egypt. But had He done any one of those 15 alone, "Dayeinu"! R Shelomo Wolbe^zt"l would part someone's company wishing him "shetir'u batov -- may you see the good!" Because the tense of "tir'u" is ambiguous, this is both a berakhah and a mussar shmuess. Taken in the future tense, "May you see", it becomes a blessing that Hashem allow him to see all that's good in his life. In the imperative, the same work becomes "Look", advice to the person to take the initiative and seek out the good of every situation. To aspire to the middah of Nachum ish Gamzu and Rabbi Aqiva of realizing the Hand of G-d in everything, and looking to see how even the tragedies in our lives are necessary steps to something bigger which He has in store for us. The two together yields a profound combined meaning. Live is the product of a partnership between myself and G-d. It is the sum of my free-willed decisions and the hand Hashem deals me. "Shetir'u beTov" addresses both at the same time, by praying that Hashem show the person good, and that the person look to find it. A greeting that recognizes the fundamental covenant by which man is redeemed. It's a beautiful greeting, one worth adopting. Wishing others could taste the sweetness. Shetir'u baTov! (With thanks to RYGB for helping me find the gemara.) Like this: Like Loading... Related You may also like... * [13]3 [14]The Devastating Power of Leitznus ? ???? ???? - December 28, 2006 * [15]0 [16]The Desire to Desire ?? ????? ???? - August 28, 2007 * [17]0 [18]Nine Qavim at the Buffet ?? ????? ???? - March 27, 2008 2 Responses * [19]Comments1 * [20]Pingbacks1 1. Anonymous says: [21]? ????? ???? - September 29, 2006 at 1:25pm Possibly related - stolen waters are described as sweet, which tells us something unpleasant about the human condition. Perhaps what we are requesting is not only an objectively good year, but the ability to appreciate that goodness, similar to the way in which we regrettably now enjoy the prohibited. - Moishe Potemkin [22]Reply 1. [23]Aspaqlaria ? Blog Archive ? ?? ???? ???"? ?? ????? ???? - September 5, 2007 [...] berakhos for a Shanah tovah umsuqah, as the Bostoner Rebbe put it, a year that is we not only conceptually know to be good, but has a sweetness we can taste and [...] And your thoughts...? [24]Cancel reply IFRAME: [25]jetpack_remote_comment Follow: * * * * * [26]Next story Sweet Charoses * [27]Previous story Nine Qavim at the Buffet ____________________ Subscribe Name: ____________________ email: ____________________ * [28]Entries * [29]Comments * [30]PodCast New & Popular * [31]Recent Posts * [32]Popular Posts * [33]Recent Comments * [34]My Life as a Pendulum ? ????? ???? - September 3, 2015 * [35]Copyright ?? ??? ???? - August 13, 2015 * [36]What does Hashem ask of you? ?? ??? ???? - August 7, 2015 * [37]?? ?????? ???? ? ??? ???? - July 23, 2015 * [38]Gratitude and Thankfulness ?? ????? ???? - July 16, 2015 * [39]Emunah Peshutah vs Machashavah ?? ????? ???? - November 30, 2004 * [40]Balancing Simplicity and Authenticity ? ????? ??? - July 1, 2010 * [41]The Kuzari Proof, part I ?? ???? ???? - December 22, 2004 * [42]What is Frumkeit? ? ???? ? ???? - February 9, 2014 * [43]The Curriculum at Volozhin ? ????? ???? - May 23, 2012 * David Zalkin says: [44]Regarding giving precedence to the Aruch HaShulchan over the MB, my... * Eliezer Eisenberg says: [45]Excellent. Thanks for sharing. * Ilana Sober Elzufon says: [46]Intriguing. I really value the all-women's spaces that Orthodox Judaism provides,... * micha says: [47]You're right. A poor choice of words. Correcting.Thank you. * Dr. Yitzchok Levine says: [48]You wrote, "Shul looks like a boy's club because it was... Aspaqlaria ? 2015. All Rights Reserved. Powered by [49]WordPress. Theme by [50]Alx. * * * * IFRAME: [51]likes-master %d bloggers like this: References Visible links 1. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/feed 2. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/comments/feed 3. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov/feed 4. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 5. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/sweet-charoses 6. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ 7. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/category/mussar/middos 8. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#comments 9. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/author/admin 10. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#stbt 11. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/01/vetaheir-libeinu.shtml 12. http://www.aishdas.org/rygb 13. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus#comments 14. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus 15. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire#comments 16. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire 17. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet#comments 18. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 19. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#commentlist-container 20. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#pinglist-container 21. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov/comment-page-1#comment-72 22. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov?replytocom=72#respond 23. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/09/%d7%9b%d7%92-%d7%90%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%9c-%d7%aa%d7%a9%d7%9e%d7%90.shtml 24. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#respond 25. http://jetpack.wordpress.com/jetpack-comment/?blogid=11004584&postid=134&comment_registration=0&require_name_email=1&stc_enabled=1&stb_enabled=1&show_avatars=1&avatar_default=identicon&greeting=And+your+thoughts...%3F&greeting_reply=Leave+a+Reply+to+%25s&color_scheme=light&lang=en-US&jetpack_version=3.7&sig=04e58004b358ee700890b798c328f7cfd8e7fee6#parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aishdas.org%2Fasp%2Ftireh-betov 26. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/sweet-charoses 27. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 28. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/feed 29. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/comments/feed 30. http://feeds.feedburner.com/AspPodCast 31. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-recent 32. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-popular 33. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-comments 34. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/my-life-as-pendulum 35. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/copyright 36. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask 37. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/%d7%91%d7%9f-%d7%97%d7%9e%d7%99%d7%a9%d7%99%d7%9d-%d7%9c%d7%a2%d7%a6%d7%94 38. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gratitude-thankfulness 39. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/emunah-peshutah-vs-machashavah 40. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/balancing-simplicity-and-authenticity 41. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/kuzari-proof-part-i 42. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-is-frumkeit 43. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-curriculum-at-volozhin 44. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/textualism-mb/comment-page-1#comment-60227 45. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask/comment-page-1#comment-60184 46. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60105 47. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60102 48. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60101 49. http://wordpress.org/ 50. http://alxmedia.se/ 51. http://widgets.wp.com/likes/master.html?ver=20141028#ver=20141028 Hidden links: 53. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus 54. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire 55. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 56. http://www.facebook.com/micha.berger 57. http://www.linkedin.com/in/rmsberger 58. https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MichaBerger 59. http://www.twitter.com/aishdas 60. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/textualism-mb/comment-page-1#comment-60227 61. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask/comment-page-1#comment-60184 62. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60105 63. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60102 64. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60101 65. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov 66. http://www.facebook.com/micha.berger 67. http://www.linkedin.com/in/rmsberger 68. https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MichaBerger 69. http://www.twitter.com/aishdas From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:01:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:01:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> Message-ID: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when shmitta is d'Orayta again? On 9/11/2015 7:03 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > I have been asking this question to various people, and several have > suggested that the answer is somewhere in the range of "hefker bes din" > and "amiraso legavoah kimsiraso lahedyot". IOW, beis din doesn't need > to make a kinyan; its inherent power is sufficient to take possession > of your loans as soon as you verbally relinquish them. > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:05:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:05:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F56682.4070005@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 04:01 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when > shmitta is d'Orayta again? Why wouldn't it? Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din declares it unethical. And I don't think that will happen, because such a declaration wouldn't stop it, it would just drive it to the disreputable batei din. Now that everyone knows about it you can't make people forget it; Hillel uncorked the idea and it can't be pushed back into the bottle. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:05:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:05:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> On 9/11/2015 4:29 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:23:44PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: > : According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job > : 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and > : 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). > > : R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs... > > He argues that it's an auroachs. Calling any identification of this sort a > "demonstration" is overly confident. Agreed. > Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever > sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim > who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we > can use mythical creatures as metaphors. How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty plural to me. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:02:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:02:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you won't experience that as a good thing. On 9/11/2015 8:23 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A > good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever > Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the > year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, > but again whatever Hashem does is good.) > > Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." > > Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. > > YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 02:22:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 05:22:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:02 AM 9/13/2015, you wrote: >On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But if >you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you won't >experience that as a good thing. Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries. If your injuries are not severe, and you collect a hefty sum from the driver's insurance company, then you may indeed view it as a good thing! All things have to be considered in context. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:57:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:57:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 05:22:08AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: :> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But :> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you :> won't experience that as a good thing. : Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries... We're getting off point. I believe Lisa's reponse was similar to my repeating the distinction between "shanah tovah" and "umsuqah", without leading to the problem of the "wrong" word being used in "Leshanah tovah tekhaseivu". We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- what ra? I thought there is no ra? It would seem we often speak of tov vara in terms of how they're experienced, rather than some abstract reality in which we know (or should know) "gam zu letovah". Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:57:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:57:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 05:22:08AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: :> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But :> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you :> won't experience that as a good thing. : Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries... We're getting off point. I believe Lisa's reponse was similar to my repeating the distinction between "shanah tovah" and "umsuqah", without leading to the problem of the "wrong" word being used in "Leshanah tovah tekhaseivu". We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- what ra? I thought there is no ra? It would seem we often speak of tov vara in terms of how they're experienced, rather than some abstract reality in which we know (or should know) "gam zu letovah". Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 06:39:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:39:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. In RM's opinion, shmitta won't be d'Orayata again until the Messiah comes. Ben On 9/13/2015 10:01 AM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when > shmitta is d'Orayta again? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:46:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:46:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: <<< Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din declares it unethical. >>> Perhaps. But I would think that the impropriety of using pruzbul in a d'Oraisa time was pretty implicit (perhaps even explicit) in how Hillel promoted it, and there is no need for a future beis din to point it out. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 06:41:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 09:41:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor Message-ID: <09a801d0ee29$ef34d030$cd9e7090$@com> The sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor is avail for free download at - http://hebrewbooks.org/53838 review of sefer - http://seforim.blogspot.ca/2015/09/review-of-dovid-bashevkins-sefer.html Review of Dovid Bashevkin's Sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor By Rabbi Yitzchok Oratz Rabbi Yitzchok Oratz, a musmach of Beth Medrash Govoha, is the Rabbi and Director of the Monmouth Torah Links community in Marlboro, NJ. God knows the nature of every generation, Rabbi Dovid Bashevkin has written a Sefer uniquely appropriate for the nature of ours[1]. Take a trip to your local Jewish bookseller during this time period, and you will find numerous seforim, old[2] and new[3], on the themes of sin and repentance. Although they certainly vary in style and quality, a common denominator among many is the heavy reliance on Rambam's Hilchos Teshuva and Sha'arey Teshuva of Rabbeinu Yonah of Gerondi[4]. And this is to be expected. Timeless classics, these works of the great Rishonim are unmatched in their systematic and detailed discussion of sin and punishment, free will[5] and repentance, and are a prerequisite study for any serious discussion of Teshuva. But therein lays the dilemma. For although Rabbeinu Yonah maps out the exalted levels of Teshuva that one should certainly strive for, they seem not to be for the faint of heart. Is our generation really up to the task of embracing the sorrow, suffering, and worry, the humbling and lowering oneself[6], without allowing for the concomitant sense of despair[7] and despondence[8]? And how many of us can honestly stand before the Creator, and proclaim that we will "never return" to our negative actions, to the extent that God Himself will testify that this is the case[9]? If confession without sincere commitment to change is worthless[10], does repeating last year's failed commitments not require choosing between giving up and fooling ourselves? This is where B'Rogez Rachem Tizkor comes in. Based heavily on the thought of Izbica in general, and Reb Tzadok ha-Kohen of Lublin in particular, it discusses the value of spiritual struggle, the interplay between determinism and free will, the redemptive potential of sin, and the status of those who have not yet arisen from their fall. Overall, the sefer is a good introduction to R' Tzadok for those who are not familiar with his thought, and offers many insightful and fascinating comments even for those who are. My main critiques are that some of the discussion of the more controversial statements of Izbica required more elaboration[14], the lack thereof leads to a seeming conflating of two similar, yet far from identical, concepts, and more contrasting and supporting texts (both from within Izbica and R' Tzadok's thought and without) would have made for a stronger case and deeper understanding. My hope is to fill in these gaps in some small measure. Hopefully it will further enlighten those whose appetite was whet by this fine work. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:05:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:05:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F59EAF.30104@sero.name> See Tanya chapter 26. There is really no such thing as bad; there is merely the good that we can see and the good that we can't see. But we'd much prefer the kind that we can see, and we ask Hashem to give us that kind of good rather than the other kind. http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7905/jewish/Chapter-26.htm -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:11:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:11:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F5A021.4040809@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 08:46 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The >> only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right >> to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when >> shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din >> declares it unethical. > > Perhaps. But I would think that the impropriety of using pruzbul in a > d'Oraisa time was pretty implicit (perhaps even explicit) in how > Hillel promoted it, and there is no need for a future beis din to > point it out. How so? He didn't say anything about it being improper when shmita is de'oraisa, he merely said here is a solution we can use. The question is why nobody did it before, and the answer is because batei din considered it unethical. Now when were these batei din considering it unethical? In the time of Bayit Rishon?! No, it was in Hillel's day, which is why he needed to make his takanah. And in his day it was already derabbanan. The only relevance of it being derabanan is that had it been deoraisa in Hillel's day, he would not have felt he had the right to promote a way around it, no matter how great the need he saw. But since it was derabanan, and he saw a problem that needed fixing, he was bold and publicised this trick, and declared that nobody should feel guilty about using it. There's no indication that he mentioned shmita's drabanan status at all. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 08:52:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:52:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In Avodah V33n123, RAkivaM responded to me: >> I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. << > The lungs of a *dead* cow are easily accessible if one has a knife; no super-vision is needed there. It is only the lungs of a *living* cow where one would need super-vision (especially if I need the cow to stay alive for more milk next week). < A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the human eye without opening it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 11:55:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:55:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150913185550.GC10636@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 08:57:35AM -0400, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: ::> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But ::> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you ::> won't experience that as a good thing. ... : We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- : what ra? I thought there is no ra? Addenda in response to private email: Well, I didn't mean to get all Izhbitz... I meant the evil we experience, the tragic, and not the evil that we do, the wrong.. But I did buy into more univeralistic models of hashgachah peratis, that at least every person's fate is subject to HP (pace the Rambam or Or haChaim), and thus the tragic has a point. If not itself tovsh, it is letovah. Which still leaves us with R/Prof Levine's original question sbout blessing others with shanah tovah. ... : Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be : experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even : that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) But even the evil that we do is more like a missed opposrtunity for good than a beryah. Much the way Yeshaiah pairs evil with darkness "yotzeir or uvorei choshekh ... uvorei es hara." Althouh it's possible that Yeshiah considered darkness to be a beryah, the way Chazal talk about the thick darkness of makas choshekh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 12:00:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:00:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:52:48AM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the : human eye without opening it. The sun is also an external tool. This is wh I think we need more nuance here. It might depend on whether a hollow inside the lung is judged as a lung that is defective in a way we can't see without a knife, or the hole is a mum that we could be able to see ourselves if the ourside of the lung weren't in the way. But in either case, I still csn't articulste what seems to me to be a obvious difference. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 07:07:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 10:07:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akeidah of the Mind Message-ID: <20150913140741.CE67A180E46@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from pages 588 - 590 of Rav Schwab on Chumash. Please note the words "Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave the human being a mind to understand Him. Whatever one studies in the world, be it science, history, economics, mathematics, or anything else, it is actually the study of the revelations of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Our mind is given to us to enable us to understand as much about C-d as is humanly possible. This is borne out in many places throughout Torah and Nach ... This means that we are not merely to accept that which our forefathers have taught us about C-d but we are to attempt to know, to understand as much as we can about Hashem ... The Rav (Rav Shimon Schwab, ZT"L) was firmly convinced that since Moshe emes v'Toraso emes, the Torah and our Rabbinic mesorah are inviolable and, one day, answers would be found answers these questions. He would say that sometimes one must offer his mind as an "akeidah" to Hakadosh Baruch Hu where human reasoning has not yet found answers to apparent contradictions between the inviolable eternal truth of the Torah, the truthful writing (Daniel 10:21), and historical or scientific finds which are subject to change. In his lectures on Iyov, he offered the following comments on this subject. "... By accepting C-d's command, Avraham Avinu had sacrificed his own mind to comply with the will of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. While Avraham attempts to understand C-d, nevertheless, when C-d1s command contradicts that understanding, Avraham sacrifices his mind to the will of C-d, just as one would forfeit his life if the halachah required it, rather than violate the three cardinal sins. "Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave the human being a mind to understand Him. Whatever one studies in the world, be it science, history, economics, mathematics, or anything else, it is actually the study of the revelations of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Our mind is given to us to enable us to understand as much about C-d as is humanly possible. This is borne out in many places throughout Torah and Nach ... This means that we are not merely to accept that which our forefathers have taught us about C-d but we are to attempt to know, to understand as much as we can about Hashem ... "... This is why the mitzvah of learning Torah is so important; in fact it is our most important mitzvah. When we learn Torah, we employ our mind in the service of Hakadosh Baruch Hu by studying C-d's will as revealed to us in the Torah. And if we have questions or contradictions, we must use our mind to the best of our capacity to attempt to resolve them within the parameters of Torah study. "... So, while we are encouraged to use our mind, as much as reason allows, to serve C-d, to understand Him, and to answer questions, nevertheless, when all reason fails us, and we cannot go any further with human understanding, when our mind is staggered, we must be prepared to I/sacrifice our mind/I to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. We must throw up our hands and say that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is right whether we understand it or not. One could call this 'the akeidah of the mind.' "When science poses questions which seemingly contradict our basic truths, we must make an effort to answer these questions. But if the answers are elusive, we must sacrifice our mind and subjugate it to the revealed truths of the Torah. Fortunately, baruch Hashem, as yet, I have not found any questions of this sort- for instance, regarding the age of the universe, evolution, ancient civilizations- for which I have not found possible answers. But it could happen, and one has to be ready for it. If suddenly a scientific discovery were to arise which clearly seems to contradict the Torah, we would then have to admit that the question is excellent but nevertheless, the Torah is right because it is the revealed wisdom of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. It is "Toras Emes, 11 absolute truth, all questions notwithstanding. Answers will no doubt eventually be found to such contradictions, but in the meantime, by accepting the veracity of the Torah without reservations, we will have offered our mind as an 'akeidah' to Hakadosh Baruch Hu.'' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 11:36:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:36:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? Message-ID: <1f9d87.3cc2b5a7.43271c34@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, but again whatever Hashem does is good.) Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. YL >>>>> When others wish you well you should wish them well too, mipnei darkei shalom. A long philosophical treatise about how even illness, accidents and financial losses are actually all good things will not endear you to anyone. Another answer to your question is: we wish our friends (and ourselves) brachos from the Ribono Shel Olam that are sweet and obvious even to our limited human eyes, and not the other kind. Certainly we appreciate that the dentist's drill or the surgeon's knife is doing us a favor and repairing what needs repairing, but we prefer not to have the cavity and not to need the surgery in the first place. However if you simply cannot bring yourself to utter a blessing that seems philosophically dubious to you, I would suggest that you overcome that feeling, bentsh your fellow Jews anyway, and may Hashem in turn overcome His philosophical doubts and bless you and all of us in kind. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 07:15:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (RCK via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 17:15:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty > plural to me. >Lisa Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book *Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew * [image: Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] [image: Academia.edu] [image: Google Scholar] [image: LinkedIN] [image: Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:00:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:00:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F59DB4.6080103@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 04:05 AM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >> Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever >> sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim >> who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we >> can use mythical creatures as metaphors. > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty > plural to me. Because Yosef is a shor, not a re'em, even if each of his horns is that of a re'em. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 12:29:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:29:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 10:15 AM, RCK via Avodah wrote: > Lisa wrote: >> How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty >> plural to me. > Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=11650&pgnum=227 I don't understand the Bachur's comment. Surely the Radak explicitly addressed his objection, so why does he still raise it? (Unless these notes were not written on the Shorashim at all, and some printer decided to mash them together at random.) -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 13:59:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 16:59:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> References: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha replied: > The sun is also an external tool. < Which is why I previously differentiated between the sun _or_ a substitute light source no brighter than it and between what I call "external tools." > This is wh I think we need more nuance here. < My theory is that anything we, a 6th-Day "creation", can see with the tools provided as part of the *b'riyah* (or, again, a fair substitute) is within our Halachic field of vision. Best wishes for a *shanah tovah umsuqah* from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:52:48AM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: > : A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the > : human eye without opening it. > > The sun is also an external tool. > > This is wh I think we need more nuance here. > > It might depend on whether a hollow inside the lung is judged as a lung > that is defective in a way we can't see without a knife, or the hole is > a mum that we could be able to see ourselves if the ourside of the lung > weren't in the way. > > But in either case, I still csn't articulste what seems to me to be > a obvious difference. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea > micha at aishdas.org of instincts. > http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter > Fax: (270) 514-1507 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 15 10:01:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (RCK via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:01:11 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> References: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> Message-ID: It's a good question, in fact, the Bayis HaGadol (also known as Biur) on Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer (end of ch. 19) asks this on HaBachur. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book *Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew * [image: Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] [image: Academia.edu] [image: Google Scholar] [image: LinkedIN] [image: Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/13/2015 10:15 AM, RCK via Avodah wrote: > >> Lisa wrote: >> > > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty >>> plural to me. >>> >> > Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. >> > > http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=11650&pgnum=227 > > I don't understand the Bachur's comment. Surely the Radak explicitly > addressed his objection, so why does he still raise it? (Unless these > notes were not written on the Shorashim at all, and some printer decided > to mash them together at random.) > > -- > Zev Sero KvChT > zev at sero.name > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 15 17:45:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:45:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150916004501.GA21666@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 04:59:29PM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: :> This is wh I think we need more nuance here. : My theory is that anything we, a 6th-Day "creation", can see with the tools : provided as part of the *b'riyah* (or, again, a fair substitute) is within : our Halachic field of vision. You mean, like a sharp rock? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 01:43:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:43:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: R' MYG wrote: "I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem?s love for His people: ?If you sin, even if you?re not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here?s a ?ticket? of sorts that I?m giving you _now_ to show my love for you, that if you ?remind? me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate that you see yourselves as close to me, and I?ll give you some measure of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah.? The best Mashal I could think of for this is a PBA placard ? you buy it and put it in your car, and when the cop pulls you over for speeding, you show it to him and he goes easy on you, because he sees that you?re really a friend of the police. NOT because you demonstrated regret for speeding, necessarily. Does that make sense?" Not really, Hashem is perfect and all knowing, you can't bribe him. Why should you need to remind him of anything? Hashem knows exactly who you are and how close you are to him. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 02:35:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:35:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916093543.GA10685@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:43:35AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Not really, Hashem is perfect and all knowing, you can't bribe him. Why : should you need to remind him of anything? Hashem knows exactly who you are : and how close you are to him. That's ust an inherent limitation in the mashal. (Any mashal where the nimshal is G-d, is going to be limited for the same reason you give.) Lemaaseh, He may Remember everything, but I don't. Going through the exercises keep my own beliefs more conscious and reinforces them. Setting up a pointless reminder to remind Him has function in that it reminds me. Which is how I understood RMYG's original answer: that reciting the 13 middoes is "more of a symbol of Hashem's love for His people: 'If you sin, even if you're not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here's a 'ticket' of sorts that I'm giving you _now_ to show my love for you...'" We need to remember the closeness, to keep it real in our minds, which then deepens our belief in it. Which is why I then said that this in itself is a minimal teshuvah, and not merely reciting words. IOW, if someone said the 13 Middos and didn't even think "these are G-d's 13 Middos of lovingkindness that He gave us", would they still be guaranteed not to leave empty-handed? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 01:58:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:58:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > There's no indication that he mentioned shmita's drabanan status at all. The simple reading of the Gemara in Gittin 36a-b which is the source of pruzbul says that pruzbul only works when shemitta is d'rabbanan and in fact this is how the Rambam understands the Gemara and how he paskens. The Gemara first states that Hillel was mesaken pruzbul and then asks how could Hillel be mesaken pruzbul and say that loans are not cancelled when the Torah says that they are? Abaye answers shemitta nowadays is derabban. The Gemara then asks how could the Chachamim be mesaken shemittas kesafim medrabban (and cancel loans) and Rava answers hefker beit din hefker. The simple reading of the Gemara is that the whole takana of pruzbul only works when shemitta is derabbanan. Rashi and the Raavad however understand the Gemara that Rava's answer also answers the first question of how could Hillel be mesaken pruzbul when the Torah cancels loans based on hefker beis din hefker and that pruzbul works even when shemmita is d'oraysa. [Email #2] R"n Lisa Liel asked: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when shmitta > is d'Orayta again? and R' Zev Sero asked why wouldn't it? Actually this is an explicit machlokes the Rambam and the Raavad and Rashi and Tosafos (Gittin 36a-b). The Rambam writes in Hilchos Shemitta V'Yovel (chapter 9) v'ein haprozbul moeel ela b'shmitas kesafim shehee midvrei sofrim aval shemitta shel torah ayn haprozbul moeel bo The Raavad there argues that prozbul will work even when shemmita is d'oraysa based on his understanding of Rava's answer of hefker beis din hefker (like Rashi in Gittin). From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 02:50:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:50:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916095007.GD14423@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:00:56PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : If I am making them my shaliach to collect my loans on my behalf, then that : sounds like Rav Asher Weiss' explanation. Sure, beis din is patur from lo : yigos, but it was a big chidush to me that that's enough to exempt me from : being m'shamet a loan that I still own. (But if one wants to go with the : Collection Agency idea, then shlichus is irrelevant - beis din would need : to own the loan.) The big problem is that the difference in sevaros may make a particular pruzbul text valid or not. For example, how does hefqer BD hefqer work today, when courts do not have a central Sanhedrin organizing them? I am giving the loan to three hedyotos. Which 3? The three I named? (Are we invoking Beis Shammai's notion that one can be mafqir only to a given person or set of people? [Ymi Pei'ah 6:1 19b]) Then how is it HBDH and not a simple matanah? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 03:09:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:09:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20150916100941.GE14423@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 03:39:14PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey : wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of : Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all : those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the : number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. : : In RM's opinion, shmitta won't be d'Orayata again until the Messiah comes. Also, the machloqes Rashi and Tosafos as to whether "kol yosheveha aleha" is by sheivet. I don't know what Tosafos do with the machloqes (Sanhedring 110b) about whether the lost shevatim will ever be restored. If they hold like R' Aqiva, this would have to refer to the descendents of those refugees from Malkhus Yisrael who fled to Malkhus Yehudah. Or, is that in itself enough reestablishment of the shevatim to contradict R' Aqiva? The masqanah of the gemara appears to be Rabba bb Chana (citing R' Yochanan) refuting R' Aqiva's position in favor of R' Eliezer -- that the missing shevatim will be restored (quoting Yirmiyahu 3:!2). Maybe they just consider the question closed. The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority of Benei Yisrael. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 05:08:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:08:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: from wikipedia Thus, if one would agree that shmita does not apply when Israelites are dispersed,[6] Hillel, great as he was, would not have changed a law of the Torah in order to fit the needs of his time. He and his beth din would have enacted a rabbinic exception to a rabbinic law. As the Rambam notes in Shmita V'Yovel chapter 9, when most Jews again live in the Land of Israel and the observance of the sabbatical and jubilee years are Toraitic commandments, the prozbul will no longer be able to be used. According to this theory, Prozbul, like `eruv , is a rabbinic exception to a rabbinic enactment. Prozbul cannot be used to get around the Torah commanded shmita and yovel, just as `eruv cannot be used to get around the fact that Torah prohibited carrying in the public domain. I recently saw the opposite question: There are many ways to avoid the problem of shmitta annulling laws without resorting to prozbul. One simple example is to make the loan end immediately after RH of this year. There are many other options. So the question is why the need for prozbul The only answer I saw was that the general population was not aware of the alternatives or else they were too cumbersome [Email #2] > In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench > that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the > true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people > who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is > much higher than we believe it to be. I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even for direct maternal descendants. i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. I would assume that a descendant of annusim would be Jewish since they kept their Jewish identification through various customs -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:40:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:40:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:36:20PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were :> exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on :> Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority :> of Benei Yisrael. : How do you know? (I assume you mean the reisha about yovel and therefore shemittah de'oraisa ending when eiver hayardein was conquered, not my last sentence.) Eirachin 32b Rambam, Hil Shemitah veYovel 10:8. GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 09:36:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:36:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> On 9/13/2015 4:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey > wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of > Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all > those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the > number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. On the contrary. The number of people who identify as "Jewish" in polls who are actually non-halakhic "converts" or children of non-Jewish mothers is vast, so the number of Jews is much *lower* than we believe it to be. [Email #2] On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were > exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on > Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority > of Benei Yisrael. How do you know? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:40:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:40:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F9A97D.2080405@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 08:08 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> >In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench >> >that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the >> >true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people >> >who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is >> >much higher than we believe it to be. > I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that > once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with > yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even > for direct maternal descendants. > > i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim > through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. That is an extreme daat yachid, with a very tenuous basis. Nobody else agrees with him, so there's no reason to expect R Melamed to take this view into account, or even to be aware of it. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:49:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:49:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Moderator Vacation Message-ID: <20150916174900.GC6146@aishdas.org> While Areivim has a team of mods, Avodah is still entirely dependent on me. Which makes me feel an obligation to forewarn y'all before I go on vacation. Tomorrow I will be leaving for 3 weeks in Yerushalayim ih"q. (Barring messianic intervention, to leave again the day after chutznik Simchas Torah.) I do not know what my internet access will be like, but it's quite likely moderation approval delays will increase. Please be patient. Yerushalayim crew: Avodah/Areivim Simchas Beis haSho'eivah anyone? Discussion on Areivim...) GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 11:30:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:30:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916183023.GD6146@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 03:08:53PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that : once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with : yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even : for direct maternal descendants. This was his famous teshuvah on the Brother Daniel case. That there are limits even on maternal descent. I found a nice summary by R/Dr Judah Goldberg : i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim : through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. >From there, RAL's meqoros in shas: In Yevamot 16b, Rav Assi states that if a gentile betroths a Jewess, we cannot dismiss the validity of the marriage, for perhaps he descends from one of the ten lost tribes. When Shmuel heard this ruling, however, he responded, "They did not move from that place until they made [the descendants of the lost tribes] into absolute gentiles, as it says, 'They have betrayed God, for they have begotten alien children' (Hoshea 5:7)" (17a). Similarly, Chullin 6a tells how Rav Ami and Rav Assi discovered that the Samaritan community, which had long been suspected of engaging in pagan worship, was no longer observing Jewish law at all. In response, They did not move from that place until they made [the Samaritans] into absolute gentiles. He cites three shitos from rishonim, although the Rambam's pesaq is as explacated by R' Chaim Brisker. 1- Rashba: The Samaritan's conversion was annulled, not that one can stop being a Jew. R Pinchas Horowitz (Sefer Ha-mikna) applies parallel reasoning to the 10 shevatim -- they didn't stop being Jews, they are just an ignorable mi'ut that only a derabbanan kept us from ignoring. And that was repealed. 2- A mi'ut hold that the geir who stops believing ceases being a geir, but we have to worry about what's really going on in his head, so lechumerah we have to acknowledge his marriage. 3- The Rambam as explained by RCB (contrasting Ishus 4:15 with peirush on Niddah 7:4, where he says a dead Samaritan is not metamei tum'as ohel) that someone who gives up his self-identity as a Jew and acts on it is But in either case, the hypothetical Ephramite is a machloqes amoraim. Unless you agree with the author of the Hafla'ah that it's just an issue of mi'ut, and therefore the one who could prove he is in the mi'ut would be Jewish. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless micha at aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 13:39:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:39:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Moderator Vacation In-Reply-To: <55F9B9EA.70600@sero.name> References: <20150916174900.GC6146@aishdas.org> <55F9B9EA.70600@sero.name> Message-ID: <43db8966934f6c727f16a67e6896f9cb@aishdas.org> It is much easier when my mechutan's work address is "1 Kotel Plaza" -- Yeshivat Netiv Aryeh. Thanks for the _berakhos_. _Gemar chasimah tovah_! On 2015-09-16 2:50 pm, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/16/2015 01:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > >> Tomorrow I will be leaving for 3 weeks in Yerushalayim ih"q. > > Mazal tov. Even if Moshiach doesn't come in the next week or so, > you can still fulfil a zecher to hakhel. I was there 14 years > ago at the "hakhel" rally at the kotel, but unfortunately I was > unable to be there 7 years ago, and barring either Moshiach (and > the real hakhel) or a lottery win I will not be able to be there > this year either. > > (Actually I'm not aware of any source that Moshiach will provide > transportation, so even if he comes today it may be impossible > for everyone to get there in time for hakhel.) _Tir'u baTov_! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 11:54:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:54:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> On 9/16/2015 8:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:36:20PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: > : On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were > :> exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on > :> Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority > :> of Benei Yisrael. > > : How do you know? > > (I assume you mean the reisha about yovel and therefore shemittah de'oraisa > ending when eiver hayardein was conquered, not my last sentence.) Actually, I meant your last sentence. How do you know that the area of the 2.5 shvatim didn't include a majority of Bnei Yisrael? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:47:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:47:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 09:54:59PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : Actually, I meant your last sentence. How do you know that the area : of the 2.5 shvatim didn't include a majority of Bnei Yisrael? Because the gemara has to explain why 2-1/2 shevatim needed as many arei miqlat as the rest of BY. And the answer is because those who settled for land on that side of the Yardein built a more careless culture. (See Rashi Bamidbar 35:14 which is based on Abayei Makos 10a, and the Maharal on the Rashi to explain that Rashi [and Abayei] assume that the number who need galus will be greater whent he number of murderers does.) Notice the answer was NOT "because HQBH knew there would be at least as many people Mei'eiver haYardein before bayis rishon ended". It would also take a notable statistical anomaly for the largest population to grow out of a small initial state, and yet never get a navi telling them anything, etc... GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your micha at aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender, Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:41:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:41:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question Message-ID: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: > Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking around at books and online. I see no > discussion whatsoever on whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, e.g. books > I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an > obligation to return a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? Thanks, Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:54:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:54:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F9E518.5090701@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 05:47 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Because the gemara has to explain why 2-1/2 shevatim needed as many arei > miqlat as the rest of BY. And the answer is because those who settled > for land on that side of the Yardein built a more careless culture. Do you understand that question and answer? How do the population *or* the number of manslaughterers affect the number of arei miklat needed? Surely the only determinant is geography. A manslaughterer has to cover the same distance regardless of how sparse the population, or how careful they are. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 12:37:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:37:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: I was asked to provide a list of (me-possible) mitzvaot which were considered kiyumit. Does anyone know of such a list? GCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 15:07:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:07:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 05:41 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: > >> Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking >> around at books and online. I see no discussion whatsoever on >> whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, >> e.g. books I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that >> addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an obligation to return >> a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? > I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? Shemita applies only to halva'ah, not to she'elah. English uses the same word, but they are very different transactions. It's actually strange that English, which is usually the most precise language, does not distinguish them. A book is a she'elah; the book remains her property, and she expects the borrower to return it. Thus it is not at all affected by shemita. It is also not subject to the prohibition on ribbis; not only is there absolutely nothing wrong with charging people to borrow your stuff, the Torah explicitly endorses it as one of the four forms of shemirah. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 15:29:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:29:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Li Nir'eh Message-ID: <20150916222914.GE26081@aishdas.org> In AhS YD 39:48, RYME draws a conclusion from the fact that the Rama in Darkhei Moshe says "nir'eh li" rather than "veli nir'eh". "Veli nir'eh" implies he is choleiq with the BY? Anyone hear before of a distinction between the two idioms? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 16:20:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:20:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:06:16AM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> I intend to write a post on the meaning of the word "mesorah" as developed :> in RYBS's and RHS's thought as the start of its own thread. See http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/what-does-masorah-mean : And this is where this slide from discussing one slice of the mesorah - what : to do in Yeshiva, to a much wider slice of the mesorah becomes problematic, : because of the implication you have just made which is that what is true of : the section applies to the whole... Well, that's sort of it, isn't it? You're making a distinction between learning in a semichah shiur and learning how to pasqen. I don't think RYBS would. IOW, his whole point about needing mesorah is because he denies your premise. Leshitaso, you pasqen more from lomdus than from codes; or to put it more clearly -- you need a Rashi and a Tosafos to teach you how to fill in between the data points of a Yad or SA. For that matter, this is clearly the AhS's approach to pesaq. And the entire school which runs from Gemara to Rambam vs Rosh (at al) to Tur, BY, SA, Rama, Shach, Taz (et al)... This is how pesaq comes to be. Not from deciding between codes but from using the flow of mesorah to decide between them. Otherwise, shu"t would read like surveys; and even ROY doesn't end with his survey. : RGS comments that he and his father tried to learn meseches Nedarim just : using the meforash, in the absence of Rashi, and were not able to do so : (they were then only able to do it using the Ran, a much later commentary) - : thus demonstrating the point of the post, which is, without Rashi, most of : the Talmud Bavli would be a closed book to most people of average, and even : above average, intelligence (like the Talmud Yerushalmi). Actually, RYBS said that. : This is unquestionably true. : : The Rambam was also aware of this problem (after all he learned all of : Talmud Bavli without Rashi and everybody he knew either did so or tried to : do so). His solution to RGS's problem was to tell RGS and his father, and : people like him, not to try and learn Talmud Bavli, but to learn his, the : Rambam's, Code instead... Not really. His code is mishnah, not gemara. He tells beginners to do their shelish bemiqra in his code. And then you should be able to graduate from it, and from the whole need to divide one's time into thirds. ... : Our mesorah is like Rashi in this regard and not the Rambam (except when it : comes to smicha students). We open up the Talmud Bavli even to children : using Rashi and hundreds of thousands are sitting in yeshiva following : Rashi. Huh? Rashi didn't expect kids to start with Tanakh? Where does this come into the whole discussion? : The problem is that people (it would appear including you) then generalise : from "how we learn" to "how we posken" - which is what really is involved in : the discussion regarding Open O and feminism. And they are not the same : thing at all. Indeed, the fact that smicha students (those that are being : set up to posken) are taught in a totally different way to the more general : way of learning in yeshiva, and one that owes far more to the Rambam than to : Rashi and Tosphos should alert you to that. I do not believe the closing sentence. RYBS was giving one shiur to cover both. But that's RYBS, not my own leanings. I do see lomdus, in which the goal is to justify every opinion, and pesaq, in which the goal is to decide which opinion is most justified, to be different. But again, one doesn't pasqen from codes without the tools learned from lomdus. For that matter, if it's a halakhah pesuqah, one isn't pasqening at all. : What Rashi did was to provide a clear and simple explanation of the words on : the page. : What Tosphos did ... And the Me'iri opened the gemara in a third way. That seems to be a pretty complete taxonomy of parshanim. Then there are codes. Then there is shu"t. And most recently, encyclopedias / collections. ... : On the other hand, RET is correct: :> Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against :> the concept. :> Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own :> interpretation and not rely or be bound by any text. : Although I would modify that statement not to say "and not be bound by any : text", as most at that point agreed that they should be bound by the gemora : (and the Tanach as understood by the mishna/gemora), just not beyond that. The Maharal's actual objection: To decide halakhic questions from the codes without knowing the logic of the ruling was not the intent of these authors [Rambam, Tur, SA, et al]. Had they known that their works would lead to the abandonment of Talmud, they would not have written them. It is better for one to decide on thebasis of the Talmud even though he might err, for a scholar must depend solely on his understanding. As such, he is beloved of God, and preferable tothe one who rules from a code but does not know thereason for the ruling; such a one walks like a blind person. See Nesivos Olam, Nesiv haTorah ch 15. (I invoked the above thought about shelish bemishnah only being for beginners [from Hil TT] and the MT only being a replacement for the hoi palloi to justify the Maharal's statement WRT the Rambam. See RMRabi's and my months-long discussion.) Actually, what I think won the day for the SA was that the SA stopped being a code when they started publishing everyone on the sides. That's what it seems from the Maharal. Presumably his brother, the Yam shel Shelomo, would agree. ... : And RMB replied: :> Actualy, it's only those who have an eye on common practice. After all, we :> discuss machloqesin between Rashi and the Rambam in halakhah lemasseh :> contexts all the time. And if Ashkenazim accepted Rashi's ruling, or one :> found in Tosafos, the Rama has no problem limiting his pesaq to that rather :> than that of the Rif, Rambam or Tur. And had there not been a Rama, then :> some shu"t or parshan could as well. : : But neither Rashi nor Tosphos gave us any method of limiting where psak : went, and indeed the Ri can hold one thing and Rabbanu Tam another within : the same Tosphos. The Codes are far less open... But they only cover specific cases. They don't teach how to extent beyond those cases. So in general, the codes are more open than Rashi, the Ri or Rabbeinu Tam who help you by providing a why that tells you how far to take the point. A code is way open except for the cases they covered. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 16:38:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:38:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: References: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150916233829.GA3601@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 08:01:11PM +0300, RCK via Avodah wrote: : It's a good question, in fact, the Bayis HaGadol (also known as Biur) on : Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer (end of ch. 19) asks this on HaBachur. Since you clearly saw it, and some of us are kind of busy (and about to take leave of my library), could you please summarize the discussion there? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 18:31:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:31:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55FA17E2.6020200@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 07:20 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > That's > what it seems from the Maharal. Presumably his brother, the Yam shel > Shelomo, would agree. The Maharshal was not a brother of the Maharal! AFAIK they were not related. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 19:19:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:19:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel quoted Wikipedia: > ...According to this theory, Prozbul, like > `eruv , is a rabbinic exception > to a rabbinic enactment. Prozbul cannot be used to get around the > Torah commanded shmita and yovel, just as `eruv cannot be used to get > around the fact that Torah prohibited carrying in the public domain. As few days ago, I was thinking about comparisons between Prozbul and Eruv, and it seems clear to me that while Eruv *is* an exception to an enactment, Prozbul is a whole 'nother thing. I think it makes no sense for Prozbul to be "an exception to an enactment", because "why bother?" If the agricultural Shemitta stops being d'Oraisa, then Chazal can certainly enact it on a d'rabanan level. But to do that for Shemitas Kesafim means to legislate the following three things simultaneously: 1) Enact a law requiring cancellation of loans 2) Loans are exempt from cancellation if Prozbul is done 3) For the benefit of both poor and wealthy, everyone should do a Prozbul Why enact such a set of laws? Wouldn't it be far simpler to just let Shmitas Kesafim lapse, and NOT be enacted on a d'rabanan level? Regardless of whether one holds Prozbul to work on a d'Oraisa level, I think everyone can agree that Prozbul was enacted specifically because (as the Torah feared) too many people refrained from lending money as Shmitta got near. Therefore, it seems clear to me that IF Shmitas Kesafim was enacted as a d'rabanan, THEN Prozbul was enacted LATER, and not at the same time. In sharp contrast, I understand that Eruvin was a real "exception to an enactment": Simultaneously to the new law which prohibited carrying in a karmelis, an exception was included exempting certain areas under certain condiitons, allowing the carrying there. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 20:25:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:25:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55FA328E.1080708@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 10:19 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > In sharp contrast, I understand that Eruvin was a real "exception to > an enactment": Simultaneously to the new law which prohibited > carrying in a karmelis, an exception was included exempting certain > areas under certain condiitons, allowing the carrying there. An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. I don't know who prohibited carrying in a karmelis, but there's no reason to suppose it was Shlomo. Shlomo prohibited carrying in a *reshus hayachid with multiple owners*, and instituted eruv as a way around that prohibition. (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 05:01:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:01:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and > thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. My language was not precise. I apologize. What I meant was that prior to the establishment of these d'rabanans, one was allowed to carry from an unwalled non-thoroughfare to either a walled area or to a major thoroughfare. But it was easy to get confused between the general outdoors and a main road, so the general outdoors was made into a Reshus Harabim D'rabanan, with the following exception: Whereas a Reshus Harabim d'Oraisa requires actual walls to allow carrying, for a Reshus Harabim d'Rabanan it is sufficient to surround an area with doorways (tzuras hapesach). > I don't know who prohibited carrying in a karmelis, > but there's no reason to suppose it was Shlomo. Shlomo > prohibited carrying in a *reshus hayachid with multiple > owners*, and instituted eruv as a way around that > prohibition. I'm fuzzy on the history too. The law as I described it above may or may not have been part of the same legislation that RZS described here. What we have here are two distinct - but easily and often confused - d'rabanans within the melacha of hotzaa. It doesn't really matter which came first, or if they came together. My point was that they are excellent examples of an exception being built into the law from the very beginning, as opposed to Prozbul, which (if shmitas kesafim is d'rabanan) was a separate enactment from shmitas kesafim (because if they were done at the same time, the goal of Prozbul could have been acheived even more easily by simply not enacting shmitas kesafim). > (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an > eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple > owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) I'm not sure if there is a rigorous definition of "loophole". (The wikipedia article is a great place to start.) I tend to think that it is a general pejorative to describe any leniency that one has an emotional objection to. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 05:17:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150917121734.GA8567@aishdas.org> Li nir'eh the difference is that by eruv, it was all done in one sitting of beis din -- when they assered a karmeelis, they also promulgated the idea of eruv. IOW, explicitly they only assured a karmelis that didn't have an eruv. (A conscious exemption more than a loophole, as I would use the terms.) Pruzbul was a loophole in an earlier taqanah and that was and promulgated by a later beis di GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 09:58:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:58:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55FAF148.5080904@sero.name> On 09/17/2015 08:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and >> thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. > My language was not precise. I apologize. > > What I meant was that prior to the establishment of these d'rabanans, > one was allowed to carry from an unwalled non-thoroughfare to either > a walled area or to a major thoroughfare. But it was easy to get > confused between the general outdoors and a main road, so the general > outdoors was made into a Reshus Harabim D'rabanan, with the following > exception: Whereas a Reshus Harabim d'Oraisa requires actual walls to > allow carrying, for a Reshus Harabim d'Rabanan it is sufficient to > surround an area with doorways (tzuras hapesach). Mid'oraisa a set of four tzuros hapesach works in reshus harabim too. It was the rabanan who said "ein me'arvim reshus harabim bekach", and only allowed it in a karmelis. Whether they did this at the same time that they forbade carrying in a karmelis, I don't know. My impression is that it was later, because the first we hear of it is in a braisa, and it's subject to machlokes, whereas the concept of karmelis is taken for granted by all. > My point was that they are excellent examples of an exception being > built into the law from the very beginning, as opposed to Prozbul, > which (if shmitas kesafim is d'rabanan) was a separate enactment from > shmitas kesafim Yes, this is clear. > (because if they were done at the same time, the goal of Prozbul > could have been acheived even more easily by simply not enacting > shmitas kesafim). You don't need to go there. It's obvious that shmitas kesafim midrabanan preceded Hillel, because if it hadn't then how could he have observed the problem that resulted? Clearly it long predated him, presumably all the way back to the end of shmita d'oraisa, or at least to the return from Bavel. But the *efficacy* of pruzbul is not Hillel's takana at all. It's de'oraisa (Sifri, quoted by Tosfos Gittin 36a dh Mi Ika Midi) >> (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an >> eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple >> owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) > I'm not sure if there is a rigorous definition of "loophole". > (The wikipedia article is a great place to start.) I tend to > think that it is a general pejorative to describe any leniency > that one has an emotional objection to. The WP article is seriously defective (WP:OR for one thing) and needs to extensive a rewrite for me to bother with. A loophole is built into a wall; it's *meant* to be there. There's nothing pejorative about it. An exception to a law is a case where the law doesn't apply; a loophole is where the law *does* apply, and this is how it applies. It's not that an eruv permits one to carry in a RHY with multiple owners, it's that an eruv turns it (for this purpose) into a RHY with a single owner. Similarly eruv techumin doesn't allow you to walk more than 2000 amos from your residence, it merely moves your residence. That's not an exception, it's a loophole. If you want an example of an exception, look to eruv tavshilin. The chachamim, whether because of kevod shabbos or kevod yomtov, forbade the ha'arama of cooking for guests whom you aren't really expecting, *unless* you make an eruv. The eruv is an exception built into the original takana. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 03:33:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 13:33:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "I think it makes no sense for Prozbul to be "an exception to an enactment", because "why bother?" If the agricultural Shemitta stops being d'Oraisa, then Chazal can certainly enact it on a d'rabanan level. But to do that for Shemitas Kesafim means to legislate the following three things simultaneously: 1) Enact a law requiring cancellation of loans 2) Loans are exempt from cancellation if Prozbul is done 3) For the benefit of both poor and wealthy, everyone should do a Prozbul Why enact such a set of laws? Wouldn't it be far simpler to just let Shmitas Kesafim lapse, and NOT be enacted on a d'rabanan level?" If you look at the sugya of pruzbul (Gittin 36a-b) these points are all addressed: The Gemara starts out with the fact that Hillel was mesaken pruzbul. Then the Gemara asks how could he do that if the Torah (shemitas kesafim) cancels the loan? Abaye answers that Hillel only made his takana of pruzbul when shemittas kesafim was derabbanon. The Gemara then asks how could the Chachamim be mesaken shemmitas kesafim derabbanon if min hatorah the lender has to pay back the loan? Rava answers hefker beis din hefker. We see clearly from the Gemara that the historical progression was 1. Shemmita ceased being min hatorah 2. Chachamim were mesaken shemitta miderabbonon including shemittas kesafim 3. After shemitta derabbonon was already established Hillel saw that people were not lending money and therefore was mesaken pruzbul In other words these things did not happen simultaneously, pruzbul was enacted after shemmitas kesafim was already established. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 06:03:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 09:03:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] An Important Clarification Regarding Some Relevant Halachos for Yom Kippur Message-ID: <20150921130412.485F3183A12@nexus.stevens.edu> [] Some Relevant Halachos for Yom Kippur: A Clarification The following is an excerpt from the article on selected halachos relative to Yom Kippur: "At the conclusion of Yom Kippur, one may not do melachah (labor prohibited on Shabbos/ Yom Kippur) until one recites (or hears) Havdalah over wine (or the equivalent) or recites A ttah Chonantanu in Ma'ariv, or says Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol. Although reciting any of these allows one to do melachah, one may not eat until after reciting (or hearing) Havdalah over wine (or the equivalent). Accordingly, married men should hurry home after Ma'ariv on Motza'ei Yom Kippur to recite Havdalah so that their wives will be able to eat." Clarification : Following the conclusion of Yom Kippur, after one recites Attah Chonantanu in Ma'ariv or says Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol, one may drink water even before reciting (or hearing) Havdalah. Thus (for example), a woman whose husband is delayed in coming home after Ma'ariv on Motza'ei Yom Kippur may recite Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol after nightfall and drink water before hearing Havdalah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 15:18:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 23:18:00 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> Message-ID: A summary of Pruzbul I have in front of me (written by Rabbi D Tugendhaft, London) says: "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" On 16 September 2015 at 23:07, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 09/16/2015 05:41 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > >> A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: >> >> Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking >>> around at books and online. I see no discussion whatsoever on >>> whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, >>> e.g. books I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that >>> addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an obligation to return >>> a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? >>> >> > I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? >> > > > Shemita applies only to halva'ah, not to she'elah. English uses the > same word, but they are very different transactions. It's actually > strange that English, which is usually the most precise language, does > not distinguish them. > > A book is a she'elah; the book remains her property, and she expects > the borrower to return it. Thus it is not at all affected by shemita. > It is also not subject to the prohibition on ribbis; not only is there > absolutely nothing wrong with charging people to borrow your stuff, > the Torah explicitly endorses it as one of the four forms of shemirah. > > -- > Zev Sero GChT > zev at sero.name > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 06:53:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:53:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Haqeil Message-ID: <55FC174B.6090900@zahav.net.il> Anyone here understand sound? Assuming best case scenarios (loud voices, no background noise, good hearing), how many people could possibly hear the king read at Haqeil? It would seem that there is no way the king could project his voice so that most could hear him (????). If few actually came to the tekes, OK, but if most people came how could it possibly work? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 07:57:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:57:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] From Medieval Ashkenaz Techinah Supplication to Iconic Segulah: The Chasidic Transformation of G-d of Abraham Message-ID: <20150918145828.8F30C183A9B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/pwg839c From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 10:20:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 20:20:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] vort on teshuvah Message-ID: 1) Rambam in hlichot teshuva (7:6) discusses the effect of teshuva yesterday (emesh) i was far from G-d hated ... and now I am beloved RYBS asks why the Rambam here uses such poetic language in particular using "emesh" instead of "etmol" . He asnwers that "etmol" indicates a 24 hour period while "emesh" can be a fraction of second between being hated by G-d and being loved by G-d 2) Someone who marries on a woman on condition that he is a Tzaddik the marriage is valid even if it is known that he is a rasha perhaps (shema) he did teshuva. Someone in the shiur noted that "shema" read backwards is "emesh" . Meaning that rasha who proposed marriage did teshuva a fraction of a second before the proposal -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 10:15:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 13:15:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reciting 100 Brochos Daily Message-ID: <20150918171648.24C57181A25@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/njmnbgn From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 15:12:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shmuel Weidberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:12:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? Message-ID: Hello everybody. I haven't been active on this list in a long time. I just had a look around the internet to see if there was anything new with the Kosher Switch, and I remembered an issue with it that I haven't seen discussed anywhere. The makers say that there is a certain amount of randomization involved in whether the light flashes into the detector and whether the detector detects the light. There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create random numbers. They create pseudo-random numbers which means they take a seed number and perform a complex calculation on it to get the next number, which looks like it bears no relation to the first number, but which in fact is completely determined by the first number. Computer can get real random numbers, by generating the seed by looking at actions that take place that the computer cannot predict such as when somebody presses a key on a keyboard, or when some other sensor is activated. Alternatively, they can get random numbers from a special piece of hardware that is designed to physically make random numbers. However, I believe such pieces of hardware are quite specialized and if there actually was one in the switch it would be advertised. In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. Regards, Shmuel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 10:59:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:59:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> Message-ID: <56004574.4040004@sero.name> On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour > because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in > its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to she'elah. Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 11:29:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:29:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. ------------------------------- Yes, much as a complete understanding of the physics involved would determine the roll of the dice as it left one?s hand. Yet we call this ?random? (and iirc statisticians can?t prove any set of numbers was truly random, only that they appear likely so. Gct 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 22:35:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 01:35:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <063901d0f4f8$8c2cd700$a4868500$@gmail.com> R? Shmuel Weidberg: The makers say that there is a certain amount of randomization involved in whether the light flashes into the detector and whether the detector detects the light. There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create random numbers. They create pseudo-random numbers which means they take a seed number and perform a complex calculation on it to get the next number, which looks like it bears no relation to the first number, but which in fact is completely determined by the first number. In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. --------------------------- Isn?t the lomdus of their approach that you, the person flicking the switch, doesn?t DO anything because you?re only covering a light pulse without knowing when it will come next? So it doesn?t really matter if it?s random, it matters that you don?t know when it will next illuminate. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 07:04:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:04:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56004574.4040004@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> Message-ID: <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. On 9/21/2015 8:59 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > >> "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour >> because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in >> its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" > > Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to > she'elah. > Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 11:00:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:00:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> Message-ID: <56019748.5060907@sero.name> On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 9/21/2015 8:59 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: >>> "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour >>> because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in >>> its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" >> Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to she'elah. >> Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. > But a book, you return the same one. Usually. Not usually, always. There are two utterly different kinds of transaction for which the English language uses the same words: loan, borrow, lend. This is surprising, since usually English is a more precise language than most, but it is so. She'elah: I give you my property, with permission to use it. It remains my property, and you must return it on the agreed-upon date, or when I ask for it, in reasonable shape given the time you had it and the use to which you put it. In other words, in slightly worse shape than when I gave it to you. I may do this as a favour, but there is no mitzvah for me to do so. I am entitled to charge you for it, in which case the transaction is called "sechirus", or in English, "rental". Shemitah does not apply to this transaction. Common examples: a book, a car, a tool, a pen. Halva'ah: I give you my property, and it becomes yours. I do not expect it back, ever. On the agreed-upon date, or when I ask, you must give me something exactly like what I gave you. Since you are a Jew, I have a mitzvah to do this as a favour for you, and am forbidden from charging you anything for it, and you are forbidden from paying me anything for it, in any form. Shemitah applies. Common examples: $100, a cup of sugar, a rubber band. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 12:48:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 22:48:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56019748.5060907@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> <56019748.5060907@sero.name> Message-ID: <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > >> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. > > Not usually, always. Several years ago, we borrowed a book from my brother-in-law. A while later, we wanted to return it, but we couldn't find it. So we bought another identical copy and returned that in its place. So I'm going to stick with "usually." Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 19:11:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 22:11:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> <56019748.5060907@sero.name> <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> Message-ID: <56035BCF.7000400@sero.name> On 09/23/2015 03:48 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> >>> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. >> >> Not usually, always. > > Several years ago, we borrowed a book from my brother-in-law. A while > later, we wanted to return it, but we couldn't find it. So we bought > another identical copy and returned that in its place. So I'm going > to stick with "usually." Your obligation was to return the exact same book. Once that became impossible, you became liable as a shomer; a shomer sachar and a socher are liable for geneiva va'aveida, so at that point you became liable to pay the value of the lost book, and that sum became a milveh, and thus subject to shemitah and ribbis. -- Zev Sero Gut Yomtov zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 12:09:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:09:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a > random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the > time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it > simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. Do you know whether the Star-K-certified "Sabbath mode" ovens use pseudo-random numbers or true random numbers? (Thermal noise would do fine; and many processors, even some embedded ones, have such a random number source.) --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 12:03:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 15:03:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150924190308.GA28981@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 06:12:07PM -0400, Shmuel Weidberg via Avodah wrote: : I just had a look around the internet to see if there was anything new with : the Kosher Switch... : There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't : computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create : random numbers... I don't think this particular distinction makes a halachic difference. The question is whether the person doing the action has a reasonable chance of predicting the outcome. Actual mathematical randomness might not be at issue. As long as I can't know what my flipping the switch would do, I would think it should all be the same. (Think of it as a first cousin to ignoring water bears and other zooplankton that can only be seen with a magnifying glass when drinking water.) ... : Computer can get real random numbers, by generating the seed by looking at : actions that take place that the computer cannot predict such as when : somebody presses a key on a keyboard, or when some other sensor is : activated... Actually, that's not really random, just less predictable because the seed generation is outside the machine. A specially designed can get truly random numbers by using quantum effects. Such as picking up on the brownian motion of molecules due to heat. But really, I don't think we have to worry about the difference between "random" and "not humanly predictable". Also a side note: I might point out that there are numerous hashkafos in which every event, or at least every event that impacts a human being, is subject to hashgachah peratis. And thus, nothing we ever experience is actually random. Or alternatively, that the word "random" needs a different translation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 14:20:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:20:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shemittah beyond Shemittah Message-ID: <20150924212050.B6B10182CED@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://cor.ca/view/720/shemittah_beyond_shemittah.html From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 14:37:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:37:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shemitta Sheilos: Using Arbah Minim of Sheviis - Parts I and II Message-ID: <20150924213723.28661183A0D@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://ohr.edu/6522 and http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6527 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 25 00:32:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:32:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Buying minim from a child Message-ID: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> When I was in yeshiva, we were told to refrain from buying any of the four minim from a child. If the product was stolen, a child can't take possession via shinu reshut or ma'aseh. Therefore the theft falls on the buyer and his minim are pasul. Thinking about during my jog, I had a few questions: 1) Is this a real chashash or simply are we trying to cover all halachik corners? Meaning, if I do buy from a child do I really have anything to worry about? And if it isn't a real concern, then why am I not being oveir on "chosheid b'kesheirim"? 2) If it is a real chashash (the presence of stolen minim in the market) than why buy from an adult? Buying stolen goods is also a sin. At the very least, one can only buy from a place with a heksher. 3) Or can one? Can we assume that the kashrut agencies really check were their minim come from? 4) Who determines if there is a significant presence of stolen goods in the market every year? I assume that the amount of stolen goods has to be above a certain minimum for there to be a real issue? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 21:44:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 00:44:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur Message-ID: In the case where an ill person is eating on Yom Kippur, the Magen Avraham 618:10 brings varying views on whether he needs Lechem Mishne, whether he includes Yaaleh V'yavo in bentching, and whether he must make Kiddush. Kaf Hachaim 618:60 repeats much of that, with some changes and additions, and in 618:61 he points out that the same would apply to children and women who have recently given birth. Similar things appear in the other nosei keilim on that se'if. I got the impression that the pros and cons on these questions were based mostly on practical and halachic concerns, such as whether or not these halachos were ever enacted for Yom Kippur. I'd like to know if the *historical* side is discussed anywhere. I'm focusing now specifically on Lechem Mishne, and I'm now ignoring Kiddush and Birkas Hamazon. Here are my questions of historical fact: During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the children eat? There are several possible answers I can think of: Perhaps mon fell on Yom Kippur, but only at the homes where where children or yoldos live. Perhaps mon did not fall on Yom Kippur, but those homes got a double portion on Erev Yom Kippur. Perhaps neither of the above happened, and the children and yoldos had to make do with whatever other food might have been available. (This possibility seems odd to me, as it throws a curve ball into the whole "40 years of miracles" idea: Exactly once each year, the children had no choice but to eat non-miraculous food, and the day for this chinuch was Yom Kippur.) I suppose I should also include another possibility, which is that everyone received their normal supply of mon on Yom Kippur just like on every other day, but that seems like quite a waste. Perhaps they ate it on Motzaei Yom Kippur. In which case I'd wonder if only a half-portion might have fallen that morning. I also question whether Hashem would have placed such a michshol at the doorways, leaving their mon in the reshus harabim. Does anyone know of any Midrashim or other sources that might talk about this? Akiva Miller (PS: I only asked about children and yoldos in the midbar, and I did not ask about other cholim. That's because I think that in the miraculous Midbar, no one was ever sick, and no one died except on the night of Tisha B'Av. If anyone wants to discuss this, please begin a new thread.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 20:33:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ken Bloom via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 23:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? Message-ID: Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in depth than Sefer HaToda'ah. Does anyone know of something analgous to how the Maharal's Gevurot Hashem explains Pesach, or have other recommendations about the holiday? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 22:19:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 01:19:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: : Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better : understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully : understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in : depth than Sefer HaToda'ah. Does anyone know of something analgous to how : the Maharal's Gevurot Hashem explains Pesach, or have other recommendations : about the holiday? RYHutner's Pachad Yitzchaq. (Although the volumes are arranged around Shabbos & YT, and thus would seem particular to those topics, I would consider it one of the canonical Jewish philoosphy works of the 20th cent. Not to be skipped by anyone serious about learning hashkafah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 30 12:53:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:53:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Whole Hallel on Sukkos Message-ID: <20150930195335.GA18194@aishdas.org> I just noticed something that is likely to be meaningful. We say whole Hallel every day of Sukkos because the qorban mussaf differs each day. The mussaf differs by the number of cows, which total 70 across the YT. The 70 cows are keneged the 70 nations. Among the things we would have otherwise skipped was "Lamah yomeru hagoyim..." So... Because we bring qorbanos on behalf of the 70 nations over the course of Sukkos, we pray for their abandonment of AZ on each day of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 30 13:03:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:03:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Buying minim from a child In-Reply-To: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> References: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <560C400E.6080206@sero.name> On 09/25/2015 03:32 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > When I was in yeshiva, we were told to refrain from buying any of the > four minim from a child. If the product was stolen, a child can't > take possession via shinu reshut or ma'aseh. Therefore the theft > falls on the buyer and his minim are pasul. > > Thinking about during my jog, I had a few questions: > > 1) Is this a real chashash or simply are we trying to cover all > halachik corners? Meaning, if I do buy from a child do I really have > anything to worry about? And if it isn't a real concern, then why am > I not being oveir on "chosheid b'kesheirim"? > > 2) If it is a real chashash (the presence of stolen minim in the > market) than why buy from an adult? Buying stolen goods is also a > sin. At the very least, one can only buy from a place with a heksher. > > 3) Or can one? Can we assume that the kashrut agencies really check > were their minim come from? > > 4) Who determines if there is a significant presence of stolen goods > in the market every year? I assume that the amount of stolen goods > has to be above a certain minimum for there to be a real issue? The chashash is not for actually stolen goods, but that the land on which the minim were grown was stolen hundreds or thousands of years ago, and since karka eina nigzeles it still belongs to the rightful heirs of the original owner. Thus the person who harvests the minim is technically the gazlan, ye'ush happened a long time ago, so we need a shinuy reshus, which happens when you buy from the "gazlan", but not if he's a katan. If he bought it from someone else then this problem doesn't exist, but there's another problem: it won't be shelachem, which it needs to be for the first day. This is also why one should not use minim one cut oneself, but rather sell those and buy ones that someone else cut. All of this only applies in countries where land title is uncertain; where it can be traced directly back to a valid kibush milchama, there is no problem. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 07:15:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 10:15:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <5593124A.2040905@sero.name> References: <20150630.152626.19374.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> <5593124A.2040905@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150701141526.GB24797@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 06:03:54PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/30/2015 03:26 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : >>From what I've seen, it is NOT said even if a minyan says Birkas Hamazon, : : Why would it? When a minyan says Birkhas haMazon, the zimun changes, it creates a minyan one may not break (by benching on their own or with a normal zimun), but no Qaddish. When a minyan says Pesuqei deZimra, nothing changes, there is no specific issur on leaving in the middle, and yet it is closed with Qaddish (even if you lose the minyan during PdZ). I think RAM's question why is quite fair. It would be nice to think the minhag follows some well-defined rule. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 05:35:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:35:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bio of RSRH Message-ID: <20150701123548.93E2D182CC3@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/p5h866u From this URL. When Rav Yisroel Salanter read a copy of The Nineteen Letters in 1873, he said that it should be translated into Russian and Hebrew. He also remarked, "Is there a Gan Eden big enough for Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch?" See the above URL for more. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 14:33:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:33:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakarat Hatov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 03:56:25PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Does Hakarat Hatov engender a measurable "liability" (e.g. require a : marginally greater action) between the recipient and the provider of the : "Tov", or is saying "Thank you, I appreciate it" the only requirement? Moshe isn't the trigger for the first makkos because he "owed" the Ye'or and the sand for saving him in the past. As Chazal put it (BQ 92b) WRT "velo sesaeiv Mitzri ki ger hayisa ve'artzo", it justified the common saying "bira deshasis mineih, lo tashdi beih kala" (into a well from which you once drank, don't throw clods of dirt). That said, I don't think reducing gratitude to *nothing more than* a favor-economics is healthy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness, micha at aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom. http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 14:37:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:37:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakarat Hatov In-Reply-To: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> References: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150701213753.GA24874@aishdas.org> PS: I started with the aggadic story and didn't say why I opened with a medrash rather than a gemara. The Nile and the sand wasn't actors. Moshe didn't really owe them anything. It's like "not embarassing" the challah by covering it. Apparently the notion of repaying a favor is so important, HQBH expects us to practice it for a middah exercise even when the other side isn't a real 2nd party. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 12:08:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 15:08:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish with mixed seating Message-ID: Following up upon my earlier post about the permissibility of saying the *kaddish *of a *siyyum* at a dinner with mixed seating. I spoke to RIETS RY last week and he said that we only require *mechitzah* in a *Shul*, based upon the *Gemara* in *Succos*, which requires separate seating at a *shul*. This is clear from the original textual source of mechitzah, the Gemara in the fifth perek of Succos, that the basis of *mechitzah* is the *Bais ha-Mikdash*. As our Synagogues are modeled after the Bais ha-Mikdash, we apply the principals underlying the *Gemara* in Succos to our Shuls. (Similarly, *Tosfos* justifies the practice of bringing children to Shul using the model of *Hakhel*.) As the Kaddish for a Siyyum has nothing do to with a Shul there is no need for separate seating. I also spoke to one of the Dayanim in our community he did not even think that saying *kaddish* with mixed seating was an issue as he thought that mixed seating was only an issue in a *Shul*. Others told me the same (i.e. that only a *shul* requires separation) in the name of Rav Schachter *shlit?a* . However, I saw Rav Herschel Schachter *shlit?a* at shacharis this week so I asked him my question. He responded that it would be better if they would have the *siyyum* before the dinner. I asked why and he responded ?*Davar She?bekedushah*?. I asked him so why do people recite *Kedushah* after a *siyyum* with mixed seating. And he responded, ?Nu, Nu?. (Which is a common response from Rav Schachter to questions of that sort.) Interestingly enough the Gemara in Succos brings a ?proof? for separation of men and women from a non-?*Davar She?bekedushah*? the funeral in *Zecharyah*. Of course we are not discussing whether a particular practice is good or bad or even ?best practices?, but rather whether it is required or not. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 08:32:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 11:32:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] From Succot to Moshiach Message-ID: Ma tovu ohalecha: ?Tents? are temporary and refer to olam hazeh ?.mishk?nosecha: ?Dwelling places? refers to olam haba. In other words, we are first in the antechamber, the temporary abode, which tents symbolize; then, once we leave our temporary homes, we hopefully ascend to our permanent ?dwelling place.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 14:44:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 17:44:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Historical Bil'am Message-ID: <20150703214448.GA32213@aishdas.org> H/T RYGB, see http://www.livius.org/source-content/deir-alla-inscription He asks on his blog: Why isn't this more widely known? The full article includes an image of the instription and a complete translation. This is just the opening. :-)BBii! -Micha Livius.org Articles on ancient history Deir 'Alla Inscription Deir 'Alla Inscription: inscription, found in the Iron Age town of Deir 'Alla, mentioning the Biblical prophet Balaam. Deir 'Alla is situated in western Jordan, about eight kilometers east of the river Jordan, and about a kilometer north of the Jabbok. The excavators found a very large Bronze Age sanctuary that had suffered in the period of wide-spread destruction in the thirteenth/twelfth centuries. Unlike other settlements, which were abandoned, Deir 'Alla remained in use well into the fifth century BCE. That is remarkable. Even more remarkable, however, was the discovery of a painted text that contained a prophecy by Balaam... (The site of Deir 'Alla is, technically, on the [11]Ammonite side of the river Jabbok.) The text refers to divine visions and signs of future destruction, in a language that is close to that of the Bible. For example, we read about the "Shaddai gods", an expression that is close to the Biblical El Shaddai, "God Almighty". On the other hand, the setting is not monotheistic: we read, for instance, about a gathering of a group of gods. The word elohim, which in the Bible (although plural) refers to one God, refers to more than one god in the Deir 'Alla text. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 15:16:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 18:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> In a recent blog post, R' Aryeh Klapper (Cc-ed) writes http://moderntoraleadership.wordpress.com/2015/07/03/chok-mishpat-and-obergefell Imagine pre-snake Adam and Eve walking into the Jewish camp. They would not praise the Jews for their modesty, and they would have no idea why the tents' openings did not face each other. For Bilaam to praise the Jews' virtue, even in the context of his deep and unremitting hatred, he had to be capable of understanding that modesty was a relevant evaluative category. What would it take for Bilaam to have this capacity? Unlike the prelapsarian original couple, he would have to be conscious of his own sexuality, and experientially aware that sexuality could be associated with shame. He might nonetheless choose exhibitionism for himself, and for his culture. He might decide that sexual shame is the root of neurosis and dedicate himself to its cultural eradication. But he would understand what he was eradicating. Perhaps there would even be moments when he regretted his victory. My tentative suggestion is that the Torah teaches us here that there is a value in making our moral premises intelligible even to our enemies; this is part of our mission to be the light of the nations. I want to be clear that this value is not pragmatic, and that we are not safer, or less likely to be hated, if we are understood. Like Bilaam, the world may use its understanding of our virtue to learn how best to undermine us. It is simply part of our job to enable as much as we can of humanity to make informed moral choices. I suggest further that perhaps we can understand the Seven Noachide Commandments as intended not to provide a formal code of behavior, but rather to identify a set of moral premises. Perhaps our mission is particularly to make those premises universally intelligible. Making premises intelligible is not accomplished through rational argumentation. Rational arguments depend on mutually intelligible premises. ... One core premise: let us identify it with the Noachide commandment against forbidden sexual relationships, or arayot -- that is no longer intelligible to many Americans is that sexuality can be evaluated in nonutilitarian terms, that a sexual act can be wrong even if no one gets hurt. We have replaced sexual morality with sexual ethics. Conversations on topics such as chastity, masturbation, and adultery are wholly changed from what they were even two decades ago, and tracts from back then can seem less contemporary than prehistoric cave art. There are many reasons that traditional rationales in the area of sexuality have moved rapidly from self-evident to unintelligible. Here are two: (1) Effective birth control and in vitro fertilization have broken the connection between intercourse and procreation. It is no longer self-evident to speak of intercourse as potential recreation, or as inevitably associated with the risk of pregnancy. (2) Many human beings with homosexual orientations have told compelling personal stories of pain and alienation. In the secular world, the natural reaction to a premise's social unintelligibility is the repeal of any laws that depend on it. In the Orthodox world, where immediate repeal is rarely a viable option, one reasonable reaction is what I call "chokification," or the declaration that laws that once depended on the now-unintelligible premise should be regarded as either beyond human comprehension or else as arbitrary rules intended to train us to obedience. Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. I utilized the following "Lonely Man of Faith" based idea to open "The Talk" with my sons.I wanted them to understand the sanctity of sex, so before getting into the mechanics of it, I tried to open by setting a religious context. As far as I can tell, the Torah gives two purposes for marriage: 1- In Genesis 1, the goal is to procreate and raise children. This is Adam I's drive "to fill the earth and conqure it", his place at the end of a sequence of creation -- above the animals, but more quatitatively than qualitatively. 2- In Genesis 2, the goal is to reunite the two halves, Adam and Eve, who were originally created as a single unit. Adam II seeks redemption through community. In this case, romantic love. Sex in its role of making a bond between people. And therefore a problem of premarital sex is that one thereby learns to minimize the bond thereby created. It weakens that function of sex, so it won't be as effective once you are married. Either alone -- procreation or the romantic reunification of the two halves of the original Adam (which again, I mean psychologically, not mystically) would be sufficient reason to justify sexual intimacy. But without either, it's the pursuit of our mamalian drives for insufficient reason. The objectification (or at least animalization) of the self. In order to buy into #2, one needs to believe that gender (as opposed to biological sex) is an innate set of existential and psychological differences, and not just a role imposed by convention. And therefore Adam and Eve are distinct and different halves of a whole. That this is an existential and deep-psychological truth, which will hold no matter how much society attempts to change those roles and bury gender differences. Notice that despite the social trends that brought the Supreme Court to conclude last week that traditional sexual morality (in contrast to sexual ethics) is irrational and thus prejudicial bias, the above implies that the Torah's ban on homosexuality can be explained in mishpat terms. On a different note, the shift from morality to ethics is typical for postmodernism. When all narratives are equally valid there is no way to insist there is an absolute moral code. Never mind determine what it contains. Therefore, one encourages a freedom to act as an end itself, rather than as a means to greatness. (Which is a logical progression from the American legal system, the concept of rights-based law taken to its extreme. It's notable that a society that values a "maavir al midosav" would not laud taking rights as far as all that. As a legal philosphy, though, it is the best we've come up with to avoid "ish es rei'eihu chaim bal'o", which is the central role of a secular gov't, no?) However, the lack of establishment of a common moral code is itself damaging to society. No one private violation of moral code, whatever the society holds it to be, will necessarily harm others. But living in a society that doesn't promote morality, that doesn't work toward aiming that autonomy toward some higher end, is harmful. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 15:20:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:20:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> References: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is the purpose to make things even worse? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 16:28:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 19:28:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> References: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150705232816.GA29598@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:20:08PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. : Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a : moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is : the purpose to make things even worse? As I quoted from RAK, because they classically were not considered chuqim. Until our contemporaries took the issue from sexual morality to sexual ethics, these truths were considered self-evident. It's the choqification of dinei arayos that's inauthentic. In any case, since one doesn't pasqen from taamei hamitzvos, the din is the same either way. Nothhing in such exploration can "make things even worse". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 15:57:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:57:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon Message-ID: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> In Pirkei Avot, Hillel HaZaken says: "Be among the talmidim of Aharon, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them close to the Torah." I don't get it. I honestly don't. If we see a bunch of Jews who don't know anything about Judaism, shouldn't we try and get them to keep the mitzvot? If you know that they're more likely to violate the mitzvot if they don't know, it's it our responsibility to teach them what God wants of them? The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this subject. I look at gay people and I see them overwhelmingly part of the nihilism of the left, but I don't think being gay automatically makes people like that. But what else are Jews supposed to do when they're being pushed away from the Torah? Jews have neshamas that were at Sinai. A Jew who was raised without Torah has an empty space inside that's just *begging* to be filled with Torah. But because of the wrongheaded idea that gay people have to either pretend they aren't gay, or they must be ostracized from the Torah community, they wind up filling that empty space with the even emptier slogans of the left. Because of the belief held by so many frum Jews that gay people who acknowledge themselves to be gay are simply *incapable* or unwilling to keep mitzvot, we, as a community *deliberately* withhold the Torah from them. It makes no sense to me. I mean, worst case, you tell someone gay, "There are things you aren't allowed to do according to Jewish law. Are you willing to abide by that?" But we aren't even doing that. We're assuming that the answer is going to be no, and by so assuming, we're *making that happen*. At 120, when you're standing before the Kisei HaKavod and you're asked why you pushed so many Jews away from His Torah, I wonder what you'll answer. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 17:34:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 20:34:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon In-Reply-To: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> References: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150706003423.GB14365@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:57:04PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: : In Pirkei Avot, Hillel HaZaken says: "Be among the talmidim of Aharon, : loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them close : to the Torah." : : I don't get it. I honestly don't. If we see a bunch of Jews who don't : know anything about Judaism, shouldn't we try and get them to keep the : mitzvot?... First, a minor correction. Hillel says "berios", or as in the tradition "loving people and bringing them..." IOW, not only kiruv, but bringing non-Jews to NNoachidism. : The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since : the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of : the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't : get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so : many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this : subject. I'm not so sure. The SCOTUS ruled in favor of a right that is based on the idea that believing the Torah's position about homosexuality is bigotry. But in any case, it's like any other rule of tochachah... You need to tell them what they're doing is wrong n a way that gets constructive change. The usual rule for when you should shut up is "mutav sheyihyu shogegim", but here nearly everyone involved know what we pasqen it's assur. So, you're not turning anyone into meizidim. : It makes no sense to me. I mean, worst case, you tell someone gay, : "There are things you aren't allowed to do according to Jewish law. : Are you willing to abide by that?" But we aren't even doing that. : We're assuming that the answer is going to be no, and by so assuming, : we're *making that happen*. But the US law in question is itself to permit something you aren't allowed to do in Jewish law, and in the Minchas Chinukh's opinion -- nor in Noachide law. The general problem of people hating the sinner rather than the sin isn't limited to this one. Perhaps here things are more extreme because the accusers do not attempt to separate an instinctive loathing from actual halachic concerns. Either we should be getting similar bile when discussing business cheats, or we should be getting quiet on both fronts. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 18:46:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 01:46:19 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Alternate texts for the Prayer for the Government Message-ID: <20150705.214619.1506.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> R' Mordechai Harris wrote: > Here's the one I shard last time from the De Sola Pool Siddur. > www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/deSolaPoolPrayerForGovernment.pdf R' Simon Montagu asked: > Can you also share the publication details and/or title page of > this siddur? What I know as the De Sola Pool Siddur is not the > same as in this link. I have ... RMH's link was for "The Traditional Prayer Book for Sabbath and Festivals", the official siddur of the RCA, published in 1960. A very different, longer version appears in many other siddurim, with rather minor differences: The Hirsch Siddur, published by Feldheim The Authorized Daily Prayer Book by Chief Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz The Daily Prayer Book by Philip Birnbaum The Koren Siddur by Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks and in the new Nehalel beShabbat by Michael Haruni (website and free sample at nehalel.com) I was going to remark that I have found this prayer only in siddurim that have an English translation, but is not correct. First, it would seem to appear in whichever siddur the Hirsch was adapted from. But moreover, this same tefila also appears in my copy of "Siddur Eishei Yisrael al pi daas Maran HaGra." (I know there are many siddurim with similar names; all I can tell about this is that the title page lists no publisher, only "Yerushalayim 5735".) The Nehalel siddur is worth noting for this thread. I have not seen this siddur to be too widespread or popular (yet - it's only from 2013), but I'd like to point out that it has TWO versions of this prayer. The version which is very similar to the others is on a page marked "In the United States of America:". But the following page is marked "In the United Kingdom and Commonwealth:", and is markedly different -- but not nearly as different as the De Sola Pool version. This makes me stop, and wonder, and consider the fact that although my Hertz siddur and my Sacks siddur are both of British authorship, they both used American publishers (Bloch and OU Press respectively), and were possibly designed for an American audience. Which leads me to ask those of the chevra who currently reside in the Commonwealth: What version (if any) is said in your shuls? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5599de50e59b55e504270st04vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 06:29:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:29:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VBM-SICHOT75 - 41: The Philosophical Principles of Inheritance Message-ID: <20150706132902.GB31051@aishdas.org> Just because taamei hamitzvos is supposed to be one of the core topics of this email group's host organization.... BTW, my grandfather a"h was named Pinechas after this week's sedra, his bar mitzvah parashah. When it was time to name my oldest, I checked with my uncle how his name appeared on their kesuvah, as their mesader qiddushin was a key rav in my grandfather's life. (R/Dr Mirsky zt"l met two teenage boys coming off the boat and took them under his wing. My grandfather and great-uncle then earned enough to bribe the rest of the family's way out of Litta before the Nazis came to power.) Anyway, it seems R/Dr Mirsky held my grandfather's name was Pinechas, pei-yud-nun-ches-samekh, as it is spelled in the chumash (ignoring the size of the yud as usually written in the beginning of the parashah). And thus the sheva is na, Pinechas - not Pinchas. If you want to make a derashah out of a Mitzri name, it's Pi Nachas, not Pen Chas. Reason for this tangent... I would have expected "Gushies" to get the sheva in the parashah name right. After all, they have the patach under the reish in Parashat. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov VBM-SICHOT75 - 41: Parashat Pinchas Sicha of HaRav Mosheh Lichtenstein Adapted by Motti Guttman Translated by David Strauss Yeshivat Har Etzion "In Place of Your Fathers Shall Be Your Children": The Philosophical Principles of Inheritance The concept of inheritance arises in a number of contexts in the Torah, most prominently in Parashat Pinchas. It is also the central topic of the eighth chapter of Massekhet Bava Batra, Yesh Nochalin. Naturally, the discussion of the laws of inheritance focuses largely on the financial matters at issue among the heirs, leading to the discussion and clarification of a number of fundamental questions regarding monetary law. For that reason, chapter Yesh Nochalin has an important place in the world of Choshen Mishpat. However, the issue of inheritance is not merely monetary. The yerusha (inheritance) is not simply money that we have to decide what to do with. Of course, it is preferable to award the estate of the deceased to his surviving relatives, and not to the state or the income tax authorities; the gemara itself notes, "Should the town collector be the heir?" (Bava Batra 110b). This, however, is not the essence of the laws of inheritance. Inheritance -- Breaching the Boundaries of the Present At the heart of the concept of inheritance lies a significant principle: that of permanence and continuity. When Avraham Avinu entered the Land, he was forced to pitch his tent in different places and live the life of a wanderer. In contrast, the idea of inheritance establishes that a person should not live a life of impermanence. Moshe expresses the desire for a state of permanence in his words to Israel at the plains of Moav: "For you are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance" (Devarim 12:9). This verse was also expounded as referring to the Temple. The idea of inheritance, in this context, creates existential permanence, which is reflected in Halakha. From the time that Jerusalem was selected, it became the permanent site of the Temple, and from that point on, offering sacrifices on bamot was forbidden due to the damage that this would cause to the idea of the Temple as the chosen inheritance. Inheritance constitutes permanence and it creates continuity because it allows the individual to breach the boundaries of the present. From the time of creation, reality dictates that "One generation passes away and another generation comes, but the earth abides forever" (Kohelet 1:4). Man's days are numbered, and sooner or later he will disappear from the world. By his very definition, he is temporary -- like the flower that fades, the shadow that passes, the dust that floats, and the dream that flies away. He is here today and in the grave tomorrow. In contrast, his inheritance remains and affords him continuity. From parent to child and from child to grandchild and great-grandchild, the chain continues and death does not sever it. To a certain extent, this allows one to overcome death and oblivion. Ownership of property and land in itself does not preventing transience or create continuity; it is the identification of inheritance with the family and its heritage in the past and the present that creates the permanence and continuity. A central concept in Jewish law is the concept of the "house," which denotes a family that constitutes a unit of common heritage -- "After their families, by the house of their fathers." We are familiar with this concept from various realms of Halakha. For example, a man whose brother died without children marries the widow through yibum, levirate marriage, in order to continue the family, and he is thereby able to perpetuate the name of the deceased, since they belong to a common "house." Because of the great importance that the Torah attributes to perpetuating the name of the deceased and continuing his legacy, it established the mechanism of levirate marriage despite the personal, familial and halakhic difficulties entailed in marriage to one's brother's wife. Indeed, the mitzva of yibum takes precedence over the mitzva of chalitza because of the mission of perpetuating the brother's name.[1] The language of the text itself creates a connection between yibum and inheritance, as the purpose of the mitzva is defined as "to perpetuate the name of the deceased on his inheritance." The principle of continuity and its importance in a person's life is further reflected in the statement of Chazal (Nedarim 64b) that includes one who does not have any children among those who are considered as if they were dead. While continuity expresses itself on the concrete level through the transmission of property, much more important, of course, is ensuring continuity on the level of values, goals, and existential aspirations, which constitute the true heritage that a person leaves behind. The prophet Yeshaya emphasized how a person's eternal heritage endures: For thus says the Lord to the eunuchs who keep My Sabbath, and choose the things that please Me, and take hold of My covenant. And to them will I give in My house and within My walls a memorial better that sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. (Yeshaya 56:4-5) Indeed, there is more than one plane on which a person achieves inheritance and continuity. Inheritance is part of the system that turns the transition between generations into something permanent and stable, allowing family identity to be transmitted across the generations. In this light, we can understand Chazal's critique of a person who leaves no inheritance. As we read in a mishna in Yesh Nochalin (Bava Batra 133b): If a person gives his estate in writing to strangers and leaves out his children, his arrangements are legally valid, but the spirit of the Sages finds no delight in him. The reference here is not to a person who did not leave an inheritance due to poverty or distress, but rather to a person who decided to give away his estate for other purposes, as positive as they may be,[2] or based on the perception that his children should fend for themselves. The idea behind this mishna is the need to leave a legacy for future generations. The principle of passing down to the next generation is of central importance. Know From Whence You Come! This perception of inheritance is rooted in a general and comprehensive idea that pervades all of Jewish life -- namely, that we do not live only in the present. Judaism rejects a horizontal perspective on man, according to which man is connected only to his current environment. Our relationship is not only with this generation. Rather, our sights are at all times directed at "the one who stands here with us this day before the Lord our God, and also with the one who is not here with us this day" (Devarim 29:14). The hope is to establish a relationship of shared destiny with the past, on both the national and the personal level. This is why we mourn to this day various historical events that happened to our ancestors. We do not say, "What happened, happened." The sense of pain and tragedy that Jewish law demands of a person indicates that it expects one to experience these things in unmediated fashion, as if they occurred to people he knows, and not only that he relate to them as events of the distant past for the purpose of learning a lesson from history. "In every generation one must see himself as if he went out from Egypt." Just as a Jew is expected to feel the pain of his Jewish brothers injured in terrorist attacks in Argentina, Turkey, Paris, or Afula, regardless of the geographical distance between them, because all of Israel are responsible for and close to one another, he is similarly expected to feel pain over events that took place a long time ago. The ability to draw from our heritage and know what happened to our ancestors is important in itself. The actions of our forefathers interest us, regardless of the spiritual insights that can be derived from them, because of the feeling of existential partnership between us and our ancestors. Avraham and Sara, Yitzchak and Rivka, Yaakov, Rachel and Leah, are not only the nation's patriarchs and matriarchs, but also our forefathers. They are not only lofty figures, but also Grandpa and Grandma -- and for this reason the Torah shared their lives with us. Just as a grandson is interested in hearing from his grandfather or his grandmother about life in Eastern Europe or North Africa a century ago, we want to know what happened in Mesopotamia during the time of Avraham and Sara. A person's life in the present is intertwined with the history of his forefathers in the past. One is intricately connected to his past; one does not grow up in a vacuum. Models of Inheritance The first mishna in Yesh Nochalin presents us with a number of possible models for those who inherit and those who transmit inheritance: Some [relatives] inherit [from] and transmit [to each other]; some inherit but do not transmit; some transmit but do not inherit; some neither inherit nor transmit. Clearly, the ideal is that a person should inherit and transmit inheritance, that he should be numbered among those who are "nochalin u-manchilin." As stated above, the inheritance is not simply property for the heir, but rather constitutes a familial plot filled with existential significance. He inherits -- deciding to connect himself to his past and to his heritage. And he is interested in transmitting inheritance -- adding his contribution to the heritage, the personal layer that he adds to the inheritance and passes down to the next generation. In contrast, there are those who inherit but do not transmit, "nochalin ve-lo manchilin" -- who draw from the past and connect to it, but are not capable of passing their heritage on. Perhaps this is because they do not consider this stage important, or perhaps they lack the capacity to give their heritage over to others and to connect to the next generation. Such a person does not know how to take from the past and interpret it for his children in the future. He is familiar with the world of the past, but he lacks the tools to apply the past and its heritage to the challenges of the present and the future. The reverse case also exists -- "yesh manchilin ve-einam nochalin," there are those who transmit but who do not inherit. They wish to pass on their personal legacy, but they are cut off from the past, or so they imagine. In their eyes, everything began in their generation. Previous generations erred or were weak; there is no need to receive their inheritance, laden with the outdated baggage of Diaspora life. This heir is not prepared to connect to the past or to recognize that he is dependent upon it. Blinded by his present achievements, he is alienated from the past and the weight of tradition. The most tragic group neither inherits nor transmits inheritance, "lo nochalin ve-lo manchilin." They are cut off from every bit of the past. They live only in the present and are utterly devoid of worry about the future -- "After me, the deluge." The concept of inheritance serves as a bridge between the past and the future. In this context, the individual is merely another link in a chain. If we consider the chain of tradition recorded by the Rambam in his introduction to the Mishneh Torah, more important than any particular Sage is the very chain of tradition itself. The value of each link lies in the fact that it allows the chain to continue. This is the connection and bridge between all the generations, from Avraham Avinu until the Mashiach. Spiritual Heritage through Physical Means As noted above, the transmission takes place through tangible means as well. It is obvious to us that it is values and ideas, Torah and mitzvot, that constitute the heritage that passes from one generation to the next. It is easy to understand the statement: "Moshe commanded us the Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov" (Devarim 33:4). It is more difficult to grasp that the Torah also attaches great importance to tangible inheritance, to the transmission of physical property. Chazal teach us that "monuments are not built for the righteous; their words are their memorials" (Bereishit Rabba 82). We do not set up statues or tombstones for the righteous, for it is their spiritual legacy that serves as their memorial. Nevertheless, the ability to touch the past by way of some object bestows additional meaning on that heritage. Touching the physical possession of a deceased relative gives a person the sense of an unmediated encounter with the past. One generation passes away and another generation comes, but an object that remains provides a connection to the earlier period. Man is a physical creature, and contact with material objects is meaningful to him as a reminder of and bridge to the past. Not only is it meaningful to transmit the life story of the deceased to future generations and to talk about his values, but it is also important to be able to connect with him on the most basic level. When a person comes across an object that belonged to his relative, it is important to him even if it lacks monetary value or is in no way unique. The tangible item turns the past into something immediate on a level that cannot be achieved by any other means. A number of years ago, a Torah scroll that belonged to the Ran and a seal that was reportedly that of the Ramban were displayed in an exhibition devoted to Spanish Jewry before the expulsion. It is difficult to describe the thrill that I felt when I understood that this seal was once held by the Ramban himself and that the Ran had once used this Torah scroll. I also remember the feeling of immediacy that I felt when someone showed me an etrog box that had once belonged to R. Akiva Eiger. We are physical beings who come from the dust, and physical things therefore speak to us. Paradoxically, it is precisely material objects, which are essentially transient, that maintain their permanence for centuries, creating a bridge between the past and the future. The need for connection through objects, which is natural and self-evident given that we are humans of flesh and blood, also underlies the Torah and the practical mitzvot. Judaism is not built exclusively on vague and abstract values. In response to the human need for concreteness, a system of practical commandments was created in order to express a system of ideas. The performance of mitzvot creates a channel for religious experience and opens the way for a connection between man and God. The experience associated with taking a lulav or eating matza reflects how much an object plays a role in the human religious experience. In a person's private life, intimate family connections are not based exclusively on profound conversations about noble values, but are rather manifest in shared day-to-day experiences, including the trivial problems that engage an ordinary family in everyday conduct, such as who will wash the dishes or fold the laundry. Similarly, this component of activity that is ongoing but not uplifting plays a role in our observance of the mitzvot. Just as a family lives closely together and creates connections even through banal activities, the mitzvot create a common religious experience with God among all those observing them. Thus, objects can provide existential meaning, but this depends upon the eye of the beholder. A person who relates to an inheritance merely as a set of objects and not as a means to continue the past will not see any unique significance in those objects. The Uniqueness of the Firstborn Thus far, we have discussed the idea of heirs and inheritance in general, the concept of personal and national heritage in the sense of "You are the children of the Lord your God" (Devarim 14:1). We have not discussed any unique status of any of the heirs. This indeed follows the model of the first half of Yesh Nochalin. At this point, we must move on to the second half of the chapter and to the concept of the birthright, the special privileges bestowed upon a firstborn. In addition to the passage dealing with inheritance in Sefer Bamidbar, a passage in Sefer Devarim assigns special status to a firstborn son. The concept of the bechora, primogeniture, is not merely factual but rather value-laden. This is reflected in the gemara's emphasis on the idea of "recognizing" the firstborn (based on the word "yakir" in the verse). The birthright expresses an interpersonal relationship unique to the parent and firstborn; it assumes a certain connection between them. Therefore, a firstborn only inherits a double portion if he was alive during his father's lifetime (Bava Batra 142b) and the father recognizes him as his firstborn son (127a).[3] For this reason, we also maintain that "the Torah calls it [the firstborn's double portion] a gift." In Halakha, a gift is not merely a certain type of acquisition, but rather an expression of intimacy. The firstborn inherits as one who receives a gift, directly from the father and not through the house or family. All of a person's strengths are reflected first and foremost in his firstborn. A father is supposed to feel a partnership with his sons, and the firstborn is the first child with whom this closeness is created. The Concept of Birthright in the Bible The birthright is referred to prominently in three contexts in the Bible: the struggle over the birthright between Yaakov and Esav; the story of Yaakov's two firstborn sons, Reuven and Yosef; and the description of Israel as "My son, My firstborn" (Shemot 4:22). These models point to the importance attached to the firstborn, as well as to the dangers that this status creates. Concerning the opportunity and the danger posed by the birthright, it is appropriate to cite two midrashim from Avot De-Rabbi Natan: Israel were called "sons," as it is stated: "You are the sons of the Lord your God" (Devarim 14:1), and the ministering angels are called "sons," as it is stated: "The sons of God came" (Iyov 1:6), and you do not know which are more loved. When it says: "Israel is My son, My firstborn," [it makes clear that] you are more precious to me than the ministering angels. (44a) The firstborn is perceived here as a clear expression of endearment and special closeness. Another midrash in Avot De-Rabbi Natan speaks in a different tone, recognizing that not every firstborn is dearly loved: Israel is precious, for in His time of anger they are called "sons." In His time of anger they are called sons, and even at a time when the verse says: "Not His is the corruption, but the blemish of His sons" (Devarim 32:5) -- sons in whom I have no trust, corrupt sons. Therefore, the Sages taught that they are called sons of God... But not every firstborn is precious and dear. There is a firstborn who is precious and dear, and there is also a firstborn who is not precious and dear. (8a) This midrash points to the problematic nature of the firstborn. It is simple to speak of the beauty and loftiness of the idea of Israel being "My son, My firstborn." But this does not necessarily reflect reality, as we find in the stories dealing with the birthright in the book of Bereishit. Yaakov vs. Esav -- Values vs. Money Esav views inheritance as a way to acquire property: "Behold, I am at the point of death, and what profit shall this birthright be to me?" (Bereishit 25:32). Ostensibly, the opposite is actually true! It is precisely at the point of death that the birthright acquires greater importance, for through it Esav could be counted as part of the line of the house of Avraham and as a link that transmits the heritage of the past to the coming generations. In this way, his memory would be preserved for generations, even after he dies. But Esav understands that he will derive no monetary gain from the inheritance, as he is about to die, and he is therefore prepared to sell his birthright for a pot of lentils. The commentators discuss the manner in which Yaakov took the birthright from Esav, and the Rishonim deal with the legal question of how Yaakov could acquire the birthright even though it was something that had not yet come into existence ("davar she-lo ba le-olam"). Many explanations have been offered, but it is possible to suggest one very simple answer. Esav did not sell the birthright to Yaakov; he lost it because his actions proved that he was not worthy of it. His very readiness to sell his birthright for a pot of lentils attested to his attitude toward the birthright and to his alienation from the world of Yitzchak. Anyone who scorns the birthright demonstrates that he does not understand its significance, and thus forfeits it. Sometimes, a child relates to his parents as an infinite source of rights. He wishes only to receive benefits and service from his parents; he is not prepared to accept the burden of transferring the legacy of previous generations. It is not for naught that the midrash (Bereishit Rabba 67:8; 75:9) describes Esav as ready to arrange for the murder of Yaakov and Yishmael in order to inherit the entire inheritance of Avraham. When the birthright is perceived not as a responsibility and sacred mission, but as an opportunity to profit at the expense of others, when the attitude toward inheritance is like that toward any monetary matter, it is not surprising to find that a violent man would be prepared to kill the other heirs and to employ a variety of schemes in order to inherit more assets. Yaakov, in contrast, views the birthright not only as a right, but as a mission. He wants to perpetuate Avraham's blessing in the world, and he sees the birthright as a destiny that will confer that mission upon him. It is not by chance that Chazal saw the pot of lentils as a dish denoting mourning over Avraham's passing, for it is around this event that the debate focuses. The test is whether to view this as an opportunity for profit -- on the tangible level, through the eating of the beans, and on the symbolic level, through benefit from the property of the deceased -- or as a call to assume responsibility and accept the authority of the firstborn. Reuven vs. Yosef -- Competition vs. Continuity Another pair of brothers who compete over the birthright presents us with a different model that is problematic for a different reason. On the one hand, "Reuven, you are my firstborn, my might and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity and the excellency of power" (Bereishit 49:3). It is upon Reuven that Yaakov pins his entire future and all of his hopes. On the other hand, "Unstable as water, you shall not excel; because you went up to your father's bed; then you did defile it: he went up to my couch" (ibid. 49:4), and in Divrei Ha-Yamim: "Now the sons of Reuven the firstborn of Israel -- for he was the firstborn, but since he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Yosef the son of Yisrael" (I Divrei Ha-Yamim 5:1). Because he defiled his father's bed, the birthright was taken away from Reuven. Esav was indifferent to the birthright and to the past; he sought in his inheritance only monetary gain. Reuven suffers from the opposite problem -- he sees himself as competing with his father and contending against him. No matter how we understand the specifics of Reuven's sin when he defiled his father's bed, the implication is the same -- it was an attempt to push his father aside and take his place during his lifetime. Reuven challenged his father's standing as head of the family. He rejected Yaakov's authority, and by doing so he impaired his own standing. The way of the world is that at some stage in a person's life, there is a reversal of roles. The strong parent, the firm rock, turns into a frail old man, at which point the sons must help the parent. Sometimes, they are even compelled to make decisions for the parent. Indeed, at the end of Yaakov's life, when he arrived in Egypt a broken and ill man, Yosef made various decisions for him. All this is possible and appropriate when the father is old and weak, when there is no other way, but not when the father is at the height of his strength and is fit to stand on his own two feet. The firstborn is meant to be the continuation of his father, but not his replacement who is in competition with him. The father bestows the birthright -- "The Torah calls it a gift." A son may not take the birthright by force. The similarity between Reuven and Yaakov could have prepared Reuven to be his father's successor. However, when that similarity is interpreted as competition, the firstborn's reward is cancelled out by his loss. Yosef was also similar to Yaakov, but he knew how to actualize that similarity at the proper time and not to replace him while he was still alive. The birthright was thus taken from Reuven, as from Esav, because he was unsuited for it. The transfer of property from an unfit son is the subject of a dispute between the Sages and R. Shimon ben Gamliel (133b), and we rule that property should not be transferred even from a wicked son to a good son. But in such a case, we are not dealing with an impairment in the firstborn's functioning as a firstborn, but rather with a general problem, and we therefore do not want to cancel the birthright. However, when the son sets himself in competition with his father, when he defiles his father's bed, the birthright is removed from him. The Actions of the Fathers are a Sign for the Sons The relationship between God and Israel should be examined in a similar manner. As stated to Moshe, Israel is "My son, My firstborn" (Shemot 22:4). What this means is that on a certain level, all the nations are God's children; the birthright does not negate the standing of the other brothers, but rather bestows a certain advantage on the firstborn while recognizing the others as sons.[4] But how are we to understand our relationship to God as His firstborn? Are we more precious to God than the ministering angels, as is stated in the first midrash cited above? Or are we perhaps like the firstborn who is not cherished and dear, as he appears in the second midrash? Will we be alienated from God? Will we be like a firstborn who is first among his brothers, but aware of his place? Or perhaps, God forbid, we will view ourselves in competition with God? Of course, the desired model is a permanent and meaningful relationship in which the individual feels the presence of the Shekhina, one in which he does not view the relationship between man and God as an interesting idea but nothing more. A child feels the presence of his parent and maintains a strong relationship with him, despite the differences in standing between them; this is also true of the relationship between Israel and their Father in Heaven. This is the challenge with which we are faced. A person who feels the responsibility of being a fitting firstborn to God justifies his birthright, but also assumes responsibility. The greater and deeper the responsibility and purpose, the greater the spiritual achievement. However, the spiritual danger is also greater. The same things that create obstacles in the relationship between a son and his parents are liable to ruin the relationship between man and his Maker. One can encounter a problem in the form of what we saw regarding Esav; a person recognizes the existence of God, but views the connection between him and his Father in Heaven as a means of satisfying his own pleasures and fulfilling his needs. In such a case, his heritage interests him only for the purpose of generating profits, and nothing more. He does not see his heritage as an obligation or mission, but rather as "a spade for digging," a source of personal gain. Alternatively, there is the situation of Reuven, which is reflected in the feeling that God is "strangling" him, leaving him with insufficient leeway due to the Shekhina's presence in the world. Just like a child rebels when he feels constrained by a parent or when he senses that the parent with his power and status overshadows him and his capabilities, a person's feelings about God may be similar. The proper situation, both with respect to the parent-child relationship and with respect to the relationship between man and God, is that man should find his place within a framework of existing laws and recognize that there are factors above him. Within these boundaries, he will be able to find his uniqueness and express his personal development. A firstborn like Reuven, who feels that he cannot exercise his strengths together with the strengths of God, is a firstborn who lacks the appropriate "recognition." Let us move from the People of Israel to the Land of Israel. The Land was also given to us as an inheritance and a heritage. Here, too, the aim is to see it as God's inheritance and to reach the realization of "You shall bring them in and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance" (Shemot 15:17), with the physical land serving as an expression of the spiritual connection and relationship between God and His people. Here, too, however, there is the danger of being caught up in the perspective of profitability and materialism, which views the Land exclusively as a place of leisure and profits. As opposed to "the mountain of Your inheritance," Datan and Aviram view the Land as "an inheritance of fields and vineyards" (Bamidbar 16:14), and nothing more. The children of Reuven and Gad preferred to receive their inheritance on the east bank of the Jordan, as that was advantageous for their animals and business. They did not ask themselves about the effect that their step would have on their inheritance as a sacred place or as the land of their forefathers. In opposition to "an inheritance of fields and vineyards" stands "the mountain of Your inheritance." Furthermore, since the inheritance is not land but rather a heritage, it exists, under certain condition, even without land. Not only is there the mountain of Your inheritance, but God is also the inheritance of the priests and Levites, substituting for the inheritance of land. We not only have God's intention "to give it to you for a heritage" (Shemot 6:8), but also "Moshe commanded us the Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov" (Devarim 33:4). Needless to say, the fitting situation for the ordinary person is the realization of the two inheritances, both of the Land and of the Torah. At times, however, it is one heritage that sustains us, while the other is missing. This was the case throughout the long years of exile, when the heritage of the Torah allowed Israel to survive in the lands of their dispersion. Similarly, in recent generations, the secular Zionist movement adopted for itself the heritage of the Land without a Torah heritage. Indeed, the core challenge facing secular Zionism and the State of Israel in this regard is viewing the country's heritage as an ancestral heritage and an expression of Jewish identity that is connected to the people of Israel throughout the generations, and not only as an inheritance of fields and vineyards. "A Ladder Set upon the Earth, and the Top of it Reached to Heaven" The chapter of Yesh Nochalin presents a sublime model of a system of inheritance that depends on the values that we have discussed. Very often, however, reality slaps us in the face. Inheritance disputes are a common and painful phenomenon. Unfortunately, these struggles are widespread and they destroy families. Values and ideals of great importance are shattered against the rocks of family disputes; instead of attaining achievements, they engage in conflict. Instead of the past serving as an inspiration and guide for the future, a person can destroy his future and fill it with conflicts from the past. Instead of the "house" inheriting the deceased and passing the family heritage down to the other members of the house, the house is split and destroyed in the storms of dispute. One should not make the mistake of thinking that such disputes are driven solely by profits. Often, the conflicts are grounded in what appears to be holiness. Struggles arise around the question of who will be a better successor, who will more faithfully represent the heritage and values of the deceased. Each side is convinced that he alone can express the family truth, while the other side will betray it. He therefore enters into battle against his brothers and sisters, without realizing that he is thereby destroying the family and defying the wishes of the deceased. These "holy fights" create the antithesis of the concept of inheritance. The challenge of inheritance and creating a heritage is indeed great, and it therefore often leads to tension. Nevertheless, Yesh Nochalin presents us with a meaningful model on the existential level, both with respect to the family and the past and with respect to our lives with God. May we merit to meet these challenges. (This sicha was delivered in summer 5767 [2007]. The original Hebrew adaptation was reviewed by Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein.) -- [1] This is true on the fundamental level, as is stated in the mishna in Bekhorot. In this context, we will not consider the dispute between Abba Shaul and the Sages. [2] Most authorities are uncomfortable even with one who donates all of his property to charity. [3] As a result, someone whose status is in doubt is excluded from the law of the birthright: "A son and not a tumtum [a person of undetermined gender]; a firstborn, and not a doubtful firstborn." This is also the basis for the law of "recognition," which according to many authorities is not based on credibility, but on the creation of a connection between father and son, credibility being the byproduct. [4] See the commentators ad loc., especially Ibn Ezra and Seforno. Rashi apparently understood differently and deliberately chose to deviate from the plain meaning of the birthright. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 13:31:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:31:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Defining Tzeis Message-ID: <20150706203135.GA12889@aishdas.org> I wrote the following to FB. If anyone can add or make corrections before the thread there dies, I would appreciate it. I think I summed up the highlights of the sugya as I understood it from previous conversations here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha [Someone asked what the sources in question were, so I replied:] Shabbos 34b-35a, 35b; Pesachim 94a. As Tosafos on Pesachim note, in Shabbos (34b) R' Yehudah is quoted as saying bein hashemashot (sunset to the stars coming out) is 3/4 mil (or 2/3 mil, depending on which amora's version of R' Yehudah you're using, but we hold 3/4), but in Pesachim he says a person can walk 4 mil after sunset before the stars emerge. Rabbeinu Tam notes a slight difference in language. It takes 4 mil "misheqi'as hachamah," in Pesachim, but 3/4 mil from "mishetishqeh hachamah." RT therefore resolves the two gemaros by saying sunset takes 3-1/4 mil. So, 4 mil from the beginning of sunset will take you to 3/4 mil after sunset, which is R' Yehudah's tzeis. The Vilna Gaon's resolution of the confliciting gemaros (OC 235 and 261) is not to split sunset into a beginning an end, but to split tzeis. The halachic tzeis is 3/4 mil after sunset. The gemara in Pesachim is using the term colloquially, not halachically, and simply refers to "all the stars" rather the standard 3. The Re'eim (R' Eliezer of Metz, Seifer Yerei'im, written in the 1170s) splits both -- the two gemaras are discussing different sunsets AND different tzeis. To him, the gemara in Shabbos is saying sheqi'ah (which we usually translate "sunset") is 3/4 mil BEFORE the sun hits the horizon, and tzeis is when the sun is at the horizon. Whereas the gemara in Pesachim then measures how much after the sun is below the horizon that the sky is fully dark. Note that both the Vilna Gaon and the Re'eim assume the gemara in Pesachim is using at least one of the idioms differently than the gemara in Shabbos, and therefore it has no bearing on halakhah. ... [Material in response to what someone else wrote, ellided.] BUT... The Vilna Gaon understands the defining feature to be the emergence of stars, not the fixed time R' Yehudah gives. And therefore inflates the 3/4 mil to adjust from Usha (R' Yehudah's home town) to Vilna. Which brings us to the third topic, on the other side of the page on Shabbos (35b). Again it's R' Yehudah, quoting Shemu'el's prescription of which stars to watch for: [If you see] 1 star, it is day; 2 -- bein hashemashos; 3 -- night. Rabbi Yosi said, "Not large stars that are visible in the day, nor small stars that are only visible at night, but medium stars..." 35b cannot describe 3/4 mil after sunset. Even in Usha or Nehardaa (Shemuel's home town, today's Anbar, central Iraq, on the Euphrates), you will not see 3 middle sized stars 18 min after sunset. R Michl Tukaczinsky and R' Dovid Spitzer did the observations in Jerusalem, and found it takes 31-43 min or 28-40 min, respectively. (Use the smaller end of the range for rabbinic fasts, like the OP, and the larger for Torah laws like Shabbos. Jerusalem is closer to the equator than either city, not that I think it's by enough to matter much.) Rav Moshe Feinstein similarly gave 50 min for Shabbos, 31 for rabbinic fasts -- but then, NY's days vary more in length, so a "never later than" will be more minutes after sunset. With a computer, we could translate all these numbers into degrees below the horizon, as that would tell us how dark it would be outside, and therefore how many stars could be seen, if we weren't bathed in artificial lighting. And even then you get into questions about which stars. The western horizon (the side with the glow of sunset) will show stars well after the east. Three stars seen at once (near each-other) or total when scanning the whole sky? Etc... Rather than decide whether we follow Shabbos 34a or 35a, even those who do not use Pesachim to shed light on 34a pad the 3/4 mil to plausibly allow for people to see three medium sized stars. Given the fact that it's this measure which actually gives the landmark on our clock its name, assuming it is less definitional than a fixed time delay is difficult. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 13:39:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:39:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dan leKaf Zekhus Message-ID: <20150706203931.GB12889@aishdas.org> When I got on the subway this morning, there was a pregnant woman already standing holding on to the poll nearest the door I just came in through. So, feeling all heroic, I asked her quite loudly and pointedly, "Do you need me to embarass someone into getting up for you?" She replied, "No, thank you. A number of people offered when I just got on, but I was more comfortable standing than on the train's benches." I blushed, and sheepishly muttered apologies to those around us. As I said: Dan lekaf zekhus. Not just the law, a good idea. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 14:45:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 17:45:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah and Poverty In-Reply-To: <20150706202632.A741518370D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150706202632.A741518370D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150706214552.GE12889@aishdas.org> On 7/3/2015 3:16 AM, RnTK wrote to Areivim: : But our mishna does describe this as the "way of the Torah." : True Torah scholars will live contentedly under conditions of : denial and poverty. The beraisa (Avos "6":4) says that darkah shel Torah is not to quit learning even if you have to live off bread, salt and water you have to ration, sleep on the ground and otherwise suffer. Not that this is their normal condition, or even one they should desire. There is still the take on the chatas of someone ending nezirus (Rabbeinu Bachya, in contrast to the Ramban) that it's for forgoing permissable pleasure while a nazir. And the Y-mi (Qiddushin 4:12, vilna 48b, the end of the mesechta) in which Rav is quoted as saying "A person will have to give a din vecheshbon on anything his eye saw but he didn't eat. R' Leizer [Elazar? Eliezer?] was chosheish for this, and would use Shabbos to enjoy one such pleasure. This is on the mishnah where R' Nera'i promises to only teach his son Torah, to the exclusion of a profession. But the Y-mi understands this to mean that keeping the Torah (not learning in particular) will provide wealth. Whereas a profession leaves you stuck in your old age, or if one otherwise become unable to work. But it's "vekhein atah motzei be'avinu Avraham *sheshimer* es haTorah" and was wealthy. However, the Bavli famously reports that this was tried experimentally and it generally doesn't work. Okay for a R' Shimon bar Yochai, but not R' Yishmael and the like. (Which could be a difference in kind or quantitative.) No one today would qualify as either a Rashbi or a R' Yishmael, so I don't think the Y-mi's promise should be counted on. And neither gemara lauds poverty. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 17:12:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 20:12:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon Message-ID: From: Lisa Liel via Avodah The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this subject. Lisa >>>> I have seen none of that "vitriol" or "viciousness," either in the past few days or in the last few years, or ever. On the contrary, all I see is an almost desperate attempt to be conciliatory, a desperate if hopeless wish not to be the *victims* of liberal, anti-religious vitriol. See for example "A Letter by Reb Ahron Feldman to a Gay Baal Teshuva" https://guardyoureyes.com/resources/ssa/item/a-letter-by-reb-ahron-feldman-to-a-gay-baal-teshuva Also see Agudath Israel's statement on the recent Supreme Court gay-marriage decision http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2015/06/28/agudath-israel-statement-o n-supreme-court-marriage-ruling/ It reads, in part, "we are deeply concerned that, as a result of today?s ruling, and as the dissenting Justices have pointed out, members and institutions of traditional communities like the Orthodox Jewish community we represent may incur moral opprobrium and risk tangible negative consequence if they refuse to transgress their beliefs, and even if they simply teach and express their religious views publicly." I might add that Lisa's post, being an emotional cri de coeur, really belongs on Areivim. However, since she has posted it to Avodah, I will add my own comments previously posted on Cross-Currents: Here, for the record, is what our ancient Torah heritage has to say about homosexual marriage: The nations are allowed to continue in existence only because they keep a minimum of three mitzvos. These are: not writing marriage documents for the union of two males, not selling human flesh in the market place, and giving honor to the Torah?which in practice means, not persecuting the people of the Torah, the Jewish people. In one of his prophetic visions, the Navi (prophet) Zechariah took thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the Temple treasury in Jerusalem (Zechariah 11:13). The Rabbis of the Talmud had varying interpretations of what this vision symbolized. According to Rabbi Ulla (Talmud Chullin 92B), the thirty pieces of silver symbolized the thirty mitzvos that the Bnei Noach accepted upon themselves. These thirty mitzvos include not worshipping idols, not consulting witchcraft and sorcery, refraining from illicit sexual relationships, and so on. (Bnei Noach are the Sons of Noah, also called Noahides? i.e., the nations of the world.) Rabbi Ulla says that the world continues to exist because the nations accepted these thirty mitzvos. However, he adds, the nations do not keep all the mitzvos they accepted. They keep only three, and one of the three is: ? They do not write a marriage contract for males.? Rashi comments that the nations do engage in forbidden homosexual relations, but they at least acknowledge that such relations are illicit by not formalizing those relations in legal documents. The other two commandments that they keep are that they do not sell human flesh in the market place, and that they give honor to the Torah (Talmud Chullin 92B). Elsewhere the Rabbis of old stated that the final decree of destruction, the Great Flood, was sealed against the generation of Noach because they wrote marriage documents for males. ?Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Yosef, ?The generation of the Flood was not wiped out until they wrote marriage documents for the union of a man to a male or to an animal ? ? (Genesis Rabbah 26:5; Leviticus Rabbah 23:9). Implicit is the assumption that if the nations do not abide by at least the aforementioned three mitzvos, they may forfeit the very right to exist. Hence, these three?not writing marriage documents for males, not selling human flesh in the marketplace, and honoring the Torah?may be considered the Three Conditions for the continued existence of mankind. So you see, the idea of gay marriage is not new, not a fresh idea that represents the ultimate development, enlightenment and evolution of mankind. No, the formal marriage of two men is a very ancient idea that represents the degradation of mankind. http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2011/07/28/4524/ I will add a further point to what I wrote in 2011: The reason the gay pride movement adopted rainbow colors as their symbol is that the rainbow is the sign of Hashem?s promise not to wipe out the entire world again in one big flood. They wave the rainbow flag in defiance of Him, as if to say, ?Ha ha, You can?t touch us!? The message of the rainbow flag is, ?We are major sinners, like the generation of the Flood.? But they are whistling in the dark if they think there won?t be consequences. May Hashem protect His people, those who are chassidei umos ha?olam as well as us, Klal Yisrael. Read more: http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2015/06/29/scotus-on-same-gender-what-it-means-what-it-doesnt/#ixzz3f9x0mazM --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 18:14:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 01:14:59 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> I noted about Kaddish Yasom > From what I've seen, it is NOT said even if a minyan says Birkas > Hamazon, R' Zev Sero asked: > Why would it? Well, I guess my original post should have had a longer introduction. I know that Kaddish Tiskabel has a very clear rule, namely that it follows every Amidah, and the only exception is that it also follows Selichos. Kaddish D'rabanan always follows group learning (though I've never figured out exactly what learning counts and what doesn't). And now I'm trying to figure out the rule for Kaddish Yasom. It SEEMS to be a sort of "congregational prayer", where "prayer" is something *other* than the Amidah, but I can't define it any more precisely than that. For a long time I thought it was connected to Tehillim, but when I noticed it after the megilos on Yom Tov, someone suggested that it's not specifically Sefer Tehillim, but *any* part of Kesuvim, not that we had any idea why Kesuvim would get this distinction over Neviim or Torah. I wrote: > but it IS said when a minyan says Kiddush Levana. RZS suggested: > Probably because people are used to saying it after Alenu. Maybe, and maybe not. I have a suspicion that Alenu was added *because of* the Kaddish, and not the other way around. Here are some data points: The Hirsch siddur has Tehillim 67 as the last paragraph of Kiddush Levana, with nothing at all after it. My Minchas Yerushalayim, and Birnbaum too, end with Tehillim 67 which is then followed by Kaddish Yasom, without Alenu. Is it possible that Alenu is a recent addition to the Kiddush Levana? I wrote: > It is NOT said when a minyan says Tehillim even as an organized > group, RZS asked: > Where have you seen it not being said then? I'm surprised that > this is your experience. In my current community, and also from my memories of yeshiva. When there was some sort of tzara that we said Tehillim for -- whether for a choleh, or some military or political problem -- we would say the Tehillim deemed appropriate by the leaders, and this would be followed by tefillos such as Acheinu and/or Mi Sheberach(s). I don't recall Kaddish ever being part of this. I have to admit that a big part of my asking this question is a pet peeve that I've been nursing, regarding Kiddush Levana in particular. It seems to me that Kiddush Levana -- the way it is done in just about every situation I've ever seen -- cannot be called a Tefilas Tzibur in any sense. It is a group of yechidim who happen to be saying the same thing, but in a totally disorganized fashion. The first one out of shul begins as soon as he finds a good location, and the last one out of shul also begins when he finds a good location. No attempt whatsoever is made to get this group to be on the same page, let alone in the same paragraph. There is no leader (like we have in Hallel and Pesukei Dzimra and everywhere else) who lets everyone know what the group is up to, so that they might end in unison. Rather, one person ends Alenu out loud, and that's when the yesomim say kaddish, regardless of whether they are only halfway though, or already finished before. So that's one of the reasons why I'm wondering why Kiddush Levana gets a kaddish. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/559b2834173228336fdfst03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 23:16:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 02:16:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kiddush levana In-Reply-To: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <559B6EB4.3010400@sero.name> On 07/06/2015 09:14 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: > So that's one of the reasons why I'm wondering why Kiddush Levana gets a kaddish. Well, I found what may be the source for this kaddish. The Shelah says "There is a nice minhag in the kingdom of EY and its surroundings, to say various pesukim and maamarim after kiddush levana, and then say kaddish derabanan [...] and the meaning of this kaddish is that [the Name] should be magnified and sanctified, a Great Name, a full Name, and then the moon's light will be as the sun's light". http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=45685&pgnum=287 > I have a suspicion that Alenu was added > *because of* the Kaddish, and not the other way around. Here are > some data points: The Hirsch siddur has Tehillim 67 as the last > paragraph of Kiddush Levana, with nothing at all after it. My Minchas > Yerushalayim, and Birnbaum too, end with Tehillim 67 which is then > followed by Kaddish Yasom, without Alenu. Is it possible that Alenu > is a recent addition to the Kiddush Levana? Taamei Haminhagim gives a reason for saying Alenu, because it was written by Yehoshua, whose face is compared to the moon (Bava Basra 75a). According to this reason there would seem to be no reason to say it after birkas hachama. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=216 But the footnote to Kuntres Acharon on the next page gives a different reason: Because kiddush levana looks like a pagan ritual, we say Alenu to declare that we worship only Hashem, and this is the same reason that after Hoshanos, which also seems a bit pagan, we declare "Lema'an daas kol amei ha'aretz ki Hashem hu haElokim, ein od". This reason applies equally to birkas hachama. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=217 I remember hearing that the same reason is why we say Alenu after a bris, but I can't find a source for this. Taamei Haminhagim cites Yaavetz that the reason is to include the baby among the "us" who are declaring our loyalty to Hashem. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=404 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 03:41:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 13:41:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Pinechas vs Pinchas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> R' Micha points out that his grandfather's name was Pinechas. He proves it first by the yud after the pei which, by the rules of dikduk, makes the following sheva a na'. In addition, the name is an Egyptian one, Pi-nechas, pi being a common prefix in Egyptian names. In case you haven't been convinced yet, there is a meteg in the pei which, by the rules, makes the chirik malei and the sheva na' There is, however, one small point that makes me wonder. R' Aharon ben Asher who, for the last thousand years, has been called the accepted decision maker on correct spelling in Tana"kh seems to disagree. In perek 11 of his book Dikdukei Hat'amim he describes the sh'vaim before the otyot g'roniot inside a word, when they are na' and when nach. Included in his list of words where they are nach are laqkhu, barchu, Pinchas, zar'u, etc. IIRC, not all manuscripts have all the words and Pinchas might be omitted in some. It is possible that copiers of the words lists added or omitted. On the Mesorah sub-list it is known that I am anti-dikduk because it opens the way to change the fine points on Torah pronunciation to match its rules. Among these "improvements" was the changing of many internal sh'vaim in words from nach to na'. What enabled this to happen was the brilliant invention by R' Yosef Kimchi of the ten vowel, five pairs of malei and chaseir. This led to the rule that after malei the sh'va is na' and after chaseir it is nach. Ben Asher, in perek 10 notes that there are seven vowels in Hebrew. All of the masoretes also state this. If there aren't pairs of malei and chaseir, we've just lost the rule about the following sh'vaim. All this is not something new. Heidenheim in his comments on the Ein Hakorei of RYHB"Y (Shemini, just before sh'lishi) states that in the times of the kadmonim many sh'vaim that are now na'im were then nachim. He quotes (from Ibn Ezra?) that kol sh'va b'ot rafah shekadam lo echad mishiv'at ham'lakhim hu nach ki halashon ha-ivrit kasha la r'difat shalosh t'nu'ot...except for double letters and some words with groniot. So how should I lein on Shabbos? Oh, no problem, I'm not the bal-koire. bivrakha, David From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 05:21:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:21:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kesher Message-ID: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little farfetched 1) knot 2) connection 3) conspiracy -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 06:18:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 09:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> In various places in dovening, kaddish etc we find the loshon - ..v'imru amen. Simply understood this is something only said by a sh'ztibur, as an announcement by the sh'ztibur that the congregation sh answer amen. In some cases, a yachid says it (ie Kiddush hachodesh, etc) probably bc we are saying something that originally was said by the sh'ztibur. What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? Who are we saying v'imru amen to? And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). Because the silent SE is not a carbon copy of the sh'ztibur version (for instance - no elokai netzor, SE of fast days are diff, etc) Mordechai Cohen mcohen at touchlogic.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:09:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 10:09:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper : connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little : farfetched : 1) knot : 2) connection : 3) conspiracy Interestingly, the noun doesn't show in chumash. As an adjective, we have hamuqsharos/im, to describe which of the tzon Yaaqov received (30:41-42). Rashi quotes the Targum, "habechiros" and cites two pesuqim in Shemuel II pereq 15. To round out the list: About Yaaqov (again) and Yoseif, "venafsho qesurah benafsho." Also the string tied on Zarach's hand, and tefillin (x2). Those are all the occurances of the shoresh. BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. Conspiracy comes up in #2, "league together, conspire". It would seem they conjecture the word comes from the collaboration, and less so what they're connecting to eachother to plan against something. They also cite "vatiqasheir kol-hachimah" in Nechemiah 3:35, where one would not readily picture "tying together" parts as a metaphor. I understand why Rashi thought the translation in Bereishis 30 is unique enough to require comment, but not how it fits altogether. (Rashi says it does, not how.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:08:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 14:08:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Pinechas vs Pinchas In-Reply-To: <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> References: , <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1436278092269.69769@ou.org> It should be noted that how Pinechas was read according to the Masorah is not really relevant to the way it was pronounced as a name. Pinchas is a Yiddish name (to be sure, with its roots in Hebrew), and is pronounced without a het and without a sh'wa. Its pronunciation in Hebrew is no more relevant than is the proper pronunciation of the word gannav (theif) in the T'NaKh to the pronunciation of the Yiddish word ganef. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union 11 Broadway, New York, NY 10004 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:22:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 17:22:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> References: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper >: connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little >: farfetched >: 1) knot >: 2) connection >: 3) conspiracy ... > BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary > meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. and what is the connection to a knot (the origin of the question was a dvar torah on the knots of tsizit) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 09:03:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:03:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: References: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150707160302.GA10745@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 05:22:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :>: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings... : ... :> BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary :> meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. : and what is the connection to a knot : (the origin of the question was a dvar torah on the knots of tsizit) Well, tzitzis knots less so, but knots generally bind two strings or two ends of a string together, no? Tzitzis knots are somewhat more like the example from Nechemiah. If qesher includes "batiqashar kol-hachomah", perhaps it also it includes binding pesilim into a gedil. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 14:44:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 17:44:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam, Moreh Nevuchim (2:29), A Strange Passage about Miracles Message-ID: <559C4830.9030705@gmail.com> In Moreh Nevuchim, 2:29, the Rambam seems to disparage a talmudical position about miracles that he had endorsed in his prior works (Commentary on Avos 5:6 and Shmoneh Perakim chapter 8). This, despite the fact that in the Moreh, he refers the reader to these former works to understand his position about miracles. And to further confuse matters, in the Moreh itself, within just a few sentences, he goes on to laud the proponent of that very positionfor maintaining it! The position is that already during the Creation week, G-d instilled, in objects and forces of nature, the potential for the aberrant behaviors that He would unleash when appropriate. (I.e. the aberrant behaviors were not changes G-d first decided upon, created and imposed upon things at the time the miracles were witnessed.) The Moreh Nevuchim introduces the concept with the words: "Our Sages said things zarrim m'od as regards miracles." "zarrim m'od" is Ibn Tibbon's Hebrew translation. Narboni and Schwartz use the similar "muzarrim, and likewise, Friedlander and Pines, in their English translations, translate, "very strange." KPCH translates, "temuhim" (astonishing). They all seem to indicate that the Rambam shunned the idea. Yet, as I noted, just a few sentences later, the Rambam lauds the Tanna who expressed the thought: [T]his text...demonstrates the [high] level of the speaker, and its being very difficult in his eyes that Nature could change after Creation, or that G-d's Will would change after it had been established. He therefore reasons, for example, that G-d instilled, in the nature of Water, the [property of] sticking together and always flowing in a downward direction, except for that time in which the Egyptians would drown in them; those specific waters would split. I have already enlightened you as to the main idea of the [talmudic] statement [KPCH in a footnote sees this as a reference to the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah and Shemoneh Perakim], and that it is all meant to flee from [the idea that, after Creation, G-d would bring about] the new creation of anything. It says there: R. Yonathan said, G-d placed stipulations on the sea, that it should divide before the Israelites. Thus it says, "And the sea returned, when the morning appeared, l'ay-sa-no [to its strength, or to its stipulated nature]"(Sh'mos 14:27). R. Yiremiyah ben Elazar said: Not only with the sea did the Holy One, blessed be He, place stipulations, but with all that has been created in the six days of Creation. "My hands stretched out the heavens, and all their hosts I commanded" (Yishayahu 45:12): I commanded the sea that it will divide, the fire that it should not harm Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, and the lions that they should not harm Daniel, and the fish that it should spit out Jonah." The same is to be applied to all the other miracles. The surprising solution to this problem is really quite simple. I noticed that in Moreh 1:70 (p. 106 in the classic version, line 2), Pines translates a certain phrase as "strange but true."But both Ibn Tibbon and Schwartz translate it, "ha-inyanim ha-mufla-os ha-n'chonos, ("matters wondrous but true/correct"). Hmmm. One Arabic scholar translates a word as "strange," while others translate it as "wondrous." I began to sense how the same word could be used both ways, and I suspected it might also be the same word as in our passage in 2:29. Without mentioning my problem about the Rambam's self-contradiction (to keep the issue unbiased), I asked R. Yakov Wincelberg, translator of Avraham ben HaRambam's Sefer HaMaspik from Arabic to English, what the actual Arabic word there is, and if it's the same word in our passage in 2:29. Here is his reply: In both cases, the word griva is used. It doesn't mean specifically "weird," but something that stands out. It could be: extraordinary, wondrous, amazing, rare, peculiar, uncommon, obscure, etc. It even is used for emigrating from one's country, as one is separating from the people. In other words, the word means "outstanding." So, true, one tends to understand the translation "zar" or "strange" to be meant in the sense of "weird," or "foreign," indicating that in the Moreh the Rambam considered the "front-loaded" miracle an idea to be shunned--contra the Gemora, his Avos commentary, and his Shemoneh Perakim. But the simpler truth is that the Rambam consistently endorsed this view, and considered it to be an outstanding one. One need only realize that Ibn Tibbon titles his dictionary of unfamiliar philosophical terms,appended to his Moreh Nevuchim translation, "Payrush Me'Hamillot Zarot," The word Zar indicates something unfamiliar, but not necessarily "strange" in the sense of "weird." And it can also mean something that is wondrous and true. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 17:01:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 20:01:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher Message-ID: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little farfetched 1) knot 2) connection 3) conspiracy -- Eli Turkel >>>> The deeper connection is -- connection! All the words formed from this shoresh are words that have "connecting" as their basic meaning. In Edward Horowitz's fascinating and entertaining book, "How the Hebrew Language Grew," he has a chapter on how sounds made in the same part of the mouth sometimes interchange to form words with similar or closely related meanings. One example he gives is the word kesher, and the related word gesher -- a bridge, which connects two places, two sides of a river, two sides of a road and so on. Keshes, a rainbow, is something like a bridge connecting two parts of the sky. Another example of these interconnected words (this one I've also seen in the Hirsch commentary on Chumash) is the word "tsachak" to laugh, to which a number of other words are related in a phonetic way: Change the ches to an ayin and you get "tsa'ak." Both tsachak and tsa'ak involve emitting loud sounds -- sounds of mirth or of alarm or distress. (Ches and ayin are both formed in the back of the throat.) Change the tsadi to a sin and instead of "tsachak" to laugh you get "sachak" to be happy, to rejoice. (Tsadi and sin are both sibilants.) Going back to the word tsa'ak, if you now change the tsadi to a zayin you again get a closely related word, "za'ak." And if you take the word "tsa'ir" (young) and change the tsadi to a zayin you get "za'ir" small. Change the sin of saraf to a tsadi and instead of burning (saraf) you get refining (tsaraf) gold or silver -- which is done through heat. Change the zayin of "zahav" to a tsadi and instead of gold you get "tzahov," the color yellow. Horowitz points out that these kinds of phonetic relationships can also be found in English, Latin and other languages, but nevertheless I find it especially fascinating to trace these connections in Lashon Hakodesh. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 02:42:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 09:42:27 GMT Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen Message-ID: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. > Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? > Who are we saying v'imru amen to? > > And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the > same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end of Birkas Hamazon. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett???s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren???t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/559cf0b42988970b45addst03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 02:09:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 02:09:57 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:18 AM, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: > In various places in dovening, kaddish etc we find the loshon - ..v'imru > amen. .. > What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. > Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? > Who are we saying v'imru amen to? I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish. SE took on the whole paragraph "Oseh Shalom ... ve'imru amen" from the end of Kaddish, and Kaddish took on the three steps backwards from the end of SE (which makes sense for the STz's Kaddish Titkabbal at the end of the repetition, but not so much in all other kaddishim) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 06:30:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 09:30:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <559D2610.8060803@sero.name> On 07/08/2015 05:42 AM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > >> What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. >> Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? >> Who are we saying v'imru amen to? >> >> And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the >> same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). > > The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end of Birkas Hamazon. Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even when there's a zimun. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 08:04:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:04:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> References: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150708150424.GA8908@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 08:01:24PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : In Edward Horowitz's fascinating and entertaining book, "How the Hebrew : Language Grew," he has a chapter on how sounds made in the same part of the : mouth sometimes interchange to form words with similar or closely related : meanings... Also in RSRH's fascinating and entertaining commentary on the Pentateuch and a couple of places in CW and elsewhere. : Another example of these interconnected words (this one I've also seen in : the Hirsch commentary on Chumash)... See https://books.google.com/books?id=eVAAfn6Itb4C (The real one; the google preview skips all of your examples.) Etymological Dictionary of Biblcal Hebrew: Based on the Commentaries of Samson Raphael Hirsch by Matityahu Clark This is a central part of RSRH's exegesis. I once went through much of Bereishis and Shemos documenting which letters RSRH considers related enough to qualify as likely to be part of the same phonetic meta-root. I ended up with the following chart (readable only in fixed-width-font, eg Courier): geroniot velar dental dento-lingual labial h,ch q | s,sh tes | alef k | tz tav | b ayin g | z d | p n ------------- m r --------------------------------- l y ------------------------------------- v Letters in the same column are phonetically related (eg hei and aleg) Vertical lines separate into pairs (eg zayin and dalet, but not dalet and pei nor tzadi and dalet [paired coumns, different rows]). The pairs are lingual/velar (use tongue) vs not. Horizontal lines connect the nasals (mem and nun), the approximants (lamd and reish) and the semivowels (yud and vav). The unvoiced letters are all in the top two rows. Notice how hei-ches and shin/sin-samech fall into parallel positions, and bege"d kefe"t into the same two rows. I stopped my analysis when I had gone dozens of peraqim without needing to change the chart any. Lost interest. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 08:12:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:12:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> Message-ID: <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:09:57AM -0700, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, : but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence : between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish... You might have seen it on-list in Apr or Dec 2006, offered by RPMinden. RSBA offered a different explanation: > Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, Likutei Maharich, RS Schwab, Boruch She'omar all > say that we are whispering to the Malochim - that accompany a person all > the time. [Maybe 'oseh sholom BIMEROMOV' indicates this?] The earliest > source seems to be Mateh Moshe - which some cite. > The OH also brings a nusach - IIRC - Machzor [or Siddur] Roma - that > indeed does not include the 'Ve'imru Omein' at the end of SE. RPM believes it was a post-facto explanation, giving meaning to a pratice that really originated in error. See the subject line at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=T#TO%20WHOM%20ARE%20WE%20WHISPERING%20 and the 3 starting with http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=V#VIMRU%20AMEN in the archive index. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 11:33:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 14:33:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: In Avodah V33n96, RAM referred repeatedly to "Kaddish Yasom" -- I think at least some of his questions might be answered once we understand that (a) what he called "Kaddish Yasom" is actually the Qaddish (Shaleim, but without the "tisqaba[i]l" phrase) said by the SHaTZ at the end of davening, at some point in our history given over to children (eventually/or to *y'somim*) who could not be SHaTZ (see http://www.beureihatefila.com/files/Introduction_to_Mourners_Kaddish.pdf); and that (b) Qaddish is said after the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim or other K'suvim. As for Kiddush L'vana (KL), indeed Minhag Ashk'naz did not include "Aleinu" -- as was noted, the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim at the end of KL (similar to doing so after Shacharis and after [Mincha/]Ma'ariv, and similar to when a *seifer* from K'suvim was read) was followed by Qaddish (in the Roedelheim, those chapters are 121, 150, and 67, not just 67) -- and KL not being a *t'filas tzibbur* does not impact upon the saying of Qaddish (although obviously, a *minyan* is required for any *davar shebiq'dusha*). HTH :). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 02:40:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 02:40:50 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:09:57AM -0700, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > : I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, > : but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence > : between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish... > > You might have seen it on-list in Apr or Dec 2006, offered by RPMinden. > My memory was correct as to the attribution, though I garbled the content a bit. It's on page 48 of the Birnbaum siddur, in the notes to the Kaddish deRabbanan after Korbanot: "/Oseh Shalom/, which repeats in Hebrew the thought expressed in the preceding Aramaic paragraph, seems to have been added from the meditation recited at the end of the /Shemoneh Esreh/. The same sentence is also added at the end of the grace recited after meals. The three steps backwards, which formed the respectful manner of retiring from a superior, were likewise transferred from the concluding sentence of the /Shemoneh Esreh/. On the other hand, the phrase "and say Amen", added at the end of the silent meditation after the /Shemoneh Esreh/, must have been borrowed from the Kaddish which is always recited in the hearing of no fewer than ten men." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 08:53:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:53:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reciting a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time Message-ID: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> http://tinyurl.com/o6rxcdf according to those that say you do NOT recite a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time (ie bar mitzvah), why is it different than all the places where we DO recite a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah not done in a long time? (ie lulav, shofar, megila, etc) Thanks, mc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 13:27:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 20:27:55 GMT Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen Message-ID: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> I wrote: > The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end > of Birkas Hamazon. R' Zev Sero responded: > Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, > with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively > recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even > when there's a zimun. But we've *always* benched as individuals when there *isn't* a zimun. But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that originally, Oseh Shalom was part of benching only when a zimun was present, and then for some reason came to be said even by individuals. If that is indeed what happened, I can't help but speculate that there was an even earlier time, when benching with a zimun would include Oseh Shalom at that point, but benching with a *minyan* would include Kaddish at that point! Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55a02add2581a2add0f3dst01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 16:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <55A05668.1080404@sero.name> On 07/10/2015 04:27 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: >> >Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, >> >with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively >> >recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even >> >when there's a zimun. > But we've*always* benched as individuals when there*isn't* a zimun. Benching is designed for a zimun. It's normal to eat in a group. But even when there were only two eating, or when a family ate together, I think the usual thing was for one person to bench and the other person (or the wife and children) to listen and say amen. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 08:42:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush L'vana (was "Kaddish Yasom") Message-ID: In Avodah v33n97, I wrote: > As for Kiddush L'vana (KL), indeed Minhag Ashk'naz did not include "Aleinu" -- as was noted, the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim at the end of KL...was followed by Qaddish...-- and KL not being a *t'filas tzibbur* does not impact upon the saying of Qaddish.... < Just wanted to add that (a) For the record, I don't recall Qaddish being said at the end of KL at KAJ/"Breuer's" (and the MMA Siddur Tefilas Yeshurun instructs not to say either "Aleinu" or Qaddish at the end of Bircas haL'vana), even when there was evidently more than a quorum of men (gathered to be *m'qabeil p'nei haShchina b'rov-am*) on the front steps or sidewalk of the Shul -- whether or not Qaddish should be said (and what the precise parameters are) in that circumstance (not a *t'filas tzibbur*; not in a *maqom t'fila*) was not central to the overall points I was trying to make; and (b) for consistency, it's QL, not KL :). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 11:30:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:30:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pinchas Message-ID: > > > BTW, my grandfather a"h was named Pinechas after this week's sedra, > his bar mitzvah parashah. When it was time to name my oldest, I checked > with my uncle how his name appeared on their kesuvah, as their mesader > qiddushin was a key rav in my grandfather's life. (R/Dr Mirsky zt"l met > two teenage boys coming off the boat and took them under his wing. My > grandfather and great-uncle then earned enough to bribe the rest of the > family's way out of Litta before the Nazis came to power.) > > Anyway, it seems R/Dr Mirsky held my grandfather's name was Pinechas, > pei-yud-nun-ches-samekh, as it is spelled in the chumash (ignoring the > size of the yud as usually written in the beginning of the parashah). > And thus the sheva is na, Pinechas - not Pinchas. > > If you want to make a derashah out of a Mitzri name, it's Pi Nachas, > not Pen Chas. > > Reason for this tangent... I would have expected "Gushies" to get the > sheva in the parashah name right. After all, they have the patach under > the reish in Parashat. > > Way behind in reading. However, Aharon Ben Asher, in Dikduke Hate'amim, specifically lists the sheva in Pinchas (with a yud) as being a sheva nach, so the "Gushies" have on whom to rely.. Meir Shinnar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 11:39:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:39:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: > On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:20:08PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: > : On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. > > : Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a > : moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is > : the purpose to make things even worse? > > As I quoted from RAK, because they classically were not considered > chuqim. Until our contemporaries took the issue from sexual morality > to sexual ethics, these truths were considered self-evident. It's the > choqification of dinei arayos that's inauthentic. > > In any case, since one doesn't pasqen from taamei hamitzvos, the din > is the same either way. Nothhing in such exploration can "make things > even worse". > > In Shmona prakim, the rambam seems to take the opposite view - trying to reconcile the view that having a desire to sin is a sign of moral failing, and that the overcoming of desire is a sign o f greatness - he argues that to desire to sin is problematic in hamefursamot - but NOT in those forbidden only for religious reasons - and he specifically applies that to arayot - and needs to apply it to arayot, because the sugyot that deal with kol hagadol mechavero yitzro gadol mimenu - specifically apply to arayot. One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT self evident or even mefursamot Meir Shinnar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 11:10:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 20:10:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out Message-ID: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> In SA OH 272:1 the Mechabeir writes that one shouldn't use wine left out for kiddush (or any type of mitzvah adds the Aruch HaShulchan). The problem isn't gi'loi'im but the pasuk in Malachi 1:8 which teaches us not to use Grade B products for mitzvot. The assumption is that wine left out goes bad (or gets worse) and therefore it can't be used for qiddush. My question is what does one do if you thinking allowing wine to breath for hours improves the taste? That's been my experience for years. If I open a bottle Friday evening, the wine definitely tastes better Saturday morning. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 12:14:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 15:14:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> On 07/13/2015 02:10 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > In SA OH 272:1 the Mechabeir writes that one shouldn't use wine left out for kiddush (or any type of mitzvah adds the Aruch HaShulchan). The problem isn't gi'loi'im but the pasuk in Malachi 1:8 which teaches us not to use Grade B products for mitzvot. The assumption is that wine left out goes bad (or gets worse) and therefore it can't be used for qiddush. > > My question is what does one do if you thinking allowing wine to breath for hours improves the taste? That's been my experience for years. If I open a bottle Friday evening, the wine definitely tastes better Saturday morning. It depends what kind of wine. Some wines definitely improve with a few hours' breathing. The criterion is "hakriveihu no lefechasecho"; *would* you serve this to an honoured guest who is used to drinking quality wine? If it's a wine that needs the time to aerate then you certainly would, and in fact you wouldn't think of serving it to him *without* that time. OTOH this would preclude making kiddush at all on Manishewitz, no matter how "fresh" it is. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 20:18:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 05:18:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> Message-ID: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? Did they not know that allowing wine to breath improves the taste, at least for a decent red wine (which is the type of wine they think we should be drinking)? Ben On 7/13/2015 9:14 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > It depends what kind of wine. Some wines definitely improve with a > few hours' breathing. The criterion is "hakriveihu no lefechasecho"; > *would* you serve this to an honoured guest who is used to drinking > quality wine? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 19:34:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 22:34:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20150714023419.GA18963@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 05:18:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and : others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? Because Shapiro's wine is "So thick you could cut it with a knife" as that billboard we'd pass driving to Boro Park used to advertise. Whereas you're talkng about a finer wine as vitners and frenchmen measure. Different products with totally different definitions of what is "good". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 21:48:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:48:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55A4949B.8090308@sero.name> On 07/13/2015 11:18 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and > others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? > Did they not know that allowing wine to breath improves the taste, at > least for a decent red wine (which is the type of wine they think we > should be drinking)? First of all, most good wines shouldn't breathe for very long. Second, their wine was generally pretty awful by our standards; bad enough that it needed watering to make it palatable. They used wild yeast, they had no pasteurization, and it was all they could do to stop it all turning into vinegar. I wonder how much damage could exposure possibly do to wine that bad, but I seriously doubt it could improve it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 14:11:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 17:11:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Timely Notes for the Summer Message-ID: <20150714211025.9203118356A@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from an article by Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer, ZT"L, that appeared in the Mitteilungen, Vol. 2, June 1941 Timely Notes for the Summer Can the heat of summer be termed ?oppressive?? That is surely something that is individual. If we think of the terribly oppressive times a large number of our brethren are going through, we will gladly tolerate the discomforts of summer and rather bless our good fortune to be spared such pain. Many of our newly immigrated brothers and sisters are struggling with heavy economic burdens, and only the few can afford the much desired relaxing rest. We are pleased for those who can afford a vacation and expect that they will carefully select, as far as the trustworthiness of its kashrus, the place where they plan to spend their vacation. Obviously, they will not want to take a vacation from the ?yoke of the Law.? They want to return home, hale and hearty, and not with a feeling of unease for having risked their moral values in exchange for physical wellbeing. The heat of summer calls for changes in clothing and appearance. The conscientious Jew will carefully keep to certain limits, which he will not overstep. Our Divine Law cautions us to have a sense of shame, and that applies to summer as well. The Jewish custom ?according to the Talmud ?requires men and boys to cover their heads outdoors. God gave the first garment to man when he forfeited his special standing by disregarding the Will of God.Modest covering of his body is to be a steady reminder of the higher calling of man. Jewish men were given the adornment of tzitzis to admonish them to wear their clothes as proper Jews. Even in the summer heat, our requirements for covering can easily be heeded with lighter clothing. Comfort will not cause us to shirk our duty. A soldier?s helmet is uncomfortably heavy, but he wears it because it is required; God?s requirement should not be heeded? As for the Jewish woman, Jewish law requires her to cover her hair. The true Jewish woman will proudly do so, for it is a sign of her willingness to adhere to God?s Will as the guide in her life. A woman unworthy of this sign will have it removed forcibly by the priest (Bemidbar 5:18). Covering one?s hair is merely a sign if a woman does not conduct herself otherwise in the properly Jewish manner. Similarly, there are Jewish men who bear the Milah-sign on their bodies but sully their bodies in other ways. Not covering one?s hair is probably ? we are sorry to say ? a matter of ignorance, and perhaps such a Jewish woman was not brought up to understand the importance of covering her hair. Many women may carefully observe their Jewish duties in other areas, and we would so much like to adorn them with this special crown also. For the fact remains: covering of the hair for the Jewish woman is a must. The proud Jewish woman will conduct herself Jewishly in her clothing and in covering her hair. The word Tznius is a Jewish concept that is hard to translate exactly. It does not only denote a ?quietly humble way of living? (Michah 6:8), but everything else that our people has so valued and esteemed in their Jewish women at all times. ?quietly humble way of living? (Michah 6:8), but everything else that our people has so valued and esteemed in their Jewish women at all times. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 02:01:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 05:01:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Star-K on the Heter Mechira Message-ID: <20150715090047.2F7EB1824C9@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-shmitta-5775.htm Who Owns The Land? There is a difference of opinion among the poskim as to whether produce grown on land owned by a non-Jew living in the Land of Israel is considered produce of sheviis. The custom in Yerushalayim is not to consider it produce of sheviis, while the custom in Bnei Brak is to consider it produce of sheviis. Selling The Land: The Heter Mechira was formulated and instituted by many very prominent rabbanim (including the Gadol Hador, Harav Yitzchok Elchanan Spector) in the year 1887. There was a great deal of controversy among other prominent rabbanim surrounding the heter, the foremost of whom was the Netziv (Harav Naftoli Zvi Yehuda Berlin) of Volozin. Most of the controversy centered around the problem regarding the Torah prohibition of selling any part of the Land of Israel to non-Jews. Those who proposed the heter claimed that the situation in the Land of Israel was so precarious that not working the land for an entire year would put the entire Jewish settlement in danger, thus warranting this drastic measure. Others claimed that the prohibition of selling the land was worse than the prohibition of working the land. Since then, every Shmitta there have been rabbanim who have sold the land. Harav Avraham Yitzchok Kook institutionalized the sale (although he, too, agreed it was to be done only under grave duress). Since it's inception, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel has sold the land every Shmitta. However, there are presently many rabbanim who question whether the current situation in Israel warrants this type of sale. Furthermore, there is another more serious problem the consumer faces. The produce that is sold in the regular stores during the year of Shmitta predominantly comes from non-religious kibbutzim and moshavim, who would never agree to sell their land. This is compounded by the fact that the non-religious kibbutzim do not observe those prohibitions which Harav Kook instituted, and Harav Kook never permitted their current practices. Certainly, a tourist who is not knowledgeable concerning the dinim of Shmitta should buy produce only from stores that do not rely upon the heter mechira. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 03:18:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 06:18:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. Whether MZ is well known or not aside, even "kemaaseh Eretz Mitzrayim" (at least the male half of it) is described in the gemara as pretty well known -- it's on Ulla's list of 3 dinim of the 30 mitzvos Benei Noach (which rishonim map to subcategories of the usual 7) that Benei Noach generally observe -- "she'in kosevin kesuvah lezekharim". In any case, I will leave the Rambam as a tzarikh iyun that only affects the lives of those who agree with him that understanding theology and/or metaphysics is the perfection we strive for in life, above perfection of virtue. (Moreh, conclusion, worthy of its own thread.) For that matter, most of us also diagree with the Rambam on whether a person is judged by the level reached or by the distance covered. Without agreeing on either of those two points, it's likely one wouldn't agree with the Rambam's pesaq here. His view of the role of of bringing one's desire in line with a mitzvah will necessarily come from a different place. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 03:32:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 06:32:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Herzl In-Reply-To: <17e71f.7a1031b7.42d6e65d@aol.com> References: <17e71f.7a1031b7.42d6e65d@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150715103208.GD4654@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 06:25:33PM -0400, RnTK wrote on Areivim: : My comment was facetious -- a little dig at those MO who apparently do : believe that Herzl, Golda Meir and Ben Gurion were gedolim. R' AE Kaplan wrote very highly of Theodore Herzl. RAEK predeceased the accompilshments of the other two. To quote RYGB's translation (from BeIqvos haYir'ah pg 85): He [Herzl] did not teach us Torah... because he was never taught Torah... He taught us, rather, to say two words [four words in English] on occasions that until he came we had neither dared nor been able to utter: "I am a Jew [Ivri]!" We were always able to recite these words in the Beis Medrash next to our shtenders, we were even capable of reading and writing them... We could declare ourselves a nation in any place we wanted, except in that one place where the nations of the world were... to be found - in the international political arena. There we were seen as wandering sheep, like one Telzer (Yehuda Leib Gordon [22]) once put it: "Not a nation, not a congregation, rather a flock." Not like sheep that are petted and fed, but like those that are shorn or slaughtered. When a European ruler asked a Jew: "Who are you?" Would he respond simply: "I am a Jew" - without any qualifications or explanations? He would answer: I am a Jew - but also German, also French, also English, etc. Along came Herzl, the first from among us to reach that international political arena that serves as a world court, and responded, openly, freely, effortlessly and guilelessly: "I am a Jew." Moreover: "I was stolen from the land of the Jews [Eretz HaIvrim], and here I have done nothing, for they placed me in the pit" [Bereishis 40:15]. The Jewish nation is a nation unto itself, like all other nations, indeed, it is special, and it possesses a unique life force that sustains it... Do you not sense the hidden workings of divine providence? I know that just as the rejuvenation of Jewish national spirit had to come, so will finally come, in the unseen future, the rejuvenation of our Torah spirit... We do not see the paths, we do not see the footsteps, but I know... that I must strive toward this. And G-d who returns to Tziyon [Zion] will return us also to Torah MiTziyon... [23] [22] The most prominent Hebrew poet of the nineteenth century and a notorious Maskil, Gordon was generally known by his acronym, YaLaG, that, in a play on words, would be pronounced by Orthodox Jews as "yil'ag," the Hebrew word for "scoffer." [23] Besides his essays on Hashkafa, Reb Avraham Elya also left many "Reshimos," short notes on topics in Mussar, Machashava, and Avodas Hashem, some of which are beautiful vignettes of life lived in a Torah true and Mussar suffused way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 02:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 05:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Secular Studies: Are They for Everyone? Message-ID: <20150715092755.A05BB1824E7@nexus.stevens.edu> From the article by Rabbi Mordechai Willig at http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/%2FTU1_Willig.pdf Are secular studies permissible for everyone when they are necessary to provide for a livelihood? The answer is: for almost everyone. To summarize, then, for purpose of parnasah, secular studies are allowed for almost everyone. If it is not for parnasah, it is permissible, and sometimes even a mitzvah to learn various disciplines, providing that such study is considered of secondary importance, both in terms of time and value for, above all, Torah must always be the Ekir. Please see the above URL for the entire article. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 07:56:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:56:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Confronting sexual abuse in the Jewish community Message-ID: <> Can you give a place in shas or SA where the punishment of a crime accounts for the pain to the family If someone deserves the death penalty (there is no jail in halacha) as far as I know the bet din does not take into account that the family who are innocent will also be punished. If someone is sent to "ir miklat" the yeshiva goes with him, we don't remove the punishment because it affects the whole community -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:33:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian Message-ID: During a recent discussion with a friend the following two questions came up and I am curious what the fellows of Avodah think. 1) Can one count someone who denies the historicity of *matan torah* and *yetzias mitzrayim* but is other completely *shomer torah u-mitzvos* for a *minyan*? There is an halakhic category of *mumar l?hachis* who cannot count for a *minyan* according to many *poskim*. But that is on the assumption that they are violating *halakhah*. If they are not violating halakhah, can they be counted in a *minyan*? 2) Does one fulfill their shofer blowing from hearing the shofar be blown by someone denies the historicity of *matan torah* and *yetzias mitzrayim*? We assume that *mitzvos tzerichos kavvanah*. So this individual intends to fulfill the mitzvah of blowing the shofar on Rosh ha-Shanah. However, his conception of the nature of *mitzvos* and commandedness is extremely untraditional. Personally, I am inclined to include this individual in a minyan and assume that one fulfills the mitzvah of shofar with his blowing. But my conception of halakha flows from R. Dr. Walter Wurzburger?s *zy?a* belief that halakhah is a floor and not a ceiling. In other words, we do not make the bar for basic fulfillment of halakhah obligations higher if one could avoid it. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:32:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:32:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> References: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 6:18 AM Micha Berger wrote: > Lo zakhisi lehavin: > It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss > aren't mefursamot. > > Whether MZ is well known or not aside, even "kemaaseh Eretz Mitzrayim"... > In any case, I will leave the Rambam as a tzarikh iyun that only affects > the lives of those who agree with him that understanding theology and/or > metaphysics is the perfection we strive for in life, above perfection > of virtue. (Moreh, conclusion, worthy of its own thread.) ... You are assuming the shmona prakim see relevant only to those who fully accept Rambam's philosophy -- and that is a very unique position. I think shmona prakim is studied by those who would never open the moreh Rambam argues that a lust to steal or murder is a character flaw -- the should be overcome -- but a lust for hazir or arayot is not a character flaw -- although it too should be overcome. Why that is dependent on his notions of the ultimate good, effort versus achievement, or mitzvot bne noach I don't see -- nor do I think most others me that connection.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:55:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:55:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150715155517.GC31352@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 03:32:08PM +0000, Meir Shinnar wrote: : You are assuming the shmona prakim see relevant only to those who fully : accept Rambam's philosophy -- and that is a very unique position... Nah, I'm just surmising that the two may be linked. If your notion of redemption revolves around ideas and the thirst for knowledge, then developing something like like-vs-dislike is a different topic than if your notion of personal redemption is "sheyehei adir cheftzeinu leheitiv im zulaseinu... bedemus haBorei, keveyakhol." (Bonus points for the first person to identify the reference. ) So not that 8 Peraqim are only relevent to followers of the Rambam's point, just that this particular point, and perhaps a couple to a few others, may be of limited utility to the rest of us. (8 Peraqim, BTW, is one of my more heavily used resources when teaching for The Mussar Institute.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 12:49:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:49:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55A6B95E.6090302@starways.net> On 7/15/2015 10:33 AM, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: > 1)Can one count someone who denies the historicity of /matan > torah/ and /yetzias mitzrayim/ but is other completely /shomer > torah u-mitzvos/ for a /minyan/? I think there's a difference between someone who denies Matan Torah and someone who expresses doubts. The former, I'd treat no differently than someone who denies God, because for the purposes of Judaism, they're not separable. We asked our mesader kiddushin (years ago) what we should do about those family members who didn't believe in God. He said that if they'd openly denied God's existence, we could not give them sheva brachot, because we couldn't be yotzei on a bracha by someone who doesn't believe in God. He didn't say anything at all about observance. A lot of people focus on Rambam's ikkarim, and whether or not we're bound by them, but the concept of being kofer ba-ikkar predates Rambam by centuries. The existence of God and the historical fact of Matan Torah are, by any reasonable assessment, the most basic ikkarim of Judaism. Absent either of these, what's left isn't Judaism. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 19:47:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:47:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150716024705.GE13610@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:33:13AM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : 1) Can one count someone who denies the historicity of *matan torah* : and *yetzias mitzrayim* but is other completely *shomer torah u-mitzvos* : for a *minyan*? : : There is an halakhic category of *mumar l'hachis* who cannot count for a : *minyan* according to many *poskim*. But that is on the assumption that : they are violating *halakhah*. If they are not violating halakhah, can they : be counted in a *minyan*? I don't know if we hold like the Rambam, but Hil' Teshuvah ch. 3 is the only discussion of the categories of heresy I know of. A min is an atheist or polytheist, a trinitarian, etc... (3:7) An apiqoreis, the category in the title, is defined with a list of theological errors. It's someone who, like Epicurus, denies that Hashem runs the world. A Deist, someone who denies prophecy, or that He doesn't know man's actions. (3:8) Leshitaso, someone who doesn't believe in the historicity of Torah miSinai would be a kofer baTorah. (ibid) A mumar is a consistent sinner (ledavar achas, lekhol haTorah kulah), not a heretic. {3.9) Then the machti'ei rabbim (10), poreish midarkei hatzibur (11), moserim (12), and one who terrorizes the community -- not lehsim shamayim (13). That list -- 3 kinds of heretic and 5 kinds of sinners -- lose their olam haba, if they die without teshuvah (3:14). And then he says there are also smaller ones that still carry a similar price. Anyway, R' Aharon Soloveitchik held that "nebich an apiqoreis" (not using the term in the Rambam's technical sense) can be counted for a minyan. As long as his beliefs include those ideas that make tefillah meaningful. So a min couldn't, nor an apiqoreis who believes G-d doesn't know every little thing going on down here. (This was a common idea among Artistotilian, although obviosuly not among ours. Since facts change with time, and the Creator does not, how could the Creator know such facts? Would that mean His knowledge changes?) But a tinoq shenishba (by which RAL intentionally includes Jews not raised O) who doesn't believe in Sinai, but does believe that there is One G-d Who Listens to prayer and is Mashgiach, should be countable. Not because their heresy makes them heretics and thus michutz lamachaneh. But because they are incapable of prayer. RAS didn't discuss the person who isn't a tinoq shenishba, but also not a rebal. Someone who grew up in a Torah setting, but in his studies reached the wrong conclusion. The Tashbetz and the Radbaz (eearly 16th cent CE, not the Ridbaz who wrote on the Y-mi) famously hold that such people are not heetics even if they believe heresy. (As least on the list list it's famous, anyeay.) I just can't assume RAS agrees without proof. RAL also doesn't discuss a Deist who believes G-d Hears prayers, but won't act any differently. Can he make a brikhas hoda'ah, but not a baqashah? Since prayer is not al menas leqabel peras, do we even make baqashos for the sake of gettin a "yes", or just to have a moment with Him talking about what is bothering you? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 16 07:01:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:01:37 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Confronting sexual abuse in the Jewish community Message-ID: <20150716.100137.31633.0@webmail13.vgs.untd.com> I wrote on Areivim: > Of course it is important to protect future victims, but that is > not the only consideration here. What about the fallout to the > family of the victim, to the family of the perpetrator, and to > the community as a whole? (For those who have not been following on Areivim: Personally, I am all in favor of protecting the victims, but I know that my opinions might be heavily influenced by the society in which I live. My suggestion is that our chachamim are the only ones qualified to decide on any particular case, whether it might be better to whitewash an incident, so that the family and/or community are not hurt by the publicity.) R' Eli Turkel responded here on Avodah: > Can you give a place in shas or SA where the punishment of a > crime accounts for the pain to the family > If someone deserves the death penalty (there is no jail in > halacha) as far as I know the bet din does not take into > account that the family who are innocent will also be > punished. > If someone is sent to "ir miklat" the yeshiva goes with him, > we don't remove the punishment because it affects the whole > community These are excellent points. But then I must ask: Haven't there been times and situations when legitimate gedolim have paskened to hush things up because of other considerations? Would someone say that all such cases come from gedolim whose outlook is NOT Torah-based? I wish I could cite specific examples for discussion. Unfortunately, my knowledge of such things is far too limited. But surely this attitude must have come from somewhere, and did not materialize from nothingness. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett???s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren???t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55a7b984d1f883984538est04vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 18 13:49:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 22:49:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on Exercise Message-ID: <55AABBF3.2070100@zahav.net.il> Rav Kook's opinion about exercise and sport had been brought up here before. I quoted him as saying that physical activity helps the tzaddikim in their avodah. In the class I go to on Orot, we discussed the following piece by R Kook, which goes way further than that. Keep in mind that this was written before there was an IDF, so he isn't talking about any sort of physical protection. Orot, Orot Hatechiya, 34: Exercise, (which young Israel is getting involved in, in Eretz Yisrael, to strengthen their bodies in order to be vigorous for the nation), improves the spiritual strength of the greatest tzaddikim, those who involve themselves in "the unification of God's names" (my translation of a phrase which I admit I don't get), and increases the transmission of God's light in the world, because there is no revelation at all of light without all components being present. Turns out that (according to Rav Kook) not only does Talmud Torah increase the merits to the army/state/people, but just having people trying to be healthy, active, in shape, improves Talmud Torah, as long as both sides are doing this for the nation. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 18 17:09:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 03:09:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tefach Thick Soft Spongy Matza Message-ID: Many mistakenly think that we now have an accepted Halachic tradition, recorded in the Shulchan Aruch [460:5] to no longer bake Tefach thick Matza [10 - 12 cm] as in Talmudic times. This is untrue. The ShAruch records that Tefach thick Matza must not be Pesach. There is no problem whatsoever to produce such Matza Pesach and eat them during Pesach. The reason for this is quite simple; if one makes Chamets during Pesach, no matter that it was unintentional, one has transgressed the very serious violation of having Chamets - Bal YeRaEh and Bal YeMaTzeh. When making Tefach thick Matza the risk of inadvertently making Chamets because some dough in the Matza will remain unbaked, is [became] intolerable. However, baking the same thickness Matza before Pesach poses no concern. If it is Chamets, as can be discerned by tearing the Matza and checking for doughy stringy threads, then either eat it before Pesach or get rid of it. Whatever is fully baked however, is fine for Pesach. Compare the Mechabers expression, Seif 4 and 5, not to make images on the Matza; and not to make thick Matza - it is not done - ??? ?????; to his expression Seif 6, not to make dough filled with meat and veg - one ought not be lenient - ??? ????. One ought not be lenient - ??? ???? sounds more strict, as is supported by the MBerurah [18] suggesting that it is prohibited even after the fact, - whereas it is not done - ??? ????? implies it should not be done but after the fact, if it not Chamets it is Kosher and may be eaten during Pesach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 17 07:19:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 10:19:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Guten Chodesh (Though sad, still hope...) Message-ID: <0F8B8D71-82A7-4DB7-AFF4-740FDDA46D37@cox.net> The gematria for ?Rosh Chodesh" is 813. (reish:200, aleph:1, shin:300; ches:8, dalet:4, shin:300 ? Total=813) In the whole of tanach there is only one verse with the gematria of 813 which occurs in B?reishis, Chapter 1, verse 3: ?Vayomer Elohim ohr; vay?hi ohr? ?And God said: Let there be light and there was light.? May our mourning be turned into dancing (Ps.30:12) and may we live to see the light. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 00:55:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 10:55:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: heter mechira In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <> There are many inaccuracies in their statement and much is outdated. "The produce that is sold in the regular stores during the year of Shmitta predominantly comes from non-religious kibbutzim and moshavim, who would never agree to sell their land. " I have no idea what this statement means. They in fact do sell their land. The current situation in Israel is that the chief rabbinate sends people to each of these kibbutzim etc to explain to them what the heter mechira means and what are the other options. No one is forced to participate. "However, there are presently many rabbanim who question whether the current situation in Israel warrants this type of sale" The figures I have heard is that 85% of Israeli produce is exported (mainly to Europe). Without the heter mechira one would have to close down almost the entire agricultural development in Israel. In addition one is forbidden to sell produce with kedushat sheviit to nonJews. That would mean having guards at supermarkets checking that only Jews buy the produce "This is compounded by the fact that the non-religious kibbutzim do not observe those prohibitions which Harav Kook instituted, and Harav Kook never permitted their current practices." The current chief rabbinate tries to enforce whatever Rav Kook instituted. In fact most agricultural workers in Israel regardless of shemita are Arabs. -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 18:33:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:33:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish with mixed seating In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720013343.GC4548@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 03:08:58PM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : Interestingly enough the Gemara in Succos brings a "proof" for separation : of men and women from a non-"Davar She'bekedushah" the funeral in : Zecharyah. The other example is Simchas Beis haSho'eivah. Notice that one is extreme joy, and the other extreme sadness. Neither was tefillah betzibbur. Should the fact that chazal thought it was natural to apply these precedents to tefillah be taken to mean that -- "thanks to my knees for bowing at modim" aside -- Chazal found such extremes of emotion common during davening? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 18:57:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:57:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150720015718.GD4548@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 01:14:59AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : Well, I guess my original post should have had a longer introduction. I : know that Kaddish Tiskabel has a very clear rule, namely that it : follows every Amidah, and the only exception is that it also follows : Selichos. Kaddish D'rabanan always follows group learning (though I've : never figured out exactly what learning counts and what doesn't). Qaddish Tisqabel is said after zelosehon (the Amidah) uVa'us-hon (tachanun or selichos. That the request that they be accepted. : And now I'm trying to figure out the rule for Kaddish Yasom. It SEEMS : to be a sort of "congregational prayer", where "prayer" is something : *other* than the Amidah, but I can't define it any more precisely than : that. For a long time I thought it was connected to Tehillim, but when : I noticed it after the megilos on Yom Tov, someone suggested that it's : not specifically Sefer Tehillim, but *any* part of Kesuvim, not that we : had any idea why Kesuvim would get this distinction over Neviim or Torah. Accordng to R' de Sola Pool's monograph "Kaddish", Qaddish originated as being post-derashah -- the role Qaddish deRabbanan still serves. So perhaps non-concidentally, the format for sermons through the geonic era was to start with a pasuq from one of the sidrei EMa"S (Iyov, Mishlei, Tefillim) and wrap up by applying the resulting an idea to a pasuq from he sedra. ... : I have to admit that a big part of my asking this question is a pet : peeve that I've been nursing, regarding Kiddush Levana in particular. It : seems to me that Kiddush Levana -- the way it is done in just about : every situation I've ever seen -- cannot be called a Tefilas Tzibur in : any sense. It is a group of yechidim who happen to be saying the same : thing, but in a totally disorganized fashion... Perhaps that's it exactly. Like "Shalom Aleikhem", we make a cpoint of socially unifying those yechidim as part of qiddush levanah. Perhaps not in the sense of tefillah betzibbur or tefillas hatzibur, but then, neither is a shiur. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 09:45:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:45:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reciting a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time In-Reply-To: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> References: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> Message-ID: <20150720164528.GA10632@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:53:34AM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : http://tinyurl.com/o6rxcdf : according to those that say you do NOT recite a shehechiyanu when performing : a mitzvah for the first time (ie bar mitzvah), Who are they? All I know of is the Chasam Sofer (OC 55) -- well I guess I also know of the Peri To'ar, his maqor -- who says that the berakhah when putting on tefillin on one's bar mitzvah is supposed to be made with all the rest of the mitzvos in mind. The Radvaz says a ger says shehechiyanu when they emerge from the miqvah. I am less clear when a girl becoming a bas mitzvah would make her shechiyanu. The Ben Ish Chai says the girl should have in mind ol mitzvos when making shehechiyanu on her celebratory dress. Paralleling what we do by eating a new fruit on the 2nd evening of RH. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 09:51:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefach Thick Soft Spongy Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720165119.GB10632@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 03:09:13AM +0300, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Many mistakenly think that we now have an accepted Halachic tradition, : recorded in the Shulchan Aruch [460:5] to no longer bake Tefach thick Matza : [10 - 12 cm] as in Talmudic times. This is untrue... Unless we are holding like the "veyeish la'asos" in the Rama se'if 4. Neither the se'if nor the explanation "ki ein hareqiqin memaharin lehachmitz" make a distinction about when the matzah was made. -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:19:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on Exercise In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720211930.2A235182421@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:53 PM 7/20/2015, R. Ben Waxman wrote: >Orot, Orot Hatechiya, 34: > >Exercise, (which young Israel is getting involved in, in Eretz Yisrael, >to strengthen their bodies in order to be vigorous for the nation), >improves the spiritual strength of the greatest tzaddikim, those who >involve themselves in "the unification of God's names" (my translation >of a phrase which I admit I don't get), and increases the transmission >of God's light in the world, because there is no revelation at all of >light without all components being present. > >Turns out that (according to Rav Kook) not only does Talmud Torah >increase the merits to the army/state/people, but just having people >trying to be healthy, active, in shape, improves Talmud Torah, as long >as both sides are doing this for the nation. See "Exercise, Torah Learning and the Chofetz Chaim" http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/exercise_torah_cc_v2.pdf Reb Yaakov Kamenetsky was an avid swimmer all of his life. I recall when he came to Monroe to spend a Shabbos with his son Avraham. He was in his 80s I believe. Well, he put on his bathing suit, a robe and went to the pool. He then proceeded to jump into the pool and swim laps. This spread like wildfire in the 3 colonies in Monroe. People could not stop talking about it. It eventually got back to Reb Yaakov who quipped, "I wish they are as excited about my learning as they are about my swimming!" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 15:03:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> Re: Micha's questioning kadish yasom(KY) after kidush levana, the Vilna Gaon has a shortened version(doesn't he always?) that starts with the bracha and ends with siman tov. There is no Aleinu, hence no KY. He also holds that "sh'ain l'harbos b'k'dashim shelo l'tzorech, hence,there is only once KY per tefila. After the Yom by shachris and after Aleinu by mincha & maariv. Minhag Ashkenaz is not to say kadish d'rabonan during/after tefila but only after limud agada. The chasidim adopted the custom of saying it from the Seforadim and that's how it entered their ritual. I remember davening once at the Boro Park nusach HaGra k'vosikin minyan way back and was struck by the number of KYs that were said. The gabbai's answer was that it was too difficult to stop the "kadish zogers" from having their way. B"H, at our Flatbush Nusach HaGra k'vosikin minyan (Young Israel of Ave K, East 29th and K) under Rav Aryeh Ralbag guidance, we are have not had to compromise the Nusach HaGra way of davening. Shachris is 45 minutes before HaNetz every shabos and YT. -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com http://www.schnurassociates.com/joels-corner/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 15:46:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:46:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> References: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> Message-ID: <20150720224608.GB21161@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 06:03:46PM -0400, Joel Schnur via Avodah wrote: : I remember davening once at the Boro Park nusach HaGra k'vosikin : minyan way back and was struck by the number of KYs that were said. : The gabbai's answer was that it was too difficult to stop the : "kadish zogers" from having their way... REMT said something that makes me wonder... He suggested that our (non-Yekke) current practice of every avel saying qaddish is to make it condusive for aveilim to feel they're discharging their duty. Many men first started attending minyan regularly during aveileus and kept on doing so for the rest of their lives. Do you really want to discourage that with "Ah, why bother, I probably wouldn't get a turn this time anyway!"? A similar argument would change the priorities the Gra assumes about making extraneous opportunities for Qaddish. The AhS OC 55:4 gives this explanation for the creation of a 2nd opportunity for Qaddish Yasom at the end of Shacharis. He also writes that the Qadmonim only said 7 qaddeisim a day: Shacharis, after each of Yishtabach, Tachanun and UVa leTzion Minchah, after Ashrei and Tachanuun, and Arvis -- before and after Shemoneh Esrei. He quotes the Roqeiach invoking the pasuq "sheva bayom haleltikha" to explain that 7 was an intentional, significant, number. The AhS continues that three more were added when Aleinu was appended to the end of each tefillah. For the sake of yesomim who didn't get the amud. And significance was found for that, by reading Tzadi"q as an acronym, and each letter a gematria. Each day a tzadiq would say 90 times amein, (tzadi) 4 qedushos, (dalet) 10 qadeihim, and (yud) 100 berakhos (quf). (Citing the NMA.) Then he discusses leining adding one. "Veyoseir ein maqom laqadeishim", and still we added after Shir shel Yom because there were more yesomim, but more than that -- the AhS does not permit. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot RMB responded: Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. ============= My two cents: Adultery (eishis ish) is technically taking from another man that which belongs exclusively to him. So that itself puts it within the category of issurim that are mefursamos. The Rambam (MN 2:49) describes all sexuality as something that even when natural, should be limited. Homosexuality and bestiality, however, he describes as obvious deviations from the natural order that should be abhorred. I think that would place these two activities, as well, in the mefursamos category. The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely forbidden. Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: MN 3:49 As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure alone be eschewed. All illicit unions with females have one thing in common: namely, that in the majority of cases these females are constantly in the company of the male in his house, and that they are easy of access for him, and can be easily controlled by him - there being no difficulty in making them come into his presence; and no judge could blame the male I for their being with him. Consequently if the status of the women with whom union is illicit were that of any unmarried woman, I mean to say that if it were possible to marry them and that the prohibition with regard to them were only due to their not being the man's wives, most people would have constantly succumbed and fornicated with them. However, as it is absolutely forbidden to have intercourse with them, the strongest deterrents making us avoid this - I mean by this a sentence of death by order of a court of law and the threat of being cut off--so that there is no way to have intercourse with these women, men are safe from seeking to approach them and their thoughts are turned away from them. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot RMB responded: > Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate > family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. My two cents: Adultery (eishis ish) should be categorized under issurim mefursomos simply on the basis that it involves taking lves taking liberties with another man's wife, an intimacy that belongs to the husband. A form of theft! So that itself puts it within the category of issurim that are mefursamos. The Rambam (MN 2:49) describes all sexuality as something that even when natural, should be limited. Homosexuality and bestiality, however, he describes as obvious deviations from the natural order that should be abhorred. I think that would place these two activities, as well, in the mefursamos category. The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely forbidden. Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: MN 3:49 As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure alone be eschewed. All illicit unions with females have one thing in common: namely, that in the majority of cases these females are constantly in the company of the male in his house, and that they are easy of access for him, and can be easily controlled by him - there being no difficulty in making them come into his presence; and no judge could blame the male I for their being with him. Consequently if the status of the women with whom union is illicit were that of any unmarried woman, I mean to say that if it were possible to marry them and that the prohibition with regard to them were only due to their not being the man's wives, most people would have constantly succumbed and fornicated with them. However, as it is absolutely forbidden to have intercourse with them, the strongest deterrents making us avoid this - I mean by this a sentence of death by order of a court of law and the threat of being cut off--so that there is no way to have intercourse with these women, men are safe from seeking to approach them and their thoughts are turned away from them. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 16:02:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:02:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: (Sorry for approving both versions of that post! It was a quick typo in what was until-then going so smoothly! -micha) On 2015-07-20 5:34 pm, RZ Lampel wrote: > RMB responded: "Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest > within > the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot." > Adultery (eishis ish) is technically taking from another man that > which > belongs exclusively to him. So that itself puts it within the > category of > issurim that are mefursamos. > The Rambam (MN 2:49) ... Yes. But our problem is with Shemoneh Peraqim, where the Rambam distinguishes between mitzvos mefusamot, for which a person should develop a desire that is in line with the mitzvah (or a distaste in line with the issur), and other mitzvos where one should simply refrain out of submission to ol mitzvos. And among his mitzvos which are NOT mefursamos are arayos. R/Dr Meir Shinnar writes: > he specifically applies that > to > arayot - and needs to apply it to arayot, because the sugyot that > deal with > kol hagadol mechavero yitzro gadol mimenu - specifically apply to > arayot. > One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all > dine > arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not > sure > on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are > NOT > self evident or even mefursamot So regardless of how he categorizes them in the Moreh, the chiluq the Rambam makes in 8P requires our considering these issurim to not be self-evident. (Which I still don't get.) -micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 20:09:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 23:09:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah REMT said something that makes me wonder... He suggested that our (non-Yekke) current practice of every avel saying qaddish is to make it condusive for aveilim to feel they're discharging their duty. Micha Berger >>>> You are mainly talking about adults saying kaddish, but I remember one tragic year when there were seven yesomim under bar mitzva age saying kaddish, from three different families. Two families had lost their mothers, one family their father. Who was going to tell these children, who came to shul faithfully every day, sometimes getting to school late or skipping outings with their friends, "You can't say kaddish for your Ima or your Abba today, someone else has kadima"? Correct me if I am mistaken but my impression is that kaddish yasom is really mainly for genuine yesomim, i.e., those who lose their parents while they are still children. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 23:56:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:56:00 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Dr Shapiro's book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I found the most disturbing part of Dr Shapiro's book the last chapter. This is a halachid discussion of lying. My conclusion from this is that lying is perfectly permissible if there is a good reason. Basically the ends justifies the means. We are not talking about white lies as praising the bride for her beauty. In particular it is permissible to quote a psak from a gadol even though he never said it as long as you are sure that it is correct and he probably would have said it. There is no problem with making up stories about a gadol as long as the intention is to either glorify the gadol or else show why some idea is important. He claims that there are groups that actively make up stories about CI. The Chatam Sofer says that in order to prevent sins one can make the problem appear to be more serious than it really is such as turning a rabbinic prohibition into a biblical one. The problem with false attribution (besides the seemingly moral one) is that the result one cannot believe anything that is not written by the gadol himself. One never knows if the citation of the gadol was deliberately changed, However as seen in the rest of the book even the written words of the author are not always authoritative as in many cases they are tampered with to protect some "higher interest". Even the SA has been tampered with for this purpose. One can lie in order to avoid embarrassment to oneself. R Papa seems to have issued an incorrect halacha to avoid shame. A poor man can make believe he is blind or crippled in order to get more charity. One can claim that the monet is going for a poor bride when in fact it will be used for some other charity. Finally there is the heter of mental reservation or reinterpreting ones words made famous by the story of Yaakov "lying" To Isaac that he is Esav. Shapiro gives the example of Clinton making all sorts of "false" statements about Lewinsky and later justified it by saying that his words had another meaning than what people thought. Note this is sometimes permitted even in monetary cases. As stated about one can lie for educational purposes "Noble Lie" of Plato. Rav Dessler defines "truth" as the value that gives a positive result and is independent of observation and evidence. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 19:10:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 21:10:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: > Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: > MN 3:49 > As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are > directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling > disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The > reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against > intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is > natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more > should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure > alone be eschewed. So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 21:55:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:55:23 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9105E0A4-E59B-4E23-ADAA-7FCACD74F424@gmail.com> This is tangentially related only, but may be of interest in the context. I asked Rav Hershel Schachter, Shlita, what to do if someone who acts as a functionary at a Shira Chadasha (partnership) style service wants to do likewise in a mainstream Orthodox Congregation. His answer was, that such a person can be counted towards a Minyan, but no Kibbudim should be afforded to them. We have one here in Melbourne, which isn't like the one in Israel, but the strong word is that one of Rabbi Avi Weiss's Maharatos (Rabba/Rabbis) will be hired to lead that congregation. She was recently interviewed and claimed she was non denominational because she wanted to break down boundaries. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 03:08:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:08:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] thick matza Message-ID: For those interested a thorough discussion on thick matazot see the article of Ari Zivotofsky in Hakirah www.hakirah.org/Vol17Zivotofsky.pdf -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 06:54:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 06:54:49 -- 0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> Message-ID: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> On 7/20/2015 7:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > ... our problem is with Shemoneh Peraqim, where the Rambam distinguishes > between mitzvos mefusamot, for which a person should develop a desire > that is in line with the mitzvah (or a distaste in line with the issur), > and other mitzvos where one should simply refrain out of submission to > ol mitzvos. > And among his mitzvos which are NOT mefursamos are arayos....the chiluq > the Rambam makes in 8P requires our considering these issurim to not > be self-evident. And that's precisely what I addressed in my 3rd paragraph. After citing the Moreh Nevuchim's description of homosexuality and bestiality as obviously deviant practices (i.e. mefursamos), I cited its description of arayos (outside of eishis ish) as being not mefursomos, but issurim Hashem instituted as a preventative, a gedder, against unrestrained licentiousness in a situation (viz. family) where the temptation for it would otherwise be too hard to control. To repeat what I wrote: >> The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and >> commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because >> allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than >> his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would >> lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest >> intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, >> it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound >> to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely >> forbidden." Perhaps the mention of "commanded that it, too, be considered >> abhorrent" causes confusion. This would seem to put incest back into >> the category of mefursomos, along with murder and stealing, etc., about >> which a normal person is expected to harbor revulsion. So Rambam would be >> self-contradicting. But the elephant in the room is that the Torah itself >> commands us to treat eating non-kosher creatures with disgust. So how >> can Chazal tell us the right attitude is "efshi"? Evidently, Chazal and, >> naturally, Rambam, do not consider "efshi" to be at odds with "shekketz >> yih'yu lachem/teshak'tsu."My surmise is that they understand the Torah's >> command to treat with disgust the eating of non-kosher creatures and >> other acts that are not intrinsically objectionable (such as, per Rambam, >> incest, vs. murder, stealing, homosexuality and bestiality), as an imposed >> artificial behavior/attitude for these non-mefusamos issurim. Regarding >> your definition of issurim mefursamim, the Shemoneh Perakim does not >> say a tsaddik should /develop/ a revulsion, but that such revulsion is >> natural in born in all people. The tsaddik retains these feelings and >> does not allow them to be tainted. [Email #2.] On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: >> MN 3:49 >> As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are >> directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling >> disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom... On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and > should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of > Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what > possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 07:36:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:36:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Dr Shapiro's book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AE5907.7010503@optimum.net> RET: << A poor man can make believe he is blind or crippled in order to get more charity. >> How does this fit with Peah 8:9? Which book are we talking about? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 17:48:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 20:48:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> Message-ID: <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> I think one has to be careful, as I find it difficult to reconcile the position of the MN and that of the SP, and think they represent two distinct aspects (?stages) in the rambam Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions I) in hazal -- that continued desire for some forbidden actions is compatible with a high spiritual state -- issue is control of the desire -- NOT its presence II) Aristotelian ethics -- a high spiritual state does not desire for forbidden -- the desire is a sign of a flaw. SP resolves by differentiating between mefursamot -- whose desire is problematic and a flaw -- and religious law -- where desire is not a flaw -- and applies this specifically to arayot -- as examples in Talmud of Rabbanit with desire are of arayot, It is difficult for me to reconcile this position with the MN -- if our proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is " to instil disgust" -- how can desire still remaining not be a flaw???? In the MN, there is a conceptual framework to distinguish homosexuality and bestiality from regular sexuality -- but they are ALL viewed as things that should repulse us -- just some more than others. It is by no means clear that this framework and distinction can be read into the SP, and would think that One would need good evidence .hat it does not include ALL arayot... Meir Shinnar > It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah > attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress > during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan > Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a > marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. > Zvi Lampel > On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and >> should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of >> Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what >> possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? >> On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: >>> Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: >>> MN 3:49 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 08:06:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:06:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Message-ID: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why ? What changed in the afternoon? (especially since some pple fast both the 9th and 10th( Mordechai cohen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 06:18:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:18:26 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150722.091826.10442.1@webmail10.vgs.untd.com> The Moreh Nevuchim was quoted: > As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are > directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling > disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. R"n Lisa Liel wrote what I had wanted to write: > So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty > and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something > out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, > but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? R' Zvi Lampel answered: > It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah > attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt > duress during the marital process (you can find this in the > Kitzur Shulchan Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the > Rambam when it comes to a marital setting. I was taught we hold > like the Ramban. My guess is that you're referring to R' Eliezer from Nedarim 20b, referenced at the end of Kitzur 150:1. But from what I have seen, not for nothing is it called "Kitzur Shulchan Aruch", because this seems to be the attitude of all the standard poskim. The Kitzur is not a standalone machmir here; from what I can tell, he's merely quoting the Mechaber in Orach Chayim 240:8. Mishneh Brurah 240:35 (who refers us to Magen Avraham 240:21), Aruch Hashulchan 240:14, and Kaf Hachaim 240:59 all seem to advocate a strong reluctance towards intercourse, which is not quite as extreme as the Rambam's "disgust", but that might merely reflect their choice of words. For purposes of Talmud Torah, where is this Ramban who "strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting"? And for purposes of Halacha, which Acharonim hold like the Ramban, over the Mechaber, KSA, MB, and KH? (I recall hearing that the Siddur HaYaavetz might be the answer here, but there seem to be several different versions. If anyone can post a link to a specific version on SeforimOnline or HebrewBooks.org, and a page citation, I'd appreciate that very much.) Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett?s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren?t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55af9846b9a261846362est02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 07:13:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:13:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel asked: "The idea that sex is something dirty and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude?" See the Gemara in Nedarim (20a) about kafuhu shed. Also see RAL's article OF MARRIAGE: RELATIONSHIP AND RELATIONS ( http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf ) where he discusses this question and brings many of the sources. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:25:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:25:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 06:54:49AM +0000, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: :> So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and :> should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of :> Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what :> possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? : It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah : attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress : during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan : Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to : a marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. But the most famous Ramban does speak of perushim tihyu and how perishus is the key to holiness. (R' Shimon Shkop explains the Ramban as saying it is a primary means to hoiness, because "qedoshim tihyu qi Qadosh Ani" would be absurd if referring to Hashem practicing perishus. What temptations would He need to avoid?) And his first example is yema'eit bemishgal, like (Berakhos 22) "that TC not be found by their wives like roosters" and that tashmish should be limited to "kefi hatzeikh beqiyum hamitzvah mimenu". I presume, in an unXian sense, the Rambam refers to onah, not "only" piryah verivyah. Perishus and neqi'us come up a lot in lower-case-m mussar literature, even among anti-Maimonidians like Rabbeinu Yonah. To quote Mesilas Yesharim ch 13 (tr. from http://www.shechem.org/torah/mesyesh/13.htm I think it's the old Feldheim ed, by R' Shraga Simmons): There is no question as to the permissibility of cohabitation with one's wife, but still, ablutions were instituted for those who had had seminal emissions, so that Scholars should not be steadily with their wives, like roosters. Even though the act itself is permissible it implants in a person a lust for it which might draw him on to what is forbidden; as our Sages of blessed memory have said (Sukkah 526), "There is a small organ in a man which, when it is satiated, hungers and which, when it is made to hunger, is sated." And they said about R. Eleazar (Nedarim 20b) that even in the proper hour and the correct time he would expose a handbreadth and conceal two hand-breadths and imagine that a demon was compelling him, in order to cancel out the feeling of pleasure. And ch. 14: THERE ARE THREE principal divisions of Separation, involving pleasures, laws, and conduct respectively. Separation in relation to pleasures, which we spoke of in the previous chapter, consists in one's taking from the world only what is essential to him. This type of Separation encompasses anything which provides pleasure to any one of the senses, whether the pleasure be gained through food, cohabitation, clothing, strolls, conversation or similar means, exceptions obtaining only at such times when deriving pleasure through these means is a mitzvah. Separation in relation to laws ... Separation in relation to conduct ... Which also limits marital intimacy to what is necessary to fulfill piryah verivyah and onah. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:36:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:36:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55AFD49B.4070904@gmail.com> On 7/21/2015 8:48 PM, Meir Shinnar wrote: > Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions > I) in hazal - that continued desire for some forbidden actions is > compatible with a high spiritual state - issue is control of the > desire - NOT its presence > I) Aristotelian ethics - a high spiritual state does not desire for > forbidden - the desire is a sign of a flaw. > SP resolves by differentiating between mefursamot - whose desire is > problematic and a flaw - and religious law - where desire is not a > flaw - and applies this specifically to arayot - as examples in Talmud > of Rabbanit with desire are of arayot, > It is difficult for me to reconcile this position with the MN - if our > proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is " to instil > disgust" - how can desire still remaining not be a flaw???? > In the MN, there is a conceptual framework to distinguish > homosexuality and bestiality from regular sexuality - but they are ALL > viewed as things that should repulse us - just some more than others. > It is by no means clear that this framework and distinction can be > read into the SP, and would think that One would need good evidence > that it does not include ALL arayot... The Moreh Nevuchim III:35 explicitly states that his view about this matter is the same as his view in Shemoneh Perakim: The fourteenth class comprises the commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain sexual unions. They are those that we have enumerated in the Book of Women [/Sepher Nashim/] and in Laws concerning Prohibited Sexual Relations [/Hilkhoth Issurei Bi'ah/. The interbreeding of beasts belongs to this class. The purpose of this ... is to bring about a decrease of sexual intercourse and to diminish the desire for mating as far as possible, so that it should not be taken as an end, as is done by the ignorant, *according to what we have explained in the Commentary on the Tractate Aboth.* (All commentators agree this is a reference to the introduction to the commentary, the Shemoneh Perakim, just as the Moreh stated regarding the thirteenth class.) Your kushya is good: if [as per MN] our proper relationship to even permitted sexualityis "to instill disgust" - how can desire still remaining not be a flaw [as per ShP]???? But I think the solution I offered is reasonable. To wit: What do you do with the elephant in the room I mentioned? The Torah commands /t'shaktsu/ concerning the eating of non-kosher creatures (which is certainly as much in the category of non-mefursomos as bassar b'chalav and arayos); yet Chazal (and naturally, then, Rambam) say that when it comes to basar b'chalav, etc., one should have the attitude of "I have the desire to do it, but Hashem prohibited me.'' I offered one answer to both questions: When Rambam says that Hashem wants to instill in us disgust for the act, and the Torah (as per Chazal) says "t'shakstu,'' they mean that despite the fact that we should not deny or seek to eradicate the physical inclination for such pleasures, we must maintain an aversion to succumbing to it except for limited situations. (And the purpose of that is to keep us from doing it in excess, which is the real flaw.) *So although as per MN,] our proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is to instill a reluctance except for limited occasions (such as in a marriage setting), the desire still remaining is not a flaw [as per ShP] to be eradicated.* "I have the desire to do it [even outside of marriage, and I will not eradicate the sexual desire from myself,] but [live with it and constrain it outside of marriage,] because Hashem commanded me so [and this will bring me to perfection]. So, a word about the Moreh's wording. Pines translates: "As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. ... the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity." Friedlander translates: " we ought to limit sexual intercourse altogether, hold it in *contempt,* and only desire it very rarely." Ibn Tibbon translates "ha-arayos, ha-inyan b'kulam shahv l'ma-eit ha-mishgal *v'lim'os* bo, v'shello yirtseh mimennu ki im m'aht mi-za-ir...sheh-inyan ha-tiv'i *nim-ahs* l'hay-a-sos rak l'tsorech." I suspect from the context (lim'os/disgust/contempt, *except for limited occasions*) that the Rambam's original Arabic, not to mention his intention, is closer on the scale to the idea of avoidance for the sake of gaining perfection, than to disgust and contempt. Basically, it translates to what I believe is in fact our common attitude regarding these things. To put things in perspective, note that immediately before this section, the Rambam, following the same attitude of engaging in unrestrained physical pleasures being an obstacle to personal perfection, writes similarly about the activity of eating, again equating what he writes in the Moreh to what he wrote in Shemoneh Perakim: The thirteenth class comprises the commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain foods and what is connected therewith. These are the commandments that we have enumerated in the Laws concerning Forbidden Foods [/Hilkhoth Ma-akholoth Asuroth/]. The [commandments concerning] vows and the state of the Nazarites belong to this class. The purpose of all this is, *as we have explained in the Commentary on the Mishnah in the introduction to Aboth,* to put an end to the lusts and licentiousness manifested in seeking what is most pleasurable and to taking the desire for food and drink as an end. [Email #2. -micha] On 7/22/2015 1:25 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > But the most famous Ramban does speak of perushim tihyu and how perishus > is the key to holiness. ...And his first example is yema'eit > bemishgal... > I presume, in an unXian sense, the Rambam refers to onah, not "only" > piryah verivyah. > Perishus and neqi'us come up a lot in lower-case-m mussar literature, even > among anti-Maimonidians like Rabbeinu Yonah. To quote Mesilas Yesharim ch 13 > ..." And they said about > R. Eleazar (Nedarim 20b) that even in the proper hour and the correct > time he would expose a handbreadth and conceal two hand-breadths and > imagine that a demon was compelling him, in order to cancel out the > feeling of pleasure. > And ch. 14: ... > Separation in relation to pleasures, which we spoke of in the > previous chapter, consists in one's taking from the world only what > is essential to him. > Which also limits marital intimacy to what is necessary to fulfill piryah > verivyah and onah. Which, as I was contemplating to write, shows that the Ramban and Rambam (and as you have pointed out, mainstream Jewish thought) all share the same basic nuanced attitude--despite the Ramban's opposition to the Rambam's presentation. Thanks for the sources. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:00:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:00:43 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> References: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:06 AM, M Cohen via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after > chatzos on Tbav > > Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc > > Why ? > > What changed in the afternoon? (especially since some pple fast both the 9 > th and 10th( > There are two answers in the Birkhei Yosef quoting Sefer Hakavvanot of R. Haim Vital (OH 559 s"k 7) for why we say verses of consolation at minha, both based on Midrash Eicha Rabba, and perhaps the reason is the same. Firstly, that this was when the BHMK began to burn, and it was davka a time of consolation because the people realized that HKBH was pouring his anger on stone and wood, not on flesh and blood. Secondly, that this is the time when the Messiah whose name is Menahem is born. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 22:23:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 01:23:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55B07A69.5020203@gmail.com> On 7/22/2015 1:26 PM, H Lampel wrote: > When Rambam says that Hashem wants to instill in us disgust for the > act, and the Torah (as per Chazal) says ''t'shakstu,'' they mean that > despite the fact that we should not deny or seek to eradicate the > physical inclination for such pleasures, we must maintain an aversion > to succumbing to it except for limited situations. (And the purpose of > that is to keep us from doing it in excess, which is the real flaw.) I should also note that the Rambam teaches that hand-in-hand with the flaw of excessive involvement in physical pleasures, and the ultimate problem with that, is the attitude behind it, of making physical pleasure an end in itself, rather than a side benefit of a means. The Rambam applies this objection to both sexual pleasure for its own sake and eating pleasure for its own sake: The prohibition of certain foods and what is connected therewith.... The purpose of all this is, as we have explained in the Commentary on the Mishnah in the introduction to Aboth, to put an end to the lusts and licentiousness manifested in seeking what is most pleasurable and to taking the desire for food and drink /as an end/. ...The commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain sexual unions... The purpose of this ... is to bring about a decrease of sexual intercourse and to diminish the desire for mating as far as possible, so that it should not be taken /as an end/, as is done by the ignorant, according to what we have explained in the Commentary on the Tractate Aboth. Zvi Lampel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 01:16:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:16:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R' Aharon Lichtenstein was bothered by the difference in opinion regarding marital intimacy between Chazal who seem to have a very positive attitude and the Rishonim (especially the Rambam) who have a very negative attitude and the attitude of contemporary authorities who seem to have swung back to the positive side: "We, for our part, are confronted by a quandary of our own; and it is dual. At one plane, we ask ourselves, within the context of our learn- ing?it is Torah, and we must learn?a simple and straightforward ques- tion. In light of the predominant evidence we have noted from Hazal and, particularly, its halakhic component, how and why did Rambam, Ramban, and some other rishonim, deviate so markedly from their prevalent attitude? With reference to yetser (the inclination)?generic in connotation but defined by Rashi as shel tashmish (sexual desire)?Hazal identify it as one of a triad which, optimally, one should ?let the left hand deflect and the right hand bring close? (Sota 47a). One sometimes gets the impression that the proportion was subsequently inverted. ... To the extent that we do succeed in harmonizing the positions of Hazal and of rishonim, we ameliorate the pressure of one issue but exacerbate that of another. For we are brought, in turn, to a second quandary: our own. While I have conducted no empirical survey, I believe there is little question regarding the sensibility of the contempo- rary Torah world, irrespective of camp and orientation. We stand, fun- damentally, with R. Bar-Shaul. We assert the value of romantic love, its physical manifestation included, without flinching from the prospect of concomitant sensual pleasure; and we do so without harboring guilt or reservations. " Source: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 06:35:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:35:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shimon haTzaddik and Alexander the Macedonian Message-ID: <20150723133509.GA14333@aishdas.org> The story of Shim'on haTzaddiq, in the office of kohein gadol, meeting Alexander the Great, as told in Yuma 69a, is pretty well known. Josephus told the story earlier, in Antiquities 11:8. The Daily Mail recently covered what appears to be another retelling : Mosaic of Alexander the Great meeting a Jewish priest is the first ever non-biblical scene to be discovered inside a synagogue - Artwork was uncovered in a fifth-century synagogue in Huqoq, Israel - May depict Alexander the Great, based on the presence of elephants - Scene is the first non-biblical story to be found in an ancient synagogue - Depictions of Biblical hero Samson are also part of the decorative floor By Sarah Griffiths for MailOnline Published: 03:43 EST, 15 July 2015 | Updated: 07:21 EST, 15 July 2015 ... The artwork was uncovered in the east aisle of a fifth-century synagogue in the ancient Jewish village of Huqoq. ... The largest top strip contains the scene showing a meeting between two men, who perhaps represent the legendary warrior and a Jewish high priest. In the scene, a bearded soldier wearing battle dress and a purple cloak leads a bull by the horns, followed by other soldiers and elephants with shields tied to their sides. He is meeting with a grey-haired, bearded elderly man wearing a ceremonial white tunic and mantle, accompanied by young men with sheathed swords, also in ceremonial clothes. Southern Galil, 5th cent CE. Within a generation of the compilation of Mes Yuma. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 06:14:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:14:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B0E8A7.7050202@gmail.com> I agree with all those who reacted to my remark about Ramban vs Rambam, and I am especially grateful to Marty Bluke for the link to Rav Lichtenstein ztl's comprehensive article that provides the sources and notes the challenges they present. (I think that link was recently posted on R. Gil Student's blog.) As R. Akiva Miller has pointed out, it was Rebbi Eliezer of Nedarim 20b, referenced at the end of Kitzur 150:1 (and, as RAM pointed out, the Mechaber OC 240:8) who is understood to have expressed duress during the marital process. (And who is a Tanna, not an Amora, as I incorrectly stated.) Also, RAM asked, > For purposes of Talmud Torah, where is this Ramban who "strongly disagreed > with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting"? And again, I stand corrected. The Rav who gave me my "chassan shmuess" was probably referring to the /Iggeress ha-Kodesh,/ which, as Rav Lichtenstein pointed out in his article, is often erroneously attributed to Ramban. But apparently, had Rav Lichtenstein been giving me the "chassan shmuez," I would have come away with the same halacha l'ma'aseh regarding attitude. He writes: We cannot, as the author of the /Iggeret ha-Kodesh/ could not, abandon the conviction that so central a component of human nature is not part of the /tov me'od/ of primordial creation. Consequently, impelled by our spiritual instincts and animated by the faith instilled in us by our Torah mentors, we opt for consecration rather than abstinence. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 07:12:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:12:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> Message-ID: <26C8383E-E3E8-4443-8BAD-62AB922C5681@gmail.com> Again, one has to be very careful. There are four different sources here. 1)Shmona Prakim -- chapter 4 -- where reason for laws on arayot is to limit Sexuality -- in the sense of a golden mean. 2)Shmona Prakim -- chapter 6 -- where desire for things forbidden only by halakhah is endorsed as not a spiritual flaw 3) MN 3:35, where he describes category 14 of mitzvot -- relating to arayot -- in terms similar to source 1, as the rambam notes and meforshim point out. 4) MN 3:49 -- where purpose of hilchot arayot is to instill disgust -- not merely control and limit Therefore, RZL is correct that MN 3:35 refers to Spm but chapter 4. One can reconcile sources 1,2 and 3, or 1,3 and 4 -- but difficult to recocile all 4. I would ad that source 2 is problematic, in that it's view of halakhah as an almost arbitrary set of limitations, seems quite different than the rambam's normal presentation of the purpose of Halacha. Meir Shinnar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 10:15:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:15:16 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150723.131516.32484.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> Many posters - and their quoted sources - have compared the desire for intercourse with the desire for food. What I have not seen is any comparison between the *enjoyment* of intercourse and the enjoyment of food. Halacha restricts our eating in many ways, and we are taught that this is to curb our desires. But there are seem to be many exceptions to this, and I don't see parallels to intercourse. We have mitzvos where eating is merely a physical act used as a means to some other end. Achilas Matza might be the best example of this. We need to internalize the matzah and its lessons, but any enjoyment that we might get from this eating is utterly irrelevant. This seems quite comparable to the intercourse, where it is merely a means towards having children. The enjoyment that one gets from the intercourse (like from the matza) is irrelevant - or perhaps even lower, to be eschewed. One might cite Rama Even Haezer 25:2, which lists various permitted forms of intercourse, but to me, that is like saying "You can eat your meat broiled or cooked or fried, as long as you don't put milk in it, and don't eat it too often either." This is NOT what we are told about meat. Rather we are told that eating meat is the only way to enjoy Yom Tov. We are taught that eating is proper and good. When a simcha arises, we must make a meal so as to properly celebrate it. And if there are overlapping simchas, we should add an extra course so that each simcha gets its due. Red wine is more appropriate than white, but if you personally enjoy white, then go for it. Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. - Is the difference really that subtle? To me, it is as subtle as a brick. R' Marty Bluke posted: > Also see RAL's article OF MARRIAGE: RELATIONSHIP AND RELATIONS > ( http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf ) where > he discusses this question and brings many of the sources. Indeed he does bring many sources. And I was particularly intrigued by his conclusion, that the general thrust of recent authorities seems to be very different from before that: > To the extent that we do succeed in harmonizing the positions of > Hazal and of rishonim, we ameliorate the pressure of one issue but > exacerbate that of another. For we are brought, in turn, to a > second quandary: our own. While I have conducted no empirical > survey, I believe there is little question regarding the > sensibility of the contemporary Torah world, irrespective of camp > and orientation. ... We assert the value of romantic love, its > physical manifestation included, without flinching from the > prospect of concomitant sensual pleasure; and we do so without > harboring guilt or reservations. We insist, of course, upon its > sanctification?this, within the context of suffusive kedusha of > carnal experience, generally. and yet, a page later, > Assuming these facts to be correct ? as regards my own spiritual > environs, I can attest directly ? we ask ourselves: How and why > do we depart from positions articulated by some of our greatest > ? "from whose mouths we live and from whose waters we drink" - > and, is this departure legitimate? Are we victims of the Zeitgeist, > swept along by general socio-historical currents? Do we tailor our > attitude on this issue to conform to appetitive convenience and > erotic desire? Have we, in this case, adopted a self-satisfying > posture of facile world-acceptance clothed in culturally correct > garb? I did not find his answers to these questions very satisfying. But I do find his *asking* them to be extremely comforting. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 11:43:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:43:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Relative Priorities Message-ID: <1440012f20ae4d989f0b2c5fdc8b1c1e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> A yahrtzeit shiur is "being sponsored" at the same time as your regular learning seder. Evaluate the various score cards in shamayim (yours, the niftar's, your chavrutah's) depending on whether you attended the shiur or seder (all other things being equal). She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 24 07:09:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 17:09:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: artificial meat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Technological advances are bringing us to ask a pressing question: Does Judaism consider meat created in a laboratory to be kosher? Does Jewish law even consider it to be meat?The question takes on particular significance now, during the nine days, the traditional period of mourning that precedes Tisha B'Av when observant Jews abstain from meat. (Well, theoretical significance, at least ? the world's first lab-grown hamburger, created in 2013, cost a cool $325,000 and it's not exactly available at your neighborhood grocery store yet.)Some kashrut experts are ready to rule the burger kosher, and not only that, parve, reported Ynet reporter Koby Nachshoni ? meaning observant Jews, who won't eat milk and meat together, can eat their test-tube burger topped with cheese. Furthermore, the halachic authorities with whom Nachshon consulted even said this would apply to test-tube pork ? so make that a bacon cheeseburger.But, no surprise here, not everyone agrees about that.Chabad addressed the issue , too, noting that there are precedents for test-tube meat in the ancient Jewish sources. see http://www.haaretz.com/life/food-wine/1.667580 -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:30:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh Message-ID: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> Last night in the shul that I davened B'Leil Zeh was said with great fervor. However, I am wondering if it should have been said at all. B'Leil Zeh is referring to the night of the 9th of Av and the many things that occurred then. Last night was, of course, the night of the 10th of Av. Does it really make sense to have said B'Leil Zeh on the 10th of Av? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:50:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:50:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh In-Reply-To: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 10:30:37AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : B'Leil Zeh is referring to the night of the 9th of Av and the many : things that occurred then. Last night was, of course, the night of : the 10th of Av. Does it really make sense to have said B'Leil Zeh : on the 10th of Av? Now that you made me think about the question, I would ask the reverse one. Bayis sheini was set aflame shortly before sheqi'ah on the 9th and burned through the 10th. So wouldn't beleil zeh only fit a postponed ta'anis? As for bayis rishon... I'm still sorting my way through understandings of Yechezqeil and the Yerushalmi. RMT, kedarko (see ) touches on a nice subset of sources at http://download.yutorah.org/2012/1053/Tisha_Bav_To-Go_-_5771_Rabbi_Torczyner.pdf Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: R' Mordechai Torczyner -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:58:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:58:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh In-Reply-To: <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> References: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150726145900.0654D1831F2@nexus.stevens.edu> At 10:50 AM 7/26/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >Now that you made me think about the question, I would ask the reverse >one. Bayis sheini was set aflame shortly before sheqi'ah on the 9th and >burned through the 10th. > >So wouldn't beleil zeh only fit a postponed ta'anis? > >As for bayis rishon... I'm still sorting my way through understandings >of Yechezqeil and the Yerushalmi. Perhaps two separate tefillos are needed, one for the night of the 9th of Av and one for the night of the 10th of Av. However, given the vast amount of kinos and other tefillos for Tisha B'Av, I am loath to suggest adding any more. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 16:32:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 19:32:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Message-ID: From: M Cohen via Avodah There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why? What changed in the afternoon? Mordechai Cohen >>>> The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 22:02:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:02:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus Message-ID: Thew gemara in Gittin tells the story of the rich lady miryam bat batus who sent her sevant to buy food in the market, before the churban, each time the food is already sold and she finally dies from dung on her foot. OTOH the gemara in ketuvot says that miryam bat batus paid King Yanai a lot of money to appoint her son yehoshua ben gamla as high priest First the two stories are about 150 years apart. In addition Alexander Jannai was himself high priest and unlikely to sell that position -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 20:18:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:18:25 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150726.231825.30515.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> R' Zvi Lampel wrote: > But apparently, had Rav Lichtenstein been giving me the > "chassan shmuez," I would have come away with the same halacha > l'ma'aseh regarding attitude. He writes: > > We cannot, as the author of the /Iggeret ha-Kodesh/ could > not, abandon the conviction that so central a component of > human nature is not part of the /tov me'od/ of primordial > creation. Consequently, impelled by our spiritual instincts > and animated by the faith instilled in us by our Torah > mentors, we opt for consecration rather than abstinence. I am very bothered by this attitude. I will explain why. We have discussed the idea that a posek may sometimes choose a psak based on what "seems right" to him, and then he will find sources to support that conclusion. But if I remember correctly, this is usually done in the case of *new* questions, where there is little precedent to draw upon. But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed. And it changed so recently that Rav Lichtenstein couldn't name any seforim that might have explained it to him. Namely, that for some reason, various people (such as RZL's teacher) started paskening - "halacha l'ma'aseh" in RZL's words - that the halacha follows the Iggeret ha-Kodesh (whose author we aren't sure of) rather than the Shulchan Aruch and Rav Yosef Karo. Why aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? Can we really overturn the Shulchan Aruch simply because "We cannot ... abandon the conviction" that sex is "tov me'od"? When we justify a psak and say we were "impelled by our spiritual instincts", how are we different from Conservative and Reform? I would not speak this way if the topic was a machlokes rishonim. Can someone please point to another major Rishon besides the Iggeret ha-Kodesh who holds that way? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b5a34e339ce234e4610st01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 01:31:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:31:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why? What changed in the afternoon? Mordechai Cohen >>>> The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= R'YBS explained that once the mikdash started burning (PM of TB) we knew hkb"h was taking out his wrath on stones and wood, not us. 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 00:49:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:49:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> On 07/27/2015 01:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Thew gemara in Gittin tells the story of the rich lady miryam bat > batus Martha bat Baytus. > who sent her sevant to buy food in the market, before the > churban, each time the food is already sold and she finally dies from > dung on her foot. > > OTOH the gemara in ketuvot Yoma. 18a. And Yavamos 61a. I could not find any reference to this in Kesubos. > says that miryam bat batus Martha bat Baytus. > paid King Yanai a lot of money to appoint her son Husband > yehoshua ben gamla as high priest. First the two stories are about > 150 years apart. No, they're not. Yehoshua ben Gamla was the Cohen Gadol at the time of the revolt against Rome, and was murdered by the Biryonim. > In addition Alexander Jannai was himself high priest > and unlikely to sell that position Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos in both places points out, for precisely that reason. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 03:22:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:22:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> References: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150727102247.GA8241@aishdas.org> RnTK wrote: : The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting : the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people : (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house : on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. R' Yirmiyohu Kaganoff provided sources at : In some places there is a custom to wash the floors and clean the house on the afternoon of Tisha B'Av. This custom is based on a mesorah that Moshiach will be born on Tisha B'Av afternoon and that it is therefore appropriate to commemorate the redemption and strengthen people's hopes and prayers (based on Beis Yosef 554 and Kolbo). Although this seems like unnecessary work on Tisha B'Av that should be postponed, the poskim rule that one should not discourage those who follow this custom (Birkei Yosef 559:7). On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:31am +0000, R Joel Rich replied: : R'YBS explained that once the mikdash started burning (PM of TB) : we knew [HKB"H] was taking out his wrath on stones and wood, not us. I bet RYBS cited the Gra (OC 555:1). Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: Actually, Google gets most of the credit for filling in vague memories with mar'eh meqomos. -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 05:00:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:00:41 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150727.080041.13995.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> I asked: > I would not speak this way if the topic was a machlokes > rishonim. Can someone please point to another major Rishon > besides the Iggeret ha-Kodesh who holds that way? Alternatively, can anyone cite other halachos, where for centuries the acharonim followed the Shulchan Aruch, and then in recent decades, the poskim decided to follow a minority rishon? My first instinct is to say that the shitos of the Gra are in this category, but there were those who followed the Gra ever since his day, and the only real change is that his views became more and more widespread. Was there ever a community that was known for following the Iggeret ha-Kodesh in this inyan until recently? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b61d8f130a61d8b4299st01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 07:10:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:10:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 11:15:51AM -1000, R/ Dr Noam Stadlan wrote on Areivim: : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded : as ignorance... To do that woud be to disagree with her husband. See "Thinking Aloud", pg 113: DH: What is the heter for a married woman in her house not to cover her hair when there are outsiders present? RYBS: She has to cover her hair. Another exchange: DH: Someone was asking about a woman wearing a kisui rosh in the house. RYBS: We pasken you should. DH: Someone showed me a gemara in Kesubos that b'toch chatzeira it should be mutar, since otherwise there is no way any woman could remain tachas ba'alah (72b). Offhand it occurred to me that if it was lo shechichei inshei - just for going around the house when no one's around, and someone just may drop in - then it would be mutar. But if you have people coming over b'kevius, then why would it be any different than going aroung in the street? Is there a special din in the bayis that there's no din of covering your head anymore? DH: Is this kisui ervah like most kisui ervah? RYBS: Of course. DH: What should I do for myself, for my wife? RYBS: You will find out. There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 08:15:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & the Tosafists. http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ Our *Torah shebe?al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the *Torah shebe?al peh* would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe?al peh* today. I just heard a piece yesterday by Rabbi Weill, from a few years back on Kinnot and the destruction of Ashkenaz and burning of the gemorahs in Paris. It was very devastating for the area. Jews lived in other areas as well, thank God. So the Mesora continued with them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 11:42:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:42:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? Message-ID: From: Micha Berger via Avodah : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded : as ignorance...[--Dr. Noam Stadlan] To do that would be to disagree with her husband. ....There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. -- Micha Berger >>>> A similar quote (third hand): Someone told me he once asked RYBS if a married woman is obligated to cover her hair, and RYBS replied in a somewhat sideways fashion, "You are not obligated to divorce her if she does not do so." You have to understand that it was an era in which most American Jews were throwing away the Torah with both hands. It was hard enough to find a wife who was frum; demanding that she cover her hair was almost impossible in many cases. RYBS was not the only Torah scholar whose wife failed to cover her hair. I have to assume that this was simply one nisayon that was too difficult, given those times. After the post-war influx of chassidim arrived in America, kisui rosh, like so many other neglected mitzvos, became much more acceptable and common. R' Michael Brody in his article on the subject says that the Chofetz Chaim railed against the practice of women in Vilna, even those married to big talmidei chachamim, to go about with their hair uncovered. Although the CC is completely, vehemently, opposed to this practice, R' Brody deduces (I am paraphrasing) that "This proves that many talmidei chachamim did not demand that their wives cover their hair, from which we may deduce that they held kisui rosh was not required, and we may rely on them." This line of reasoning is reminiscent of the joke, "How do we know that Yakov wore a yarmulka? Answer: It says 'Vayetzei Yakov' -- would Yakov have gone out without a yarmulka?!" But at any rate it does indicate that this was a largely neglected mitzva even in Vilna, in the early 20th century -- though neglect of a mitzva does not make the obligation go away. I for one do not hold it against RYBS. What he would have preferred and what was actually obtainable, in that time and place, were not the same. For that time and place, for a woman to be Torah observant was already a madreiga. To have been the wife of such a man -- his rebetzen must have had extraordinary zechuyos. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 11:43:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:43:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> The below (and, btw, R Nachum Lamm makes an interesting point in the comments there) leads me to a different, but related, question: We trace Rashi's mesorah pretty easily back to Rabbeinu Gershom -- but where did _he_ get _his_ mesorah from? How did it get from Bavel and the Gaonim to northern Europe? > RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & the Tosafists. > http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ [1] > Our *Torah shebe?al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the *Torah shebe?al peh* would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe?al peh* today. Links: ------ [1] http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 12:41:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:41:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: From: Kenneth Miller via Avodah >> We have discussed the idea that a posek may sometimes choose a psak based on what "seems right" to him, and then he will find sources to support that conclusion. But if I remember correctly, this is usually done in the case of *new* questions, where there is little precedent to draw upon. But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? --Akiva Miller >>>> It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan Aruch. What frequency is optimum? Surely that is at least partly subjective, and any of the various sources that apparently disagree with each other can be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up what your gut tells you is right. I can easily see a modern day rav or Torah mentor varying his answers depending on the circumstances of the wife and husband who are asking him for advice, as well as accepted societal norms. Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least some obligation to fulfill. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 14:59:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gil Student via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 17:59:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume 2 of his Collected Essays. Gil Student From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 19:55:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 22:55:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Re:Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> References: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:10:59 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah > : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the > : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded > : as ignorance... > > To do that woud be to disagree with her husband. > > See "Thinking Aloud", pg 113: ... > There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with > his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. WADR, Micha misunderstands the issue. The issue is not whether RYBS agreed with his wife's practice -- there are sources (albeit most of them from long after her passing) which would suggest that he may ave disagreed, and paskened otherwise) -- but that is a different issue of whether he viewed it as ignorance -- and for sure not out of the pale of halacha. That is the crux of the issue -- not whether we wish to pasken that this is muttar for ourselves (or for those who listen to us..) -- but how we view those who follow a different shitta -- and anyone who suggests that RYBS viewed his wife as nonobservant or not fully halachically committed is motsi la'az and needs to go to her kever( you can ask R Seth Mandel his opinion how the rav would have viewed such a person) Several related stories: 1) The rav was the posek for a community, who knew that his wife did not cover her hair. The vast majority of that community, even those close to the rav, who followed his every word, did not think that he viewed this as being problematic -- and he had plenty of opportunity to let it be known.... 2) I knew a talmid who was close to the rav in the 70s (shiur many years, rav was measured kiddushin -- unfortunately niftar early. when getting married, he told me that he asked the rav all his shailos -- except about head covering for his wife (she did) -- he said that it was thought problematic to ask him because of the rav's wife 3) Another talmid was once invited, late 70s, to Rav Schwab's shabbes table. Topic got around to data's torah, and rav schwab said that many have it wrong -- there is not one da'as torah -- but da'as torah is the opinion of someone who is wholly torah -- rav kotler is da'as torah, rav feinstein is da'as torah,the satmar is da'as torah. My friend jumped in and asked what about RYBS? Rav Schwab was no fan of RYBS, and he hemmed and hawed and then said that as his wife did not cover her hair, he was not da'as torah. At that point Mrs. Schwab interjected, but you know that none of the litvische rebbitzens covered their hair. At which point R Schwab agreed to that, and then agreed that RYBS was da'as torah..... That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. Meir Shinnar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 06:52:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:52:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> Message-ID: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> On 7/27/2015 2:49 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos > in both places points out, for precisely that reason. > Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any permutation thereof. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 07:31:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:31:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> Message-ID: <55B79226.4030906@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 09:52 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 7/27/2015 2:49 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos >> in both places points out, for precisely that reason. > Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of > there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any > permutation thereof. Except this memra of Rav Assi, which is quoted twice in the gemara with the same language, so it's unlikely to be a mistranscription. Either Rav Assi was mistaken about the king's name, or there was a short-reigned later king of that name whom Josephus didn't bother mentioning, or one of the later kings had Yannai as one of his names, and Josephus didn't bother mentioning it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 07:21:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:21:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> References: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55B78FCC.2020104@sero.name> On 07/27/2015 10:55 PM, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: > At that point Mrs. Schwab interjected, but you know > that none of the litvische rebbitzens covered their hair. At which point > R Schwab agreed to that, and then agreed that RYBS was da'as torah..... > > That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it > was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, > it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. No, it was *not* a shita in Litte, it was a makas medinah. It was an aveira that was prevalent among women, and the best the rabbonim could do was not talk about it to the women, in the hope that they were shogegin. Even in an earlier generation, no less a person than R Akiva Eger had no control over his wife and daughters' mode of dress: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31632&pgnum=300 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 08:57:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:57:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 08:52:45AM -0500, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of : there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any : permutation thereof. Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and Hebrew? 400 years prior, having two names was common and the civil names we know of (Mordechai, Esther, Shadrach, Meshach, Aved-Nego, etc...) bore no relation to their Jewish names. Alternatively: Chazal could have thrown in the timing problem to flag to the historian that they were not speaking historically. After all, we know from the other narratives quoted that they knew the dates for Alexander Yannai wouldn't work. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:21:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 12:21:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> References: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150728162126.GC24227@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 11:09pm EDT, RnTK wrote: : with their friends, "You can't say kaddish for your Ima or your Abba : today, someone else has kadima"? Correct me if I am mistaken but my impression : is that kaddish yasom is really mainly for genuine yesomim, i.e., those who : lose their parents while they are still children. Rather than correct you, let me provide a mar'eh maqom: Rama YD 376:4, quoting the Mahariq. Both of us probably remembering R Michael Poppers posting this. The Rama says that Qadish Yasom was established for Qetanim, because they cannot be Chazan. BUT... the Rama is clear that this ended before the custom of multiple people saying Qaddish at once began. When writing the above, I started wondering about areas like Vilna, where a daughter would say Qaddish for parents who had no sons. Did this minhag begin back when only one person said Qaddish at a time? If so, she would get the same priority for Qaddish Yasom as a qatan, no? But cold you picture such a scene in early 19th cent Litta, a woman saying Qaddish by herself on one side of the mechitzah or by the doorway, and all the men of the minyan answering? So my instinct is that this minhag post-dates group Qaddish. But my instinct might be based on revisionist history, for all I know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:38:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:38:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:153am EDT, R Saul Guberman wrote: : RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & : the Tosafists. : http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ : Our *Torah shebe'al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish : history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a : great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, : but the *Torah shebe'al peh* would have survived without him. However, : without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, : any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe'al peh* today. Which is a different statement than the subject line. I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue understanding the gemara. But one thing RGS loses is RYBS's context. RYBS was saying this in shiur, in a room where talmidim bring a compact edition of the Rambam with them for reference. It's a different thing to make this statement while sitting in Brisk, when you may intentionally state a perspective re-setting idea more strongly than in other settings. On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 2:43pm EDT, R Sholom Simon wrote: : We trace Rashi's mesorah pretty easily back to Rabbeinu Gershom -- but : where did _he_ get _his_ mesorah from? How did it get from Bavel and the : Gaonim to northern Europe? In a teshuvah, Rabbeinu Gershom says he was taught most of his Torah by "R' Leon". He means Rabbi Yehudah (Leontin) ben Rabbi Meir haKohein. R' Leontin was from Iraly, but he was in France before reaching Mainz. In France he picked up talmidim who then followed him to Ashkenaz, including Rabbinu Gershom and R' Yosef Tuv Elem (Tuv Elem = Bonfils, you will see him the the Mordechai alot, Tosafos, and [if you ever have occasion to look] Machzor Vitri). Rabbeinu Gershom took over the yeshiva upon RYBRM's petirah, which is probably why he is "Rabbeinu" rather than "Rav". The thing is, the tradition in Provence is that they came from EY. For example, in Luneil it was (is?) believed that the city was founded by refugees from Yericho, who commemorated their city of origin by using a translation of the same name: yareiach = luna. Which brings me to RGS's reply to R Sholom, written yesterday, Jul 27, 2015, at 5:59pm EDT: : Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German : mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger : disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. : However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments : against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from : Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume : 2 of his Collected Essays. If there is any truth to the Israeli Provencial tradition, we have a link in terms of rabbinic leadership to EY. However, not only do nusach hatefillah, piyut, and a number of pesaqim (which RRW educated me on repeatedly on these "pages" in the past) point toward an EY origin of Ashkenaz, so does something I didn't see R/Dr Soloveitchik address -- genetics. A map of the Jewish genetic tree http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072 shows the closes affinity for the Ashkenazi gene pool were the Italian, Greek, Turkish and Syrian communities. Notably all under the Roman Empire. Whereas the Jews of the geonic lands -- from Bavel through Qairouan, Tunisia -- form a second grouping. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:45:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:45:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728174552.GE24227@aishdas.org> I just posted: : However, the loss of a codifier who : stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of : mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But : Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue : understanding the gemara. I meant to add a different (and to my mind very important) way of looking at this idea: In terms of mesorah, a flow of TSBP as a "dialog down the ages" (to use RYBS's terminlogy), the parshan keeps the chain connected down the ages in a way that a Yad, designed to be stand-alone, does not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:24:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:24:20 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go > by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and > Hebrew? > I don't follow: the Hasmonean and post-Hasmonean kings did all have both Hebrew and Greek or Latin names, but Yannai is a *Hebrew* name, from the same root as Yona. I know someone who Hebraized his surname from Taubmann to Yannai ("Taub" is German for "dove"). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:50:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:50:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 09:24:20AM -0700, Simon Montagu wrote: : > Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go : > by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and : > Hebrew? : I don't follow: the Hasmonean and post-Hasmonean kings did all have both : Hebrew and Greek or Latin names, but Yannai is a *Hebrew* name, from the : same root as Yona. I know someone who Hebraized his surname from Taubmann : to Yannai ("Taub" is German for "dove"). I believe this is a folk etymology. Where would the alef (yud, nun, alef, yud) have come from? But more tellingly, Alexander Janneus's Hebrew name was Yehonasan, like his uncle. See the Latin and Hebrew on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Jannaeus#/media/File:JanaeusCoinPhoto.jpg If he could be "Alexander Yannai" in one language and "Yonasan" in another, who knows it there weren't another king whose Latin name "Janneus" was simply not preserved? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:17:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:17:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: There are those who argued that Tosfos (in particular Rabbeinu Tam) essentially created Ashkenazi mesorah by radically changing how we study and relate to Gemara and how we relate to popular practice. One might suggest without exaggeration that Tosfos created our Mesora. In which case Rashi's mesora is less relevant. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> There certainly is a lot of evidence that Ashkenzi minhagim com more from E"Y than Bavel. But do we know of any chochomim that went from anywhere in the Middle East to Germany? I.e., ok, even if we accept that either there was a third school, or it came from E"Y -- do we yet know *how* it got to Northern Europe? (Or perhaps the answers are in articles that Haym Soloveitchik or David Berger wrote? (And, if so, does anyone have any citations?) -- Sholom On 2015-07-27 17:59, Gil Student wrote: > Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. > > However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume 2 of his Collected Essays. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:18:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:18:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Sources_for_Not_Covering_Hair=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > 2) I knew a talmid who was close to the rav in the 70s ... when getting married, he told me that he asked the rav all his shailos -- except about head covering for his wife (she did) -- he said that it was thought problematic to ask him because of the rav's wife I have a related story. A talmid who was also close to him. When getting married he _did_ ask about a head covering for his wife (after apologizing for asking it). If I remember the story correctly, the Rav smiled and said that he wasn't the right person to ask. -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:41:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:41:08 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Molad Message-ID: Calendars in my home town print the latest times of saying Kiddush Levana, which equate to exactly fifteen days after the announced Molad time. This might be an entire night, or an exact time, e.g. Sunday night 22.45. But since the astronomical Molad can be some distance from the calculated Molad times, by sometimes as much as twelve hours, does this not mean that these sof zeman kiddush levana times can be faulty by that same margin? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:00:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:00:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728180043.GG24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 01:28:42PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : There certainly is a lot of evidence that Ashkenzi minhagim com more : from E"Y than Bavel. Although experts, O Rabbi-PhDs, debate the issue. So what seems obvious to you or me apparently isn't. : But do we know of any chochomim that went from anywhere in the Middle : East to Germany? I already posted the mesorah from EY to Provence to Rabbeinu Gershom. Jews really started reaching the Rhineland area at the invitation of Charlemagne in the 9th cent CE, when he started the Holy Roman Empire. They came from Provence (again) and Italy. Recall that most of the captives from EY ended up in Rome, and you can understand how an Israeli presence in Italy would have already been established. Far more so than the Jews of the geonate -- who, as I mentioned, were living outside the Roman Empire. In mythic form, we have a story of a King Charles invited R' Moshe ben Klonimus from Lucca to Mainz. In documentation form, Louis "the Pious", C's son, left charters showing that he too invited Jewish merchants to provide an economic backbone to his country, and mentions that he was continuing his father's invitation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person must be very patient micha at aishdas.org even with himself. http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:10:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:10:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: AIUI the MN "was all that you needed to study". Are you/RGS saying that this is only as a codifier? RAMBAM did not feel that he was passing on the mesorah? In the end, it does not matter what he wrote, RASHI vs RAMBAM, you must have RASHI, RAMBAM is nice but without RASHI you come to a dead end? On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > > I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah > through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who > stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of > mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But > Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue > understanding the gemara. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:32:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:32:24 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are forgotten after 12 months (memory of the bet hamikdash is different) I have a personal problem with this statement. To my sorry I know of several people who have lost children especially in the age of 18-25. One thing I have learned from these people is that one never forgets a child, It is part of their lives every day. The secretary of my department lost a son in a flash flood in the negev. She changed her last name to incorporate the name of that son. Every time she signs her name she remembers her son, Others who have lost sons in military actions say kaddish every day for the son many years later. I would just imagine that Yaakov having lost his "favorite" son would not forget him after 12 months but indeed would mourn for him forever -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:09:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:09:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 12:41 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > Calendars in my home town print the latest times of saying Kiddush > Levana, which equate to exactly fifteen days after the announced > Molad time. This might be an entire night, or an exact time, e.g. > Sunday night 22.45. That should be halfway between moldos, i.e. 14d 18h 22m after the molad, not a full 15 days. It should also be adjusted for the time difference between your standard time and Y'm's real time, which for NY is 7h 20m in the winter and 6h 20m in the summer. Using a full 15 days is only bediavad. > But since the astronomical Molad can be some distance from the > calculated Molad times, by sometimes as much as twelve hours, does > this not mean that these sof zeman kiddush levana times can be faulty > by that same margin? Yes, but since we have no easy way (other than consulting readily- available secular resources, of course) of determining when the real full moon occurs, we use the calculated moldos, *unless* there is a lunar eclipse, since that by definition happens at the true full moon. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:28:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:28:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B7C9D0.5030709@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 01:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If he could be "Alexander Yannai" in one language and "Yonasan" in > another, who knows it there weren't another king whose Latin name > "Janneus" was simply not preserved? Here's a thought: AFAIK there is no mention in the gemara of a second, bad, King Agrippas. The only Agrippas mentioned is the first one, the good one. Also, as far as I know, there is no record of the second Agrippas's Hebrew name. What if the first Agrippas gave his oldest son Yannai as his Jewish name, after the first Yannai, and that is how he was known among Jews, and therefore by the Amoraim, while Josephus called him by his Roman name, Herod Agrippa? -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:23:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:23:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus Message-ID: <> Any Jewish king would have been over 100 before the churban besides there is the known problem with Yehoshua ben Gamla having his position bought for him OTOH he seems to have done good deeds Interestingly wikipedia writes "*Yehoshua ben Gamla* (or Joshua son of Gamla) was a Jewish high priest who officiated in about 64 CE. He married the rich widow Martha of the high-priestly family Boethos (Yeb. vi. 4), and she by bribing Jannai secured for him the office of high priest (Yeb. 61a; Yoma 18a; comp. "Ant." xx. 9, ? 4). Although Yehoshua himself was not a scholar, he was solicitous for the instruction of the young, and provided schools in every town for children over five years of age, earning thereby the praises of posterity (B. B. 21a). The two lots used on the Day of Atonement , hitherto of boxwood, he made of gold (Yoma iii. 9). Yehoshua did not remain long in office, being forced, after a year, to give way to Matthias ben Theophil ("Ant." xx. 9, ? 7)." i.e. Martha bribed someone named Jannai in 64CE. Not clear who this Jannai is but definitely not a king -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:44:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:44:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B7DB8C.8030404@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 03:23 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Interestingly wikipedia writes I.e. somebody, perhaps with no more information than you or me, wrote > i.e. Martha bribed someone named Jannai in 64CE. Not clear who this > Jannai is but definitely not a king Says who? Why do you say that, especially when not only does the gemara say he was a king, but we know that at the time the kehuna gedola was in the gift of king? -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 13:37:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:37:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? Message-ID: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> From: Meir Shinnar via Avodah >> That is the crux of the issue -- not whether we wish to pasken that this is muttar for ourselves (or for those who listen to us..) -- but how we view those who follow a different shitta -- and anyone who suggests that RYBS viewed his wife as nonobservant or not fully halachically committed is motsi la'az and needs to go to her kever [snip] That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. << Meir Shinnar >>>> [1] No one has ever suggested that RYBS viewed his wife as "nonobservant" so nobody has to go to her kever, although anyone who wants to may do so. I assume her children and grandchildren go on her yahrzeit. The line between observant and nonobservant is pretty clear, even though all of us sometimes sin. I have yet to hear of anyone saying that if a woman keeps Shabbos, kashrus and taharas hamishpacha, but does not cover her hair, she is "nonobservant." However if you know of a person who does say that, please cite the source, thank you. Maybe he is the same person who says that if you talk loshon hara you are nonobservant -- and therefore there are only about 500 observant Jews in the whole world, if that. [2] There is no "different shita." There was no "shitta in Lita" allowing married women to go out with their hair uncovered. What there was in Lita was the winds of Haskala, Reform and sliding, sliding, sliding away from Torah, more marked among the women even than among the men. Sarah Schnirer noted that there were chassidishe homes in Poland where, after the Friday night Shabbos meal, the teenage girls and even the mother would go out to see a play at the local theater. If there was slippage in Poland, where chassidus was strong, you can just imagine what was going on in Lita, where there was nothing to capture the hearts and minds of people who were not themselves talmidei chachamim -- viz, the unlearned masses, and the women. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 14:30:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:30:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> References: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150728213052.GA12259@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:37pm EDT, RnTK wrote: : [2] There is no "different shita." There was no "shitta in Lita" : allowing married women to go out with their hair uncovered... The AhS, whose theory of pesaq gives a lot of weight to seeing which ruling was accepted as general practice, famously permits saying Shema while seeing a married woman with her hair uncovered. But this is what he says in OC 75:7 , where that heter is given: And now, we will cry about the breached of our generation in its many since, for many years Benos Yisrael violate this sin and go with a revealed head. And whateve we yell about this, it doesn't help and it doesn't have an effect. And now this mispachas [oe of the nega'im] has spread, that married [women] go with their hyair like the besulos do. Woe to us that this arose in our generation! Still, al kol panim, according to the din is appears permitted to us to daven and make berakhos opposite their revealed heads, since now that most of them go this way... memeilah there won't be hirhur. So, RYME is pretty clear: It was common, it was viewed has a sin -- not "a different shittah", and the rabbinate did complain but no one listened. And again, that's the AhS, not the textual theoretician "what ought the ideal halakhah be from a clean slate" approach of the MB. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 14:46:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:46:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728214605.GB12259@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 02:10:52PM -0400, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: : AIUI the [MT] "was all that you needed to study". Are you/RGS saying that : this is only as a codifier? RAMBAM did not feel that he was passing on the : mesorah? In the end, it does not matter what he wrote, RASHI vs RAMBAM, you : must have RASHI, RAMBAM is nice but without RASHI you come to a dead end? As the Rambam says in the haqdamah (par 40 ), the goal was to put the "TSBP kulah sedurah befi hakol" -- his primary audience was the masses. And we know how much he thought of the masses. Similarly he continues (41) by telling you he his work "Mishneh Torah" because it fulfills the shelish bemishnah -- the studying of halakhah pesuqah. (He calls it sheliesh BTSBP, but as you just saw in the haqdamah, the Rambam both identifies the two and also says they're contained in his MT.) However, in Hil' Talmud Torah 1:12 tells you that that's only "betechilas tazlmudo shel adam, aval kesheyagdil bechokhmah" he should set time for TSBK and divrei hashemu'ah so as not to forget, "veyifneh kol yamav ligemara". So it is not impossible that even the Rambam himself might agree that those who explain how to do the shaqlara vetarya like gemara, or lomdus, or "veyotzi davar midavar veyidmeh dava ledavar" etc... are more central to the mesorah than his own Mishneh Torah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 13:54:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: <9ea4b.71e33b03.42e9460c@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) >>The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are forgotten after 12 months (memory of the bet hamikdash is different) I have a personal problem with this statement. To my sorry I know of several people who have lost children especially in the age of 18-25. One thing I have learned from these people is that one never forgets a child << --Eli Turkel >>>>> My grandmother had a baby daughter who died at the age of five months, and fifty years or more after that, I once asked her about the baby she had lost. She started to cry as if it had just happened, and described the baby in detail -- what she looked like, what she could do at five months and so on. So I learned the lesson that a parent never forgets a lost child. However, she only cried for a little while and then returned to her cheerful self. I'm sure that in the year after her baby died, she was not cheerful. I don't think "gezeira al hameis" means the person is literally forgotten, but that the degree of mourning becomes less intense. Initially the bereaved person, especially a bereaved parent, simply cannot believe the child is gone, and constantly thinks and even dreams about the child. With the passage of months and years, the knowledge that the child is truly gone is assimilated and the parent goes on with life, even if a heaviness always remains somewhere in the background. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 15:38:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 18:38:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150728223810.GD12259@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:12am EDT, R/Dr Meir Shinnar wrote: : Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions : I) in hazal - that continued desire for some forbidden actions : is compatible with a high spiritual state - issue is control of : the desire - NOT its presence : II) Aristotelian ethics - a high spiritual state does not desire : for forbidden - the desire is a sign of a flaw. But chazal too talk in terms of virtue ethics, not just in terms of kibush hayeitzer (overcoming the desire) but also tiqun hayeitzer (adjusting those desires). Most famously, "mah Hu Chanun, af atah chanun". Or, as the Rambam paraphrased, "mah hu *niqra* 'Chanun'..." It doesn't speak of giving to others without cause despite desire, it asks us to develop the middos of chanun, rachum, etc... Now, on to a totally different topic... On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 05:15:16PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote: : Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. Sex : is proper as long as you minimize it. - Is the difference really that : subtle? To me, it is as subtle as a brick. I think the difference is just about that, but because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: 1- It involves a second party. There is no threat of objectifying good. 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... Therefore, the attitude toward perishus for each comes from opposite directions. For food, which is necessary for survival, we talk about how much is too much. For sex, we talk about the right balance between keeping the other happy (chiyuv onah) and turning them into a tool for your own happiness. The bottom line is still the same: perishus from challenges I cannot handle while be maqdish olam hazeh the rest of the time. The details differ due to the differences above. On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:18am GMT, Kenneth Miller wrote: : .... This is a case where the Shulchan : Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went : uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed... On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:41pm EDT, Rn Toby Katz replied: : It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too loosely. If : it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim and acharonim, agree : that marital intercourse is always mutar (assuming the usual, the wife is not : a nidah, it's not forced, it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really : talking about here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan : Aruch. What frequency is optimum? Surely that is at least partly subjective, ... While what I said before about "minimize it" not meaning all that different from "don't overdue" addresses this question of RAM's as well, I think RnTK's response is really the essence of the answer. But to quibble with the language... I'm not sure it's "hashkafah" as much as Hilkhos Dei'os / Chovos haLvavos. After all "Qedoshim tihyu" is a chiyuv, not a nicety, and that's a source for "perushim tihyu". What a mitzvah to be or to become something (such as "qadosh") is in practice, though, is inherently situational and subjective. If we were talking about something reducible to black-letter halakhah and objective rules, it would have been. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 15:58:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:58:41 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <20150728.185841.2133.0@webmail10.vgs.untd.com> R"n Toby Katz wrote: > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar > (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, > it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might also be RTK's point). But if that is how we are to understand the vocabulary, then we have a whole new way of reading the Shulchan Aruch. Here are some examples: It's not assur to shmooze between Geulah and Tefillah of Maariv. (236:2) It's not assur to say Shehecheyanu on the Lulav on the second day. (662:2) Surely that is at least > partly subjective, and any of the various sources that apparently disagree with each other can be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up what your gut tells you is right. I can easily see a modern day rav or Torah mentor varying his answers depending on the circumstances of the wife and husband who are asking him for advice, as well as accepted societal norms. Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least some obligation to fulfill. ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b8096a62fe9695575st03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 20:51:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:51:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 02:09:11PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : That should be halfway between moldos, i.e. 14d 18h 22m after the : molad, not a full 15 days. It should also be adjusted for the time : difference between your standard time and Y'm's real time, which : for NY is 7h 20m in the winter and 6h 20m in the summer. Using : a full 15 days is only bediavad. Y-m time to EST is 7h 21m, not 20. But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we call it. It's hard to know exactly where the molad is being announced for, since the average lunation has changed over time and the accumulated difference between estimation and reality over millenia has grown large. Right now, the average molad matches the average moment of new moon for Qandahar, Afghanistan. If we go back in time to when the molad was closest to one lunar month, we get to 4th cent CE, the days of Hillel Nesi;ah. The av beis din to whom R Hai Gaon attributes our current calendar. If we assume the molad then was most accurate in start time as well when it was most accurate in durection, then the molad is being announeced for something like Ur Kasdim, which is also around the middle of Jewish settlement at the time, between the Nile and the Euphrates. In which case, the molad is being announced for a place 44 min after IST (not 21m). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 23:45:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 02:45:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 11:51 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Y-m time to EST is 7h 21m, not 20. True. I was approximating, much as the Rambam did with Y'm latitude. > But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we > call it. http://mechon-mamre.org/i/3811.htm#17 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:33:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 02:45:03AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we :> call it. : http://mechon-mamre.org/i/3811.htm#17 The Rambam there (Qiddush haChodesh 11:17) discusses the calculation of the calendar. The rules are set up based on RC in Y-m. Announcing the molad doesn't reflect the calculated calendar, but the whole Qiddush haChodesh is set up to invoke Sanhedrin being meqadesh al pi re'iyah. So perhaps they chose a clock for announcing the molad that wasn't the one they used to translate to the meridian used for translating mollad into rosh chodesh. Why would we do so? Isn't the meridian of Y-m the obvious time to use even if it weren't the one used to compute the calendar? As I quickly mentioned (I gave more details more than once in the past), I am suggesting a different meridian because if Hillel Nesi'ah ubeis dino had assumed a molad that was 23 min earlier than the one we announce, the molad would be more accurate. 23 min later than Yerushalayim does correspond to a meaningful place at the time, a point exactly midway between the Jews of EY and those of Bavel. Aside from including Ur Kasdim. Not the most obvious choice (Yerushalayim) but still not a random meridian either. So why not assume they picked the meridian for announcing the molad on that basis, and credit the Sanhedrin with knowing the molad to greater accuracy? The question is what that does to molad zaqein, and how we would explain the clean result of before noon vs posponing RH if the molad is after noon. The idea behind molad zaqein is that the furthest east Jewish community would still be able to see (weather permitting) the new moon before the end of RC. This is obviously only a loose idea, since we're talking about timing based on the molad, an approximate average. (So that on average Jews in the east would see the new moon...?) RYGB and/or RAZZ theorize http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n038.shtml#08 that the Calendar Controversy was over the issue of how far east do we worry about. R' Aharon ben Meir wanted to move the cutoff for molad zaqein by 64 chalaqim. (More than 23 min, ie 414 chalaqim.) He doesn't say why. Their article suggests that RABM was setting the rule for molad zaqein based on the furthest known Jewish settlement at that time. Which would be Kaifun, and the numbers work. Whereas RSG objected saying that the location is theoretical, not experimental. The Kuzari (following RSG -- since it's his version of the calendar that we all use) uses this to argue that the international date line is 90 deg east of Y-m ih"q. And thus any Jewish settlement that would be further east would be on the other side of the date line WRT Rosh Chodesh, and there is no problem of the molad being on their day 2. If so, changing the molad by 23 min would change the calendar, halakhah would prove my claim wrong. But few if any of us hold that the date line is 90 deg east of Y-m, east down 125.2 deg E, down Dongeng St in Changchun, China. To quote R Dovid Heber at : Families on the eastern strip of Dongfeng Street would recite kiddush while families a block to the west would recite havdala. It may be possible for those who want two days of Shabbos to walk one block eastbound, down Dongfeng Street, after Seuda Shlishis and start Shabbos again. Those who want to skip almost all of Shabbos could take a short stroll westbound, and go from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. (This post needed something light to leaven it.) >From where I sit, between those who say 180deg and the CI's adjudgment of including the entire land mass if part of it is west of 90deg, the dominant shitah is inconsistent with the Kuzari's explanation. If the date line is not involved, it would mean the machloqes would be about what we mean by the far enough end of Jewish settlement who would still experience the molad before the end of RC. RSG is saying that 90 deg is the Sanhderin mandated estimate, and RABM holds it's the actual furthest settlement. And that stands whether or not RYGB and RAZZ are correct about RAML's sevara, as we're only looking at RSG lehalakhah. I just took the Kuzari's lomdus and asked what it would mean to those who don't agree with his date line. If that line of reasoning is correct, then saying the approximate eastmost community is to be measured from the center of the core Jewish settlement -- between Bavel and EY -- ends up more intuitive than saying it's measured from Y-m. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 05:11:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:11:28 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Ooops! Yesterday I accidentally pressed "send" when I meant to "save draft". The result was a post that was far from finished. Here is what I had intended to publish: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar > (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, > it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might also be RTK's point). But IF that is how we are to understand the vocabulary, then we have a whole new way of reading the Shulchan Aruch. Here are some examples of this new way of understanding: It's not assur to shmooze between Geulah and Tefillah of Maariv (236:2) or to say Shehecheyanu on the Lulav on the second day (662:2) or to say Hallel on RH and YK (584:1) or to get a haircut before Mincha (232:2). It's not assur to daven only in your heart, but it's better if you pronounce the words with your lips. (101:2) I will concede that these examples are indeed less severe than cases where the Shulchan Aruch DOES use the word "assur". But nevertheless, we do not take these halachos as mere suggestions. Despite the lack of the word "asur", we DO accept it as normative psak halacha, and not as "hashkafa", to use RTK's word. So why should Siman 240 be different? Why would we suddenly take the words of Siman 240 to be hashkafa, and wave off the Shulchan Aruch, saying that his derech is different than our derech? Shouldn't we accept it as normative halacha? Even if I feel these halachos to be strange or difficult, shouldn't I at least accept them as a goal to strive for? And if I *don't* strive for them, doesn't that require teshuva? > Surely that is at least partly subjective, and any of the > various sources that apparently disagree with each other can > be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up > what your gut tells you is right. Maybe, but one had better be VERY sure that those sources actually exist, and that they have ample support in the poskim. Otherwise - as I asked a couple of posts ago - how is this any different than what the conservative and reform do? "It's a big machlokes - there's gotta be someone who paskens the way I want, so that's what I'm gonna do." I shudder when I hear otherwise-observant people saying such things. There are indeed some cases where there is such a *lack* of consensus among the poskim that one can do as he wants (one of my teachers paskened this way and for this reason regarding brachos on dessert), but I do not see Siman 240 in this category. We seem to be abandoning the consensus of the Shulchan Aruch and Nosei Keilim, and running to minority rishonim. > Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing > this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing > to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation > of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional > closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly > pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least > some obligation to fulfill. Are we really sure that (for the wife) physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness from the Torah's perspective? Or perhaps that is only an invention of minds which have been clouded by the outside culture? Could it be that Onah requires physical closeness, but not emotional closeness? I get mixed messages on this. On the one hand, an awful lot of Siman 240 is devoted to husband and wife both being of the proper frame of mind, and this is extremely strong evidence to the real importance of emotional closeness. But when I see halachos about keeping conversation to a minimum, and keeping the time involved to a minimum, then I wonder how much closeness can be achieved. I had posted: : Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. : Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. R' Micha Berger responded: > ... because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: > ... 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... Really? Can we really survive without it? You and me, I suppose, but that's because we are male. RTK referenced mitzvas onah. In the Torah's view, sex is as essential as food and shelter are. But only for women. Regardless of whether we're talking about physical closeness or emotional closeness, it seems that the Torah is concerned about closeness only for the woman, and not for the man. For women, closeness is a need which must be met; for men, closeness is a taavah which must be controlled. Let's not allow ourselves to get confused between needs and taavos. A person may desire something so much that he thinks it to be a need, but he is deluding himself. Nowhere do I see any responsibilities of the wife which are comparable to Mitzvas Onah. Yes, she'll be a "moredet" if she refuses, but (as I understand it) that is due to the social contract implicit in the concept of marriage, which is a very cry from a Chiyuv D'Oraisa. ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b8c3465e5f543465c9est02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:01:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:01:07 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla Message-ID: according to the Hebrew wikipedia Matyha bat Baytus bought the high priesthood for her husband Yehoshua ben Gamla towards the end of the second Temple. As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai and they guess that it was from Agripas II. Furthermore Yehoshua Ben Gamla was killed during the revolt against Rome. (Where the high priest Yishmael ben Elisha fits in we have discussed in the past) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:07:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:07:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150729160759.GF12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 06:01:07PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> according to the Hebrew wikipedia Matyha bat Baytus bought the high :> priesthood for her husband Yehoshua ben Gamla towards the end of the second :> Temple. As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai and they guess :> that it was from Agripas II. : Furthermore Yehoshua Ben Gamla was killed during the revolt against Rome. : (Where the high priest Yishmael ben Elisha fits in we have discussed in the : past) The gemara is Yuma 18a and Yevamos 61a. The mishnah in Yevemos says that Yehoshua ben Gamla married Marta bas Baisus, an almana, but before consummating the marriage "umanahu melekh" to be kohein gadol, The point of the mishnah is that they can stay married, as actually happened in this event. The gemara comments on the language of "manahu" rather than the expected "nisnamneh" to denote that the appointment wasn't the usual approval of a candidate selected by the kohanim and vetted by Sanhedrin. Then the gemara says she spent two qavin ("tarqav" = trei + qav) of dinarim to buy it. The gemara in Yuma makes this last point as well. Josephus (Antiquities XX 9:4 ) wrote that he became KG during the reign of Herod Agrippa II. Nothing about how. The translation reads weird, calls him "Jesus the son of Gamaliel". I went to the Soncino, since I don't know who else would comment on a gemara - Josephus interaction. Fn 16 on Yuma, 20 on Yevamos make the identity. They first opine that "Jannai is often employed in the Talmud as a general patronymic for Hasmonean and Herodian rulers." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:30:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:30:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?HILCHOS_KIBUD_AV_V=92EIM?= Message-ID: <20150729153144.1CF3218089B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://halachafortodaycom.blogspot.com/2013/02/archives-hilchos-kibud-av-veim.html Some selections from this site. The Aseres HaDibros, the Ten Commandments given to us by Hashem on Har Sinai are divided into two parts, the first five are commandments between man and Hashem (Bein Adam L?Makom) and the last five are commandments between man and fellow man (Bein Adam L?Chaveiro) Kibud Av V?Eim ,the fifth of the Aseres HaDibros, is listed amongst the commandments that are between man and Hashem even though it is seemingly a commandment that is only between man and man. The reason for this is that honoring one?s parents is akin to honoring Hashem. There are 3 partners in every human being, the father, the mother and Hashem. If one honors any of the three it is as if all three have been honored, and if one dishonors any of the three it?s as if all three have been dishonored. 1)It is prohibited to contradict a parent. (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah Siman 240:2) If a parent has a verbal disagreement with another person, and the child tells the other person ?I concur with your view?, it is considered contradicting the parent and is prohibited. (Shach Yoreh Deah 240:2) 2) According to some Poskim this prohibition is only in the presence of the parent. Other Poskim, however, maintain that even not in the presence of the parent it is prohibited. 1)It is forbidden to call a parent or refer to them by their name; rather they need to be referred to as ?My father [my teacher]? or ?My mother?. 1) What constitutes ?Kibud, respecting? parents? One must speak to their parents softly, with respect the way one would speak to a king. 1) Children are obligated to stand up for their parents when they enter a room. 1) If a parent does something that is against the Torah and a child sees, the child should not say ?You transgressed a Torah prohibition?, as bluntly saying so will cause the parent embarrassment. Rather, the child should say something to the effect of: ?Father Does it say in the Torah that one should not .?? in a way that sounds like a question and not like a chastisement or rebuke, and the parent will realize on their own that they have committed the sin. 1) If one?s father asks for a glass of water or any other task, and at the same time his/her mother asked for a glass of water or another task, tending to the father?s needs takes precedence, as the son/daughter and the mother are both obligated to respect the father/husband. 2) If a parent is sleeping it is forbidden to wake them up. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:51:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:51:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B8F66D.2000701@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 11:33 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > > But few if any of us hold that the date line is 90 deg east of Y-m, > east down 125.2 deg E, down Dongeng St in Changchun, China. To quote > R Dovid Heber at: > Families on the eastern strip of Dongfeng Street would recite > kiddush while families a block to the west would recite havdala. > It may be possible for those who want two days of Shabbos to walk > one block eastbound, down Dongfeng Street, after Seuda Shlishis and > start Shabbos again. Those who want to skip almost all of Shabbos > could take a short stroll westbound, and go from sunset Friday to > sunset Saturday. > (This post needed something light to leaven it.) Shu"T Bnai Tziyon points to a gemara about two villages within techum shabbos, where it was Yom Kippur in one and not the other, because that was the last place the messenger had made it before sunset. (I can't figure out how that actually worked, but that is what the gemara says.) He avoids the awkwardness of the situation posited in this clip by positing that the line is not one-dimensional but is several miles wide, and that the area inside the line has an official din of sofek, like bein hashmoshos. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:21:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 19:21:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: saw some trivia questions: 1) Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters of the alph-bet (I only know one) 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:51:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:51:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150729165138.GH12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 07:21:20PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 1) Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters : of the alph-bet (I only know one) Soferim use Tzefania 3:8 to show their penmanship, because it not only includes all 22 letters, it also includes all the sofios. Is that a way to denote total ultimate justice (the meaning of the words ) or what? This question is easier than that, just asking for 22 letters, not whether sofis or not. I already heard this one so I will leave the other 6 for others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:58:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B8F834.5060103@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 11:01 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > according to the Hebrew wikipedia Which is no more authoritative than English WP, and in fact seems to have looser rules regarding sourcing. > Matyha bat Baytus Martha. > As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai As Tosfos already points out, in both places where the gemara quotes this memra. > they guess that it was from Agripas II. That seems like a good guess, that the Yannai in the memra refers to the king Josephus calls Herod Agrippa II, but it is only a guess. On 07/29/2015 12:07 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I went to the Soncino, since I don't know who else would comment on a > gemara - Josephus interaction. Fn 16 on Yuma, 20 on Yevamos make the > identity. They first opine that "Jannai is often employed in the Talmud > as a general patronymic for Hasmonean and Herodian rulers." Which, for all we know, it may have been. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 10:13:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:13:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B909C7.7070906@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 12:21 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach 1. The definition of an "edah" from "this wicked edah". 2. Hezek re'iyah from Bil'am. 3. Standing for a davar shebikdusha, from Eglon. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 14:57:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:57:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150729215724.GA3540@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:11:28PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : R"n Toby Katz wrote: : > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too : > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim : > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar.... : > What we are really talking about : > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan : > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... : : Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. : : I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount : of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as : "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" : (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken : literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that : these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might : also be RTK's point). Which is why I quibbled with RnTK's language. Becauser I think it's assur -- really and actually assur -- not to try for perishus where possible. It's a bitul asei of "qedoshim tihyu". However, a mitzvah of hilkhos dei'os is to stretch, to move the nequdas habechirah and is therefore not only "at least partly subjective" but necessarily subjective. And if the criteria for behavior could be spelled out non-subjectively, they would be spelled out in chovos ha'eivarim. : I had posted: :: Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. :: Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. : R' Micha Berger responded: :> ... because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: :> ... 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... : Really? Can we really survive without it? You and me, I suppose, : but that's because we are male. Under normal circumstances, one can't go 3 days without food and water. Not just "one would be miserable if", but actual death. I am not sure how you could compare the need for intimacy to that kind of mechanistic do-or-die. : RTK referenced mitzvas onah. In the Torah's view, sex is as essential : as food and shelter are. But only for women. I disagree. And BTW, my #1 which you ellided /was/ mitzvas onah. : Regardless of whether we're talking about physical closeness : or emotional closeness, it seems that the Torah is concerned about : closeness only for the woman, and not for the man. For women, closeness : is a need which must be met; for men, closeness is a taavah which must : be controlled. Or, the Torah presumes that opportunity is in the hands of men. Not a difference in desire. Or -- a 3rd possibility -- lehefech, men are presumed more likely to get distracted by their own taavos and objectify their spouse and therefore the chiyuv of onah to focus on someone else's psychological needs. In any case, the requirement to avoid misery would motivate a chiyuv, one needn't define it as a need. Esperically since biologically, it's not necessary for survival the way food, drink or air are. But getting back to what you're saying here... Let me repeat point #1 in different phrasing: Because onah is indeed a chiyuv, saying that it should be minimized outside the realm of mitzvah isn't that much of a minimization. And yet, the threat of erotic desire becoming an end in itself is both more damaging, since there will be other victims beyond the self-destructive aspect and more likely. (In most people's psychology -- it's not like there is an internet food "porn" industry.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 15:37:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:37:27 GMT Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> R' Eli Turkel asked: > The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov > mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are > forgotten after 12 months ... > > I have a personal problem with this statement. ... one never > forgets a child R"n Toby Katz answered: > I don't think "gezeira al hameis" means the person is literally > forgotten, but that the degree of mourning becomes less intense. > ... the parent goes on with life, even if a heaviness always > remains somewhere in the background. I have had the same question as RET, and I thank RTK for this answer. I have written on several occasions, about my belief that Chazal often exaggerate, and this misleads those who are not used to their style of speaking. I think we have here another example of the same thing. There's a tendency to take Chazal at literal face value. We need to be more careful when reading the poetry. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 08:02:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:02:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Parallels in Kiruv Message-ID: <56c357c0b3404dbcbfc7bce2d25a6162@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Here's a quote from "Their Rock is Not Like Our Rock" - Daniel Strange In a recent article addressed to evangelical pastors I outlined a three-point "to do" list that might begin to move us into this stance: * Develop and deploy a biblically rich and nuanced theology of religions * Discern and denounce the arrogance and intolerance of pluralism * Demonstrate and display, in both word and deed, the unique power of the gospel to change lives and communities My impression is the first two are not generally done by kiruv folks but I was wondering if you replace gospel with orthodoxy and evangelical pastors with kiruv professionals, what fits? Should it be considered as an approach? Kol Tuv, 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 09:30:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:30:47 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: 'oh hanisa elokim' is one; the other is in parshat haman , i forget which one. will leave the dvar tora connecting the two , to others , other than to say the import of 'zeh gilui shechina' and lechem mishamayim as fundaments of faith,,,, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 10:38:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:38:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: From: Eli Turkel via Avodah " 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach -- Eli Turkel >>>>> Don't know if this is what you had in mind but I can think of these: [1] A woman cannot be married without her consent -- learn from Lavan -- "Nish'alah es pi hana'arah" before sending Rivka off with Eliezer to marry Yitzchak. [2] A younger sister cannot marry before the older sister (unless she gets permission from her) -- from Lavan again, excusing himself for giving Leah to Yakov instead of Rachel. [3] Celebrating seven days of sheva brachos -- from two places. One is Lavan again -- give Leah a week to celebrate and then Yakov can marry Rachel. And from the Pelishti "friends" of Shimshon who celebrated his wedding for a week. [4] We also learn from Izevel (Jezebel) that it's a big mitzva to dance at a wedding, to be mesameach chassan vekallah, but strictly speaking this is not in Tanach, it's a midrash. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 11:41:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:41:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: In Avodah V33n109, RET posted > Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters of the alph-bet (I only know one) < In the Torah, a *pasuq* in P'Va'eschanan (4 :34) is usually noted, but it (containing letter *sin* but no *shin*) works only when the *shin* and the *sin* are considered the same letter (they are, so long as we're considering the written form). The other *pasuq* in the Torah of which I'm aware is Shmos 16 :16 (in it, the *shin* is extant but there's no *sin*). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 15:30:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:30:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months In-Reply-To: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150730223053.GA17753@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:37:27PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : I have written on several occasions, about my belief that Chazal often : exaggerate, and this misleads those who are not used to their style of : speaking. I think we have here another example of the same thing. There's : a tendency to take Chazal at literal face value. We need to be more : careful when reading the poetry. Tanakh sometimes does something else with a similar effect, and it may be what Chazal are doing here. Lei'ah, rather than being described as "less loved" is "senu'ah". It's not necessarily exageration as much as a language norm to express a relative statement uing the same terms as absolutes. Here too chazal are making a comparison. Was the reader expected to know it's guzma, or was the norm in mishnaic Hebrew as well to use the term for the end of the spectrum to mean "less mourned than"? My problem with this is the parent of the MIA who can't let go for years or decades, and then it's found out that the chayal r"l was killed upon capture (or their body was taken after petirah for a bargaining chip). We have no experimental evidence of parents having that mystical knowledge of their children's state, and quite a bit of evidence otherwise. Perhaps Yaaqov avinu, or even someone with "just" ruach haqodesh is that aware of what's going on on the plane of souls without learning about them through normal olam hazeh means. But I do not see it being true of the majority of humanity. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 20:39:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 03:39:12 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> I tried to make the point that although many try to show similarites between food and sex, if we look at the Torah's view, there are far more differences. I suggested a rule of thumb: > Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. > Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. Chazal see food as an entirely proper way of enjoying olam hazeh, to the point that it is actively encouraged as a form of all sorts of celebrations. (And not only happy celebrations, but eating is also involved in various mourning practices.) Under normal circumstances, one can and should eat as much as he needs, subject to the limitations of kashrus and brachos. One is never allowed to eat in a quantity or manner that he becomes a menuval, but that is not a major concern. Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah. And even there, the restrictions are many. Food has tremendous room for creativity even within the restrictions of hilchos kashrus and brachos. Sex could be similar, even within the bounds of hilchos nidda and arayos, but the restrictions set out in OC 240 go much farther than merely to insure that one does not become a menuval. R' Micha Berger responded: > I think the difference is just about that, but because of the > biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: > 1- It involves a second party. There is no threat of > objectifying [food]. > 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... > Therefore, the attitude toward perishus for each comes from > opposite directions. For food, which is necessary for survival, > we talk about how much is too much. For sex, we talk about the > right balance between keeping the other happy (chiyuv onah) > and turning them into a tool for your own happiness. I think that he is agreeing with me that food and sex are very different, but I disagree with his explanation of *why* they are so different. In his first point, intended to be "food"), he seems to feel that the restrictions on sex are to prevent people from taking advantage of each other: If I have even a small desire for a snack, the Torah has no problem at all if I go to the kitchen and take an apple (provided that I say the bracha to acknowledge Hashem's involvement) because the apple is nothing more than an apple. But while casual eating is fine, casual sex is not. Casual sex involves people, and they must not be taken advantage of. My problem with this is on several levels. First, Chazal are pretty explicit that the purpose of Hilchos Nida is to restore a honeymoon-style atmosphere on a regular basis, and that alone might suffice to insure that spouses aren't objectified. Also, we have the many parts of OC 240 which insure that husband and wife are in the same "place" emotionally: no one is drunk, words of "ritzui", and so on. But isn't that sufficient protection against objectifying? What is gained from the additional restrictions (such as various positions, or finishing quickly) which have no parallel in food? In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach the Torah uses for Onah. While men and women are pretty much identical in the halachos of food, Onah places the husband and wife in opposite situations. Any discussion of Onah that uses the word "spouse" will be flawed, because Onah treats the husband and wife so differently. For example, whenever the wife desires relations, then the husband has a clear and present chiyuv d'Oraisa. But if the husband desires, she has no corresponding obligation; in fact (if I'm not mistaken) she's not even labeled as a "moredet" until after prolonged and repeated refusals. It seems to me that Onah may have the effect of objectifying males. Those parts of Orach Chaim 240 which forbid unwilling relations ought to suffice to insure that the women are not objectified. But Onah seems to push the pendulum too far. In response to RTK, RMB wrote: > I'm not sure it's "hashkafah" as much as Hilkhos Dei'os / Chovos > haLvavos. After all "Qedoshim tihyu" is a chiyuv, not a nicety, > and that's a source for "perushim tihyu". > What a mitzvah to be or to become something (such as "qadosh") > is in practice, though, is inherently situational and subjective. > If we were talking about something reducible to black-letter > halakhah and objective rules, it would have been. And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective rules", is it not? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 1 22:55:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 00:55:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: I initially replied on Areivim to a post reminding women during the summer to cover their hair. Mrs. Katz added that there was no support for those who hold that hair covering in public is not necessary. Others have disputed what RYBS's position on hair covering was, in view of the fact that his wife did NOT cover her hair in public at all times(someone seems to have the impression that she wore a hat). Here are the sources I have collected, in addition to the fact that a significant percentage of Modern Orthodox women to not cover their hair in public except in shul/davening situations. In response to those who have stated that the younger more educated women are covering their hair, I would point out that they have been educated to believe that it is an obligation, and the permissive sources have not been shared with them- case in point Mrs. Katz who either is not aware or chooses to dismiss them out of hand. In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is: if it is the practice of women to cover [their hair] and she uncovered it, then this is immodesty ( *ervah*). But if it was not the regular practice [of women] to cover [their hair] then [going uncovered] is not in the category of immodesty at all. If they uncover one hand?s-breadth in a place where they are habituated to cover then it is [a case of] uncovering immodesty and it is prohibited to read the Shema prayer in their presence... But if their (ladies?) custom is to uncover their hair (or a hand?s-breadth of the body) ? as single women do who by custom walk around with head [hair] uncovered - then this [action] does not constitute immodesty (*ervah*)." If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. Here is a list of easily accessable sources: Rabbi Marc Angel(former president of the Rabbinical Council of America) discusses why hair covering is not mandated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbrQwEerLsY Massive article by Rabbi Michael Broyde: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/0095-0180.pdf I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and everyone can come to their own conclusion. Rav Yosef Haim(author of Ben Ish Chai) writing that hair covering is not necessary(and how his opinion was altered by others): http://text.rcarabbis.org/the-ben-ish-hai-and-women%E2%80%99s-hair-covering-an-interesting-case-of-censorship-by-jacob-sasson/ See Rabbi Broyde's article(pages 155-158) for citations of those who state that hair covering is not mandated in the current society: R. Yitzchak Hurwitz in Yad HaLevi R. Moshe Malka(late Chief Rabbi of Petach Tikvah) R. Josef Messas(late chief rabbi of Morocco and later Haifa) R. Yaakov Haim Sofer Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did not cover her hair? Was this permitted by the *halachah*, or was it not prohibited on the grounds of modesty? He took out a *Gemara Berachot*, opened it to page 24A and showed me the Talmudic statement. "Said Rav Sheshet: [showing] hair by a woman is *ervah *(an act of immodesty)." Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with uncovered hair. Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat common. Some will say that- 'they couldn't control their wives' or other such statements. I would point out that RYBS also went to the opera- perhaps in keeping with an approach that hair wasn't erva, a lenient view of kol isha, all of which seems consistent. Furthermore, it seems quite far fetched that a rav who knew that he had great communal status would abide by gross violation of halacha in public by his own family, and at the very least would make it clear that he did not hold by it. Obviously, the fact that he did not make a deal of it(certainly not a big deal), illustrates something. Do you think he would countenance his wife eating treif? furthermore, the chiyyuv is also for men not to see hair(if that is the position that is being taken), and by not protesting his wife's uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 2 03:40:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 13:40:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: <<> 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach 1. The definition of an "edah" from "this wicked edah". 2. Hezek re'iyah from Bil'am. 3. Standing for a davar shebikdusha, from Eglon. >> Some others are: 4. Lavan: Sheva Brachot; also the Bracha we give the Kalla at the bedeken 5. also "chaye shaah" is less important that "chaye olam" from the 4 lepers, gechazi and his sons -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 2 01:25:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 11:25:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: ""It's a big machlokes - there's gotta be someone who paskens the way I want, so that's what I'm gonna do." I shudder when I hear otherwise-observant people saying such things. There are indeed some cases where there is such a *lack* of consensus among the poskim that one can do as he wants (one of my teachers paskened this way and for this reason regarding brachos on dessert), but I do not see Siman 240 in this category. We seem to be abandoning the consensus of the Shulchan Aruch and Nosei Keilim, and running to minority rishonim." R' Lichtenstein was bothered by this point and answered that we need to rely on our teachers and Gedolim. "Probably most significant, however, is our reliance upon our own mentors. Sensing that modern gedolim, ?the judge of your era??for our purposes, most notably, the Rav, but not he alone?have examined the issue and the evidence and adopted a positive stance, we, ordinary students of Torah, follow in their footsteps as we identify with their position. Whether they felt justified in accepting, out of the depths of their own conviction, a minority view; whether they held that our topic was essen- tially a matter of hashkafic proclivity, not necessarily amenable to the nor- mal procedures of pesak; or whether some other unknown but imagined element?might, for instance, the hospitable climate of Kabbalistic sources, have had some impact?is a matter for conjecture. That the authority of our mentors can inform and sustain our sensibility is not." I understand that for many of us that is not a very satisfying answer and leads to many questions about why specifically here we follow minority opinions as opposed to other places (e.g. wombs issues, etc.) but I don't think there is a better answer. This is the way the halachic system works. Even after all of this, R' Lichtenstein himself was bothered by this very point: "I am left, nonetheless, with a lacuna. Even while adhering to the Rav?s position, one may freely concede wishing that he had done for us what we have been challenged and constrained to do here: examine the various tiers of tradition and elucidate the basis for his own judgment and commitment." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 01:21:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:21:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on tefillin Message-ID: There is a disagreement between Rashi/Rambam and R Tam whether one says one or two brachot on tefillin of the arm and head. While sefardim follow SA and say one bracha ashkenazim follow R Tam and say 2 brachot bur add "baruch shem kvod ..." to avoid a bracha le-vatala I have 2 things I don't understand about the ashkenazi minhag 1) The usual rule is "safek bracha le-kula" and so when in doubt don't say a bracha 2) How does saying "barch shem" help ? We have many disagreements about brachot. For example ashkenazim (again following R Tam) say brachot on customs, eg half hallel. We don't add "baruch shem ..." in these cases. Why only in tefillin? Furthermore whenever there is a doubt about a bracha (classical case is if one forgot to count the omer at night and remembered during the day) why do the act without a bracha - why not say the bracha and add "baruch shem" -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 07:43:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:43:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150803144333.GA30399@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 03:39:12AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed : in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah... ... and priya verivya, no? : Food has tremendous room for creativity even within : the restrictions of hilchos kashrus and brachos. Sex could be similar, : even within the bounds of hilchos nidda and arayos, but the restrictions : set out in OC 240 go much farther than merely to insure that one does : not become a menuval. ... : I think that he is agreeing with me that food and sex are very different, : but I disagree with his explanation of *why* they are so different. I have the same assessment. I am saying that the same principle of when perishus is appropriate is very different for food vs sex because food and sex are different in nature. Summarizing my point #1: : But while casual eating is fine, casual sex is : not. Casual sex involves people, and they must not be taken advantage of. : : My problem with this is on several levels. First, Chazal are pretty : explicit that the purpose of Hilchos Nida is to restore a honeymoon-style : atmosphere on a regular basis, and that alone might suffice to insure : that spouses aren't objectified.... If your objection is based on the "might suffice", all one needs to assert is or might not. : What is gained from the additional : restrictions (such as various positions, or finishing quickly) which : have no parallel in food? I am not sure that prohibitions based on mood are sufficient, as it's too easy to fool oneself about what the other person really wants. In any case, you return to OC 240 again at the end of the post and ask: : And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective : rules", is it not? Perhaps not. Is OC 1 black-letter halakhah? Is hitting the snooze button, or even lying around for a few seconds before getting up, actually assur? For that matter, there is a mitzvah to remember right vs left when putting on and tying shoes, but do you really think someone was oveir an issur if they don't? As the AhS OC often notes, the style of the SA is just to discuss do vs don't, and it blurs the distinctions between levels of issur -- a deOraisa can be next to an accepted minhag, and both may even be written in parallel language. : In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival : without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, : psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach : the Torah uses for Onah. : : While men and women are pretty much identical in the halachos of food, : Onah places the husband and wife in opposite situations... Whereas moredes has no parallel because she cannot initiate a gett. And for that matter, it has no parallel because he is obligated to support here. For that matter, the assymetry in who supports who is quite possibly why HQBH set up an assymetric process for gittin. The man who obligates himself in support can get of it. Onah is a protection against that objectification. Against turning that whole support thing into near prostitution. And with onah, the outcome is more symmetric -- he can end a marriage if dissatisfied, and is obligated to keep her satisfied. Without which BD can force him to willingly end the marriage. (Just paraphrasing the din...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 08:17:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:17:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on tefillin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150803151733.GB30399@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:21:03AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I have 2 things I don't understand about the ashkenazi minhag : : 1) The usual rule is "safek bracha le-kula" and so when in doubt don't say : a bracha : 2) How does saying "bar[u]ch shem" help ? ... The AhS (OC 25:11 ) agrees with you on both points, and therefore posits (se'ifim 12-13) a totally different meaning to the 2nd berakhah. And even though shel yad and shel rosh are two different of the 613, we make one berakhah on maaser rishon and maaser sheini. He also quotes that the BY rejects a possibility that if someone talks between the two tefillin, he would have to make both berakhos on the shel rosh -- repeting "lehaniach" and yet still saying "al mitzvah". But even though he uses this as proof, he requires (se'if 16, following the Ran via the MA s"q 15) loosening the shel yad so that you are still saying "lehaniach" the 2nd time on both. This is a pretty big chiddush, a birkhas hoda'ah that says "asher qidshanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu al mitzvas..." However, similar arguments are made about Birkhas haTorah, if one says the berakhah is deOraisa (Ramban) and therefore "aqb"v la'asoq bedivrei Torah" can't be a birkhas hamitzvah. The IM says as much (OC 2:3). : We don't add "baruch shem ..." in these cases. Why only in tefillin? Leshitas AhS, it follows enacting the qesher gadol between us and HQBH for the same reason the pasuq is said after the first pasuq of Shema. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:04:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 17:04:47 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> I wrote: : Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed : in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah... R' Micha Berger asked: > ... and priya verivya, no? I was trying to show differences between sex and food. I would say that, in the eyes of Halacha, there is no connection between pirya v'rivya and the olam-hazeh enjoyment of sex, in exactly the same manner that there is no connection between achilas matzah and the olam-hazeh enjoyment of food. The latter is a means of internalizing a historical connection, and the former is a biological imperative, but neither has any connection to olam-hazeh enjoyment. However, that it not to say that halacha is blind to the fact that sex *IS* enjoyable. This is recognized by the mitzvah of Oneg Shabbos, where if the act is to be done once a week, then Shabbos is receommended. Chiyuv Onah also recognizes that if the wife has a taavah for this particular hanaah, then it is the husband's obligation to satisfy her taavah. But pirya v'rivya? No, I don't see evidence of that. I asked: : And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective : rules", is it not? RMB suggested: > Perhaps not. Is OC 1 black-letter halakhah? Is hitting the snooze > button, or even lying around for a few seconds before getting up, > actually assur? For that matter, there is a mitzvah to remember > right vs left when putting on and tying shoes, but do you really > think someone was oveir an issur if they don't? I agree that there are degrees of obligation. A simple verb like "yaaseh" clearly implies a smaller obligation than "chayav laasos". "Must" is much stronger than "should". But if a subject makes it into Shulchan Aruch - as these did - that also shows a stronger obligation than something that appears only in Mesilas Yesharim, or even Gemara for that matter. Yes, I do think that when the alarm clock rings, one has an obligation to seriously consider whether he really *needs* to stay in bed a little longer, or whether he merely *wants* to. And I will admit that - b'shaas maaseh - I rarely consider that as seriously as I should. And that's one of the things I'm trying to improve on. Same thing for tying my shoes - I think that by now I do it correctly by habit, but I'm not really sure, and I'll try to remember to watch myself tomorrow morning. RMB wrote: > Whereas moredes has no parallel because she cannot initiate a gett. And > for that matter, it has no parallel because he is obligated to support > here. For that matter, the assymetry in who supports who is quite > possibly why HQBH set up an assymetric process for gittin. The man who > obligates himself in support can get of it. Yes, I agree that this could be part of why Hashem set it up that way. But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no corresponding safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55c0f0f9c892870f9653ast02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:43:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:43:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <117801d0cedd$1904bea0$4b0e3be0$@com> > But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan > Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went > uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why > aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? Good question. I can't help but thinking that this is one of those (many) halachic issues where the hanhaga of Klal yisroel in certain halachic (or hashkafic) areas has developed to be inline with yechidim than with the majority of chazal/rishonim/etc Why this happens is certainly a discussion - is it societal / siata shimaya guiding Klal yisroel / etc We have many others similar to this (some d'oriasa, some d'rabbanan) - human hair sheitals, chadash, live music after the churban, etc. When this should happen (and when it should be fought), I will leave to the einei haeida. Mordechai Cohen From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:49:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Baruch Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 10:49:07 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Halachic Requirement for Dayanim Evaluating In-Person Facial Expressions of Parties in Bais Din In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: List Mates: In an AMI issue that was reported in VosIzNais, Rabbi Hershel Schachter was quoted as saying: ""*There is a Mishna in Pirkei Avos that the oilam says a vort on. It says, "K'sheyihiyu habaalei dinim lifanecha, yihiyu b'einecha k'resha'im. K'she'yaamdu m'lifanecha yihiyub'einecha k'tzaddikim, shekiblu aleihem es hadin." ["When the litigants stand before you (the judges), they should be in your eyes like wicked people. When they stand up from being in front of you, they should be in your eyes like righteous people, because they have accepted the judgment."] They say from a few different dayanim that they would put a tallis over their face, to not see the face of a rasha. But that is wrong; part of the din Torah is to look at the person and see from his facial expression and how he talks...whether or not he is saying the truth. You have to be able to detect whether he is telling the truth*.'" ( http://www.vosizneias.com/92931/2011/10/11/new-york-in-exclusive-ami-magzine-intreview-noted-rabbi-schachter-slams-set-up-of-rabbinical-court-system/ ) Is there a Halacha that you can direct me to that mandates in-person and face-to-face participation by the parties to a Bais Din for the reasons given by Rabbi Schechter? I found this... The seating configuration of the Sanhedrin ??????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?? ?? The Mishnah describes how the members of the Sanhedrin sat in a row in the shape of a half-circle in order *for each person to be able to see everyone else*. Why was it necessary for everyone to be able to have direct eye contact with everyone else? Rashi explains that it is only when people have direct sight of each other that they can listen and then argue and debate with each other. ?"????? elaborates and says that when people argue and express their views, they often rise from their seats. If they did not sit facing each other, it is quite possible that they would not be able to hear when a person turns as he speaks from a standing position. Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin 1:3) explains that this arrangement was used in order for the President (????) and the Av Beis Din to be able to see everyone. Lechem Mishneh notes that this was a sign of respect for these leaders to sit in the middle and for everyone to easily be able to listen to them. Rashi also addresses why the Sanhedrin sat in a half-circle rather than in a full circle. From a technical standpoint, the witnesses and litigants would have to have a way to enter the circle to present themselves in front of the judges (see Rashi, Chullin 5a). Furthermore, if the judges sat in a full circle, while the witnesses would be facing some of the judges, their backs would be turned toward the others. *The judges might have a hard time hearing the witnesses and litigants, or they would not be able to see them as they spoke. Facial expressions and other subtleties are essential in communication, and the judges must be able to pick up on any and all such nuances during the deliberations*. The Tosefta (8:1) cites differing opinions regarding the seating position of the President of the Sanhedrin. Tanna Kamma holds that the President sat in the center of the semi-circle, with thirty-five of the members of the Sanhedrin seated on each side of him. R' Elazar b. Tzadok says that when Rabban Gamliel sat in the Sanhedrin in Yavne, one of the sages sat to his right, and all the others sat to his left. Rambam (ibid.) writes that the ???? sat with the Av Beis Din to his right, and the rest of the sages to his left, seated according to their ages and their wisdom, with the wisest among them to his immediate left, and the rest seated closer according to their level. Radva"z and Kesef Mishneh ask why Rambam does not rule according to Tanna Kamma, and, as he rules according to R' Elazar b. Tzadok, why the row begins with the Av Beis Din, and not with the ???? himself. Radva"z explains that it was not only the Av Beis Din who sat to the right of the ????, but the ???? sat in the middle, as Tanna Kamma explains, with the Av Beis Din to his immediate right. ??? ???? explains that Rambam rules according to R' Elazar b. Tzadok because he cites the actual case of Rabban Gamliel http://www.dafdigest.org/Sanhedrin/Sanhedrin%20036.pdf -- Respectfully, Baruch C. Cohen, Esq. Law Office of Baruch C. Cohen, APLC Los Angeles, CA 90010 e-mail: BCC4929 at gmail.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:24:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:24:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> From: Kenneth Miller via Avodah >> In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach the Torah uses for Onah. [snip] It seems to me that Onah may have the effect of objectifying males. << Akiva Miller >>>>>> To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without reproduction. Our nitzchius is absolutely dependent on this particular activity, which is why "peru urevu" is actually a mitzva and not "mutar if you wish." It is Hashem's chessed that He made this activity intrinsically pleasurable. If you were a robot or an alien without human emotions and you witnessed this human activity, you would wonder, "What the heck are these humans doing? And why?!" I am not an expert on male physiology but I am under the impression that for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. This reminds me of something else I wanted to say in response to some of RMB's posts. He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her. But human beings derive pleasure from each other all the time, whether the pleasure is a stimulating conversation, "please scratch my back," playing with a delightful, cuddly baby -- I could go on and on -- and it is just absurd to think that if another person gives me some kind of pleasure, I have "objectified" that person. Not to forget the main point I wanted to make: sex /is/ necessary for survival, and therefore some comparison to eating food /is/ valid. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:57:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:57:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> References: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150804185730.GA28011@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 02:24:43PM -0400, RnTK wrote: : To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS : required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human : species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without : reproduction... The question is the difference in relationship a person to their hunger compared to their sex drive. You appear to only be objecting to an overly broad use of "required for survival" by not saying "individual's survival", without touching the point that people relate to each desire very differently. (You also seem to ignore non-reproductive sex -- an infertile couple, post-menapouse, etc...) .... : This reminds me of something else I wanted to say in response to some of : RMB's posts. He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from : being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her... Pleasure is a positive thing, as long as it's not the only thing. It's turning a wife into a cheftzah by which he obtains his pleasure that is literally objectifying. If the husband is forced to think about her perspective, his wife as a person, during relations, the risk of the pursuit of pleasure taking over to that point, the mutual search for pleasure is humanizing and bonding, quite the reverse. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:10:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 14:10:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150804181031.667AC180E06@nexus.stevens.edu> At 01:51 PM 8/4/2015, Noam Stadlan wrote: >If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered >hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. Is it really true that what women in the general society do is some standard for tznius for Jewish women. If so, then the practices of "well undressed" gentile women (as R. A Miller used to call them) of today have eliminated all tznius standards. One sees women in public today dressed in almost nothing. [Email #2] At 01:51 PM 8/4/2015, Noam Stadlan wrote: >Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat >common. Just because something is or was commonly done does not make is correct according to halacha. Many, many people talk loshon hara, yet it is not proper according to halacha. [Email #3] Please see Covering the Hair by Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 13:07:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 23:07:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: >> Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters >> of the alph-bet (I only know one) < [R' Michael Poppers:] > In the Torah, a *pasuq* in P'Va'eschanan (4:34 > ) is usually noted, but it > (containing letter *sin* but no *shin*) works only when the *shin* and the > *sin* are considered the same letter (they are, so long as we're > considering the written form). The other *pasuq* in the Torah of which I'm > aware is Shmos 16 :16 (in it, > the *shin* is extant but there's no *sin*). We still need another 3 pesukim in the rest of Nach including one that has not only the 22 letters of the alphabet but also all the end letters -- Eli Turkel [Well in I already wrote: > Soferim use Tzefania 3:8 to show their penmanship, because it not > only includes all 22 letters, it also includes all the sofios. Is > that a way to denote total ultimate justice (the meaning of the words > ) or what? -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 15:31:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:31:53 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I see your pesukim and raise you a medieval Hebrew poem of four lines, where each line contains every letter of the alef-beit including sofiot exactly once with no repetition: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pagefeed/hebrewbooks_org_38040_154.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 5 02:53:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 05:53:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" Message-ID: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> I think a philosophy book just came out detending a variant of RSSchwab's "two clocks" explanation of ma'aseh bereishis. RSS's shitah appeared in AOJS's Challenge (ed. R Aryeh Carmel, R/Prof Cyril Domb pg 164 onward. surveys the area and summarized RSS as follows: Similarly, Rav Shimon Schwab talks of two types of time, cosmic time and earthly time. The 6 days of creation are counted according to cosmic time, during which period millions of years may have passed according to our measure of time. (Althugh I disagree with their next sentence on REED's position.) Now for the book. I just got this review : > he Fall and Hypertime > Hud Hudson, Oxford University Press, 2014, 211pp., $65.00 (hbk), > ISBN 0198712693. > Reviewed by Trent Dougherty, Baylor University > Hud Hudson's book is a brilliant and creative defense of the following > proposition. > There is a conflict between a literal reading of the book of > Genesis and science only if one assumes that the hypertime hypothesis > is false. > The import of Hudson's thesis is that those who allege a conflict between > science and a literal reading of Genesis are not basing that claim merely > on science but on controversial metaphysics as well.,,, > To understand the hypertime hypothesis (hereafter "HH"), begin > with the "growing block" theory of time, one of the standard set of > options. According to this theory, the past is real and "still exists" > as a "block" as spacetime and the future is "open," i.e. the future > does not exist. The block grows as the quantity of either space or > time increases. Hudson notes that there is nothing more intrinsically > mysterious about the block losing parts than its gaining parts. He > then points out that it is also not more intrinsically mysterious that > a "morphing block" shrink or grow not just in units of hyperplanes > ("slices" of the block) but also in sub-regions of hyperplanes. As a > result, there are no in principle limits to the ways in which a block can > morph, to the "shape" it can take. Furthermore, there is no good reason > why the hyperplanes (or sub-regions thereof) might not be "reshuffled" > in a different order. > Because the universe is here modeled as a spacetime block, the temporal > dimension only measures changes within the block. Hypertime measures, > as we may think of it, changes to the block (though technically blocks > at different hypertimes are numerically distinct,and there remains a > question concerning the status of various essentialisms about blocks > with respect to their parts). That means that at any given moment on > the hypertimeline, there can be a complete spacetime block, a complete > physical universe distinct from blocks at different hypertimes. Given > infinite hypertime, this generates a plurality of worlds not unlike that > of David Lewis. Hudson applies the possibility of this plurality in three > ways: to an understanding of omnipresence (which I will not discuss), to > (three versions of) the problem of evil (one of which I'll discuss below), > and in defense of his main thesis. The way HH helps with an understanding > of omniscience and the problem of evil gives it credit and motivates > it as a viable option so that its application to the main thesis is > not ad hoc (though it's being ad hoc would not prevent its success for > its purpose). I will describe the application to the problem of evil, > offer a criticism, then describe its application to the main thesis. > If there is a plenitude of spatiotemporally discrete universes, then it is > difficult to infer from any empirical observation that the actual world > is not the best possible world. It is important to remember that on the > hypertime hypothesis the spacetime blocks at different hypermoments are > only one portion of total reality. Our observable universe is a drop > in the bucket. So an argument from evil against the existence of God > from ours not being the best possible world would have to argue that > the observable universe could not even be a part of the best possible > world. That is not clearly an easy argument to make. > This move takes the form of what is traditionally called a "defense" > rather than a "theodicy"... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 5 15:22:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 18:22:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesak and Safeik Message-ID: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> Anyone know a source (or at least a theory) that discusses when we treat a machloqes as a safeiq, rather than applying the rules of peaq? The issue comes up in AhS YD 24:42. (Mazal tovs on completing OC will be graciously accepted.) Siman 24 discusses 4 of the 5 halakhos leMoshe miSinai of shechitah. (Shehiyah got its own siman.) There is a machloqes between the Behag and Rashi about the line between aqirah and tereifos. Rashi says that aqira is the displacement of the qaneh or veshet caused by using a nicked knife. Most rishonim hold like the Behag, and then there is a submachloqes about what kind of dislocated simanim are aqirah, ad what are tereifos. Leshitas Rashi, they would all be tereifos. Anyway, here the AhS says that Rama holds that midinei shechitah, we are machmir for every definition of aqirah. But midinei tereifah, which differ in that it would also prohibit the milk or eggs from such an animal, we recognize that the iqar hedin if the Behag, and are meiqil. So okay, one tiny bit of my question is answered -- we have a special rule by shechitah that machloqesin are resolved by safeiq deOraisa lehachmir. But WRT tereifos.... The AhS says that despite the Rama, we are nohagim lehachmir. So, while the Rama thinks this is a case where the rules of pesaq apply, the AhS says "we" disagree and treat it like a safeiq. Why? I also realize the line isn't all-or-nothing. I presume that not every shitah rises to the level of creating a safeiq, so there is some kind of pesaq-like reasoning necessary to assess which do and which don't. So it's more an issue of how balanced do shitos have to be for us to be unwilling to pasqen and just assume it's a safeiq. But still, these two acharonim are setting te line at a different place. So, does anyoe discuss the kelalim of when to bail out from the (other) kelalei pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 07:47:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:47:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] They Found Gat Message-ID: <20150806144710.GA2303@aishdas.org> As you may have heard, a team found the gates of Gat, Golias's home town. And, as I've noticed in the past, the question of whether they find evidence of the events as found in Tanakh or evidence against can be predicted in advance by checking the religious stance of who is running the dig. So you get this story from Haaretz : Philistine City of Gath a Lot More Powerful Than Thought, Archaeologists Suggest Powerful fortifications newly uncovered by Israeli archaeologists suggest the kingdoms of Saul, David may not have been quite as powerful as thought. Nir Hasson Aug 04, 2015 3:08 AM [IDT] ... According to Maeir, the discovery of Gath as a huge, fortified city on the border of Judea during an extended period, without any signs of destruction as a result of a war with Judea, proves the Philistines controlled the Judean plain. Because Khirbet Kaifa existed for a relatively short period -- about 30 years -- it is likely the remnant of a failure of the Israelite kingdom to spread westward and not a sign of its power. "The Judean kingdom is supposed to be big, important and strong," says Maeir. "But it turns out there is a very big city on its western border. For years, I claimed Gath was a big city, but they countered that it has no lower city, and if it has one it is not fortified. After finding a huge fortification, its clearly the most important city of the 10th and ninth centuries." Now, to get a hint of how we would have heard about Gat had the dig been run by a bilical maximalist, here's an element mentioned in : Near the gate, Maeirs team also unearthed the remains of the citys extensive fortification wall, a Philistine temple, ironwork and pottery. While the pottery bears hallmarks of the distinctive Philistine style, elements of Israelite techniques can be seen on the fragments as well, indicating there was more interaction between the two cultures than previously thought. Since Pelishti culture was importing Jewish culture, doesn't that lend MORE credibity to the idea that David haMelekh's kingdom was at east on the same scale if not overshadowing theirs? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 15:28:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 23:28:31 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] : Re: De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> RAM writes: >And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective rules", is it not? In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? And further read the Tur (and the meforshim on the Tur) in Even HaEzer simin 25 to get a fuller picture of the sources (and the original gemora sources) - so you can see the history of the machlokus on how to deal with this issue all the way back. As Rav Lichtenstein articulated it, the question is not so much that we differ from the position of Chazal, as our position (and the one quoted by the Rema) is much more in line with the majority position in Chazal, but why did the major rishonim - Rambam, Ra'avid etc differ so markedly from what appears to be the majority position in Chazal and posken - well like Rabbi Eliezer (shmuti hu?), as then did the Achronim. I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the influence of the outside world. The same sort of influence that reputedly led to the cherem of Rabbi Gershom (Jews who are supposed to be the upholders of morality cannot be seen to have more than one wife in a world where that is seen as immoral). In a world which identified relations with sin and death (standard Xtian theology of the time, and the Muslim theology in many circles was not that different) - it would have been inappropriate, and led to general looseness if the general non Jewish world view had been repudiated to the extent consonant with the positive positions found in Chazal. Hence Orech Chaim, the book most accessible to the masses, contains not a word of the Rema's position, that is buried in Even HaEzer, where it is more likely only the scholarly will look (or from the point of view of Maran, go look in the Tur). But to talk about relations positively in an open way in Xtian Europe would have created temptations for the non Jewish world that would have unleashed a level of vengeance (eg from the priesthood) that could likely not be endured. There was a lot of censoring and self censoring that went on in all sorts of areas, it seems to me also here, especially as there are the minority positions to bring and rely on. Only in the modern day world which has swung so far the other way is it possible to honestly and openly evaluate the position of Chazal, and that is what in effect has been done, by Rav Lichtenstein and others. >Akiva Miller Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 17:28:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 00:28:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? Message-ID: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Apparently, In the U.S., the therapist's duties are owed to the client, subject to statutory obligations such as the mandatory-reporting requirement. There is no exception for the therapist's religious custom or belief, unless, in limited circumstances, the client consents to it. Question-from a torah point of view should it make a difference who shows up at the therapist's (or Rabbi's)door (for any therapy or advice)? How does Halacha balance the needs of the individual, the family, the community, Jewish society and/or society in general? 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 12:56:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 15:56:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" In-Reply-To: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> References: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> What's the difference between this and Gerald Schroeder? KT, GS, YGB On 08/05/2015 05:53 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I think a philosophy book just came out detending a variant of RSSchwab's > "two clocks" explanation of ma'aseh bereishis. > > RSS's shitah appeared in AOJS's Challenge (ed. R Aryeh Carmel, R/Prof > Cyril Domb pg 164 onward. > > > surveys > the area and summarized RSS as follows: > > Similarly, Rav Shimon Schwab talks of two types of time, cosmic > time and earthly time. The 6 days of creation are counted according > to cosmic time, during which period millions of years may have > passed according to our measure of time. > > (Althugh I disagree with their next sentence on REED's position.) > > > Now for the book. I just got this review > : > >> he Fall and Hypertime >> Hud Hudson, Oxford University Press, 2014, 211pp., $65.00 (hbk), >> ISBN 0198712693. >> Reviewed by Trent Dougherty, Baylor University From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 13:32:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:32:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" In-Reply-To: <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> References: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150807203234.GA14121@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 03:56:56PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: : What's the difference between this and Gerald Schroeder? R' Gerald Schroeder is working within physics, using Relativity to try to make the timelines match up. R' Schwab, and for that matter this Hypertime idea are metaphysical, saying that the 6 days were not physical days, meausured using the same kind of time Galileo turned into a variable when he measured pendulum swings, Newton took derivatives with respect to, and Einstein unified with space. Rather, a logically prior idea altogether. This is more in line with the rishonim who said that science as we know it post-dates creation, and therefore time during creation is has to be measured with a different kind of clock than the one of physics. ------- And some day when humanity develops to this point, the two will finally be in sync. Which would fit RAYK's metaphysics in which every duality is an illusion, as everything is the Or Ein Sof from the Absolute Unity. And le'asid lavo, even the division between olam hazah and olam ha'emes will fall. Leshitaso, techiyas hameisim is a consequence of the reunification of the worlds of life and of death. Those souls don't so much come back to life as the distinction disappears. (I do not recall if RAYK invokes "hayinu kekholmim".) And yes, in such a situation, physical time will be back in sync with supernal time. Although one needn't believe in RAYK's eschatology in order to accept the concept that the two definitions of time will be unified, nor do we need to believe in eventual synchronization in order to talk about the 6 days of ceration being on a different kind of clock than physics. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 13:56:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 15:56:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Re; sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R. Levine wrote: "Is it really true that what women in the general society do is some standard for tznius for Jewish women. If so, then the practices of "well undressed" gentile women (as R. A Miller used to call them) of today have eliminated all tznius standards" Response: Of course there are baseline standards of tzniut for Jew, men and women, that are independent of surrounding culture. But hair covering is not one of them.(At least according the sources and shitta that I have brought). R. Levine then brings an article by Rav Breuer. That is his shitta, it doesn't mean it is universally accepted or binding. Much of what he brings is not specific halacha but advice or Nach based(the entire sugya of kol kevuda etc) I would note that the vast majority of shittot do not require single women to cover their hair I will not have access to respond for a week or so, but will be address further responses at that time. shabbat shalom noam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 8 12:02:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 22:02:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] depression Message-ID: Enclosed is a summary of the last shiur of R Zilberstein to the doctors. I am giving a shiur on this in my shul this coming shabbat. Since I feel it is controversial I am looking for input from the list. Question from a psychiatrist - A patient has 3 kids and has mild depression since the last birth. She wont take chemical drugs and instead uses one based on plants which is good for mild depression. It had some side effects and so the patient stopped that also. The dictor suggested various anti-depression drugs and other help which the patient refused, Contacting a social worker it turns out the woman runs a "nursery' (mishpachton) from 8am to 4pm. The social worker says she manages only with a great effort; her husband comes home from work at 1pm and the mother helps. The woman refuses to open a file in the social ministry because of this nursery which they may close down. The social worker pointed out that if something happens the state will prosecute the psychiatrist. Question: On one side there might be a danger to the kids in the nursery and the psychiatrist might lose her license OTOH this is a major income for the young family. She has successfully run the nursery for several months without any complaint with the help of the husband and mother. If this is all explained to the ministry it most likely won't help and they will closer her down Answer: The job of a bet din is to watch out for the welfare of the community. Hence, according to Torah law the doctor must go the rabbi of the city or neighborhood to hear their opinion, R Zilberstein notes that in Bnei Brak there is an agreement with the authorities that the local bet din deals with such problems and calls in the local authority only if they feel this is necessary. Such an arrangement should be set up in every town that the local bet din makes the decision. see YD 336:1 that ba doctor needs the permission of the bet din to practice, Therefore one needs the permission of the local secular authorities to rely on the judgement of the local rabbi. It is well known that the "mara de-atra" have the ability to treat broken and depressed people. In England there was a baby born with Down's syndrone whose Jewish parents disappeared. The local board of health turned to Rav Yoseph Dinner Zt'L what to do, Rav Dunner , who was the 65, (after checking with his wife) said they would adopt the baby since at that time there was no Jewish institution capable of handing this baby. The local board of health accepted this solution. The couple cared for the child until they reached the age of 80. At that point they transfered the child to an instituion in Afula, Each year R Dunner would come to Israel to bake matzot and then visit the child in Afula. The doctors in Britain said the best social workers are the Jewish leaders. In the beit midrash of R. Pam there was born a child with Down's syndrone. R Pam always tried to cheep up the boy. One year the boy complained that on simchat Torah they used all the sifrei Torah except for his paper one. After Musaf R Pam went to the Bimah and announced to everyone that now they were reading from the sefer Torah of this boy. This was the happiest moment for the boy and the angles surrounding "kise hakavod" Conclusion: The psychiatrist should explain to the local rabbi the situation in the nursery. The rabbi should come to some agreement with the local secular authotities to rely on his judgement -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 8 21:21:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 21:21:33 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? Message-ID: you are basically asking when must the rabbi/frum therapist offer halachic therapy and then risk prosecution? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 12:17:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:17:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] human hair sheitals Message-ID: In the thread "De-Chokifying Arayos", I asked: > But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan > Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went > uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why > aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? R' Mordechai Cohen answered: >>> I can't help but thinking that this is one of those (many) halachic issues where the hanhaga of Klal yisroel in certain halachic (or hashkafic) areas has developed to be inline with yechidim than with the majority of chazal/rishonim/etc >>> ... >>> We have many others similar to this (some d'oriasa, some d'rabbanan) - human hair sheitals, chadash, live music after the churban, etc. You are raising a great point. I have wondered this about chadash and music myself, and I'm somewhat surprised that I didn't see the connection. Thank you very much for bringing it to my attention. (Though, to be honest, these examples sharpen my question about Conservative "psak".) But for THIS thread, my question is simple and direct: Tell me more about why you specify "human hair sheitals". Have chazal/rishonim ever distinguished between wigs made of human hair vs other kinds of wigs? I was always under the (possibly mistaken) impression that chazal and rishonim - and even acharonim - only discussed the requirement to cover hair, and how much to cover, and the ramifications of leaving it uncovered. But I don't recall any discussion of the covering itself except by the leaders of very recent chasidic groups. Am I mistaken? Where is this discussed in the seforim? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 13:15:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 16:15:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: In Avodah V33n111, RET noted: >> Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters >> of the alph-bet (I only know one) << > We still need another 3 pesukim in the rest of Nach including one that has not only the 22 letters of the alphabet but also all the end letters < Fact-checking what I found via Google'ing (besides the *pasuq* already noted by R'Micha) provides these fifteen (!) *p'suqim* containing all the letters: -- Y'hoshua 23:13 -- M'lachim Beis 4:39, 6:32 -- Y'sha'yahu 5:25 -- Yirm'yahu 22:3, 32:29 -- Y'chezqeil 17:9 -- Hosheia 13:2 -- Amos 9:13 -- Esther 3:13 -- Daniel 3:22, 4:20, 7:19 -- Ezra 7:28 -- N'chemya 3:7 All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 14:11:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: <<< To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without reproduction. Our nitzchius is absolutely dependent on this particular activity, which is why "peru urevu" is actually a mitzva and not "mutar if you wish." >>> Yes, that's true. But please note that you yourself are referring to "peru urevu". My question concerns a different mitzva, namely Onah, wherein sex is explicitly linked to food and clothing/shelter. I don't think it is a big stretch to say that the common thread of these three things is how important they are to this particular individual, and NOT how important they are to the species. <<< ... for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. >>> I think we may be understanding the word "objectify" in different ways. Contrary to what some might think, not all men are constantly obsessed with having sex. At any given point in time, a particular man might have other priorities - other activities that he'd rather do than this one. But a husband cannot give higher priority to these activities over Onah, just like he can't choose them over minyan, or other mitzvos. He must be sensitive to his wife's needs and wants, and if he senses her mood, he is under a chiyuv d'Oraisa to act accordingly. (Actually, he'll have this chiyuv even if he does NOT sense her mood accurately, in which case he will have been Mevatel the Aseh b'shogeg, though I suppose it could easily be argued that it's more of a "shogeg karov l'meizid" if he hasn't even tried to judge her mood accurately.) But there is no flip side to Onah. The wife has no responsibility to judge her husband's desires. In fact, even if she does realize that he is "in the mood", there is no Chiyuv d'Oraisa for her to ignore her other desires and respond to her husband's desires. Sure, it could well be advisable for her to do so for Shalom Bayis reasons, and one might even call it a "chiyuv" in that context, but the imbalance remains: Her chiyuv would be Shalom Bayis alone, while the husband must deal with both Shalom Bayis and Onah. That's what I meant by "objectify": Much of Orach Chaim 240 is to protect the wife from a forcible rape (for instance, she can't be asleep or drunk), and much is also to protect her from more subtle rape (such as thinking of another woman). But there are far fewer protections offered to the husband. Neither can be drunk, and neither can have decided to divorce, but in general, the wife is within her rights to demand relations whenever she wants, and to me, this can "objectify" the husband. RTK reminds us that the husband *will* have pleasure from this. But that is exactly my point: If someone is required to have a pleasure that (for whatever reason) he does not actually *desire*, it is a sort of rape. RTK also wrote: <<< He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her. But human beings derive pleasure from each other all the time, ... it is just absurd to think that if another person gives me some kind of pleasure, I have "objectified" that person. >>> You are correct. Merely receiving pleasure does not automatically objectify a person. But if one receives pleasure without returning that pleasure to the giver, this carries a danger of objectifying the giver. And if one receives pleasure against the giver's will, that is the very definition of "objectifying" (in my view). R"n Chana Luntz wrote: <<< In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? And further read the Tur (and the meforshim on the Tur) in Even HaEzer simin 25 to get a fuller picture of the sources (and the original gemora sources) - so you can see the history of the machlokus on how to deal with this issue all the way back. >>> Indeed, the first few times I saw that Rema, he seemed to be saying, verbatim, that "you can do anything you want, and whenever you want to do it." A sexual hefkervelt, a world with no rules. But a more careful reading shows that he is only making two specific points: That there are no restrictions on positions, and that (as we've already said in this thread) the timing restrictions of O"C 240 are a "madrega" but not the basic halacha. But aside from these points, I see OC 240 and EH 25 as very similar: Their main focus concerns the *mental* state, and it is in this area (it seems to me) that Shulchan Aruch - including all acharonim until quite recently - endorses a very prishus-oriented approach. RCL again: <<< I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the influence of the outside world. ... In a world which identified relations with sin and death (standard Xtian theology of the time, and the Muslim theology in many circles was not that different) - it would have been inappropriate, and led to general looseness if the general non Jewish world view had been repudiated to the extent consonant with the positive positions found in Chazal. >>> There are many responses I could give to this. Perhaps the simplest would be: So then let Shulchan Aruch be silent; why did they choose to pasken overtly like the prishus view? Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 10 05:08:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:08:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: To continue from my previous post: R"n Chana Luntz wrote: <<< In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? >>> I think it is noteworthy that the Aruch Hashulchan often goes out of his way to justify the common practice in the face of the consensus of poskim, but does *not* do so in this case. In fact, Aruch Hashulchan EH 25:11 quotes the same Tur as the Rama did, but emphatically warns us *against* following it. This suggests that the turning of the tide, from a more prishus-oriented view to something else, occurred more recently than the days of the Aruch Hashulchan. Can anyone suggest a more precise time? Or, to put my question more blatantly: Does the less-prishus-oriented view appear only in recent articles such as the one by Rav Lichtenstein, and in the sort of verbal psakim such as he received? Does it appear anywhere at all in any of the seforim that one might happen to be learning, such as the Igros Moshe, Tzitz Eliezer, or similar? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 07:14:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akirah In-Reply-To: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> References: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150811141458.GA31500@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 6:22pm EDT, I wrote: : The issue comes up in AhS YD 24:42... : There is a machloqes between the Behag and Rashi about the line between : aqirah and tereifos. Rashi says that aqira is the displacement of the : qaneh or veshet caused by using a nicked knife. Most rishonim hold : like the Behag, and then there is a submachloqes about what kind of : dislocated simanim are aqirah, and what are tereifos. Leshitas Rashi, : they would all be tereifos. : : Anyway, here the AhS says that Rama holds that midinei shechitah, : we are machmir for every definition of aqirah. But midinei tereifah, : which differ in that it would also prohibit the milk or eggs from such : an animal, we recognize that the iqar hedin if the Behag, and are meiqil. In response RAF sent me offlist an essay he wrote in Dec 2001, titled "Hagdaras Iqur Simanim baTalmud", which I put up on-line here . The article does a survey of various definitions of ique hasimanim, which vary amazingly widely. He lists some causes: - The discussion is in scattered snippets across Chullin, not one organized sugya. - The rishonim do not agree about the girsa of the gemara that contrasts iqur from tereifah. - The rishonim do not even agree on basic defining features about iqur simanim. RAF also mentioned to me: "I have a very different peshat in ikkur, based on actually looking at the Behag." Sec. 4 does appear to quote a Behag that is at odds with the mesorah about shitas haBehag that the baalei Tosafos received. We've discussed the relationship between errors in reception and whether finding one would change pesaq before. Here, the nafqa mina lemaaseh is small but real, as per above. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: If anyone else has a Torah article they want up on-line, feel free to ask. -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 15:53:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:53:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150811225301.GA13480@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 12:55:06AM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : Here are the sources I have collected, in addition to the fact that a : significant percentage of Modern Orthodox women to not cover their hair in : public except in shul/davening situations. Although there is long evidence of rabbis saying it's a problem, but not a battle they can win. So the mimetic side is dismissable. (Also, how does someone who advocates for more roles for women in shul make a mimetic argument?) : In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of : uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is... : If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered : hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. But saying it's not a breach of tzeni'us doesn't say it's allowed, that's your addition not in the translated text you quote. RYB could mean what the AhS says, that it's terrible things came to this, but you may daven in her presence. Or, that whle it's not a tzeni'us problem, it's still prohibited deOraisa as per the implication in parashas sotah. : Here is a list of easily accessable sources: : Rabbi Marc Angel... Listening to his citing R' Masas and your quoting R Badad, maybe it's a Seph thing? He presumes hair covering is das Yehudis, which makes his a rare shitah. (Again, given the derivation from a pasuq.) But then again, R' Ovadiah Yosef firmly disagrees. But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. ... : I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and : not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. : However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and : everyone can come to their own conclusion. ... which is what he does, that the theory is there, but it's a shitah dechuyah. And noticably, he too quotes R' Yosef Masas, R' Moshe Malka and the Kaf haChaim -- Sepharadi sources. : Rav Yosef Haim... So, assuming the woman doesn't eat qitniyos, may she go with her hair uncovered? And even if she does... At what point is a shitah dechuyah? ... : Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony : of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. : R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: : "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did : not cover her hair? ... : Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in : this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." : I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the : artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with : uncovered hair. : Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat : common... And yet the rabbanim protested. This isn't even admissable as mimetic tradition, any more than noting how often people speak leshon hara or buy off-the-books or anything else rabbis have failed to curb. : uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his : wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. He too, would only need to be convinced is wasn't ervah in the sense of "all those men" sinning. But as we see in the AhS, that doesn't mean it's allowed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 16:00:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:00:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R' Noam Stadlan wrote: <<< Of course there are baseline standards of tzniut for Jew, men and women, that are independent of surrounding culture. But hair covering is not one of them. ... I would note that the vast majority of shittot do not require single women to cover their hair. >>> I both agree and disagree. Hair covering is NOT a "baseline standard", in the sense that it applies only to married women and not to single girls. But hair covering IS a baseline standard for Jewish women, in the sense that it remains in force independent of the surrounding culture. Thus, we have at least three different standards: males, married females, single females. And actually, we have several more than that, if we distinguish among various ages of boy and girl children, not to mention infants. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 21:26:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:26:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: From: Akiva Miller via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) <<< ... for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. >>> [--TK] >> I think we may be understanding the word "objectify" in different ways. Contrary to what some might think, not all men are constantly obsessed with having sex. At any given point in time, a particular man might have other priorities -- other activities that he'd rather do than this one. But a husband cannot give higher priority to these activities over Onah, just like he can't choose them over minyan, or other mitzvos. He must be sensitive to his wife's needs and wants, and if he senses her mood, he is under a chiyuv d'Oraisa to act accordingly.... But there is no flip side to Onah. The wife has no responsibility to judge her husband's desires. In fact, even if she does realize that he is "in the mood", there is no Chiyuv d'Oraisa for her to ignore her other desires and respond to her husband's desires....<< Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) >>>>> There is a great irony in what you have written. You seem to think that there is an inequality, a lack of reciprocity, in the mutual obligations of men and women -- with women having all the power and men all the obligation. It is ironic because the mitzva for men to be sensitive to their wives' feelings derives from the /curse/ that was given to Chava! Look at Rashi on Ber 3:16, "el ishech teshukasech -- your desire will be towards your husband." Rashi says the curse is: You -- the woman -- will desire relations, but will not be so brazen as to request it verbally. Rather, "he will rule over you" -- it is all from him -- the initiative is his -- and not from you. [end Rashi] To modern ears this Rashi might sound strange because the idea that "women are not brazen" sounds so old-fashioned. Modesty has gone out the window in modern society. But even the brazen women -- and certainly the more refined and eidel women -- want to be wanted. By their nature, most women do not want to be the ones taking the initiative or the ones pursuing the men. For most women it is embarrassing to have to ask outright. If you want an example of a woman in the Torah who was brazen even way back then, look at Eishes Potiphar -- "Lie with me." The very fact that she behaved this way shows what a hussy she was, but also, it shows that she was utterly humiliated. Not only was Yosef not seduced by her wiles, but even when she so lost her dignity as to ask him outright, he /still/ refused. It is no wonder she felt such a burning desire for revenge. It was in order to mitigate the harshness of Chava's curse that Chazal instituted the rule that men have to be sensitive to their wives' desires, that a woman should not have to humiliate herself by spelling out what she wants. It is a chessed that a man does for his wife, to mitigate the curse, to somewhat level the playing field in which men have all the advantages! I actually think this a wonderful example of Chazal's extraordinary sensitivity to women. They acknowledge and partially correct an imbalance that favors men at the expense of women, ever since Adam and Chava. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 22:47:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (bk via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:47:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: depression Message-ID: I have worked in the mental health field and have other personal experience with serious depression. The description which you provided "mild depression", would not at all indicate a danger to anyone including daycare children. It seems that the description is very much lacking. Either there is much more to warrant defying her confidence, including/especially to a rav, or someone doesn't understand what depression is all about. I'm assuming that the former is the case. So, the question is, what can we learn from a case in which the problem is not accurate? b'kavod, ChaimBaruch Kaufman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 06:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:19:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waiting Six Hours for Dairy- A Rabbanite Response to Qaraism Message-ID: <20150812131918.925F517FC6A@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/08/waiting-six-hours-for-dairy-rabbanite.html Qaraites are a Jewish group that began around 760 CE. They rejected the Talmud and rabbinic Judaism and insisted that Jews only observe halacha as expressed in the literal text of the Torah. "Qaraite" means "Scriptualist". The movement started in Iraq and Persia by Jews who objected to the authority of the leaders of the Babylonian Talmud Academies, the Gaonim. The Gaonim and their successors, the rishonim, are called Rabbanites because of their stance in defending the Talmud and rabbinic laws. Scholars have noted that many minhagim began as a response to the Qaraite movement. For example, the recital of Bameh Madlikim on Friday evening after davening [1] was started in the times of the Gaonim to reinforce the rabbinic stance on having fire prepared before Shabbos, in opposition to the Qaraite view that no fire may be present in one's home on Shabbos [2]. There is evidence that the reading of Pirkei Avos [3] on Shabbos afternoon, which began in Gaonic times, was to emphasize to the Jewish masses that the Oral Law was passed down since Moshe Rabbeinu as stated in the first mishna of Pirkei Avos. Professor Haym Soloveitchik [4] has argued convincingly that the unique arrangement of Hilchos Shabbos in Rambam's Mishna Torah was organized specifically with anti-Qaraite intent. Briefly, Rambam's formulation of the Shabbos laws does not follow a chronological order or any other expected logical order. See the above URL for more. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:03:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 11:25:27AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : R' Lichtenstein was bothered by this point and answered that we need to : rely on our teachers and Gedolim. : "Probably most significant, however, is our reliance upon our own mentors. : Sensing that modern gedolim, "the judge of your era" -- for our purposes, most : notably, the Rav, but not he alone -- have examined the issue and the evidence : and adopted a positive stance, we, ordinary students of Torah, follow in : their footsteps as we identify with their position... : I understand that for many of us that is not a very satisfying answer and : leads to many questions about why specifically here we follow minority : opinions as opposed to other places (e.g. wombs issues, etc.) but I don't : think there is a better answer. This is the way the halachic system works. To some extent, yes. However, I do not know what halachiccategory is "gedolim". My job is to have my own poseiq, someone ho cnot only knows the halakhah, but knows me and my situation. Or to get as close to that as possible. My rav's job is to have experts to inform him, and to know when a question is either too complicated for his skills, or the stakes to high (eg mamzeirus, potential intercommunal fallout, or....) to not consult others, starting with his own rav. Yes, you will eventually reach the few at the head of the pyramid, so I guess we can call them "the gedolim", and their opinions will end up shaping policy on big or broad issues. But I do not think RYBS would be happy learning that he had a talmid in the job of mara de'asra who had so little confidence in his own ability to map theory to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronos and desires of the people in it that he hands the job off to people who know less of that reality. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:19:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:19:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> References: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150812201911.GB8165@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 11:28:31PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the : influence of the outside world. The same sort of influence that reputedly : led to the cherem of Rabbi Gershom (Jews who are supposed to be the : upholders of morality cannot be seen to have more than one wife in a world : where that is seen as immoral)... I understood this as well as the Sho'el uMeishiv's take on intellectual property in a single way, and slightly different than your explanation. The Sho'el uMeishiv invokes "lo sehei Torah shelanu kesichah beteilah shelahem. If they recognize a kind of property as a right our native sense finds moral, we obviously must obligated to protect it as well. This is not DDD, as the protection isn't to the extent of the civi law, but to the extent of the halakhos of property. He is identifying a moral obligation we must halachically defend, not the civil law in and of itself... My understanding is that it's not that we learned morality from their law, but their law reflects a new social contract. The new expectations are a change in metzi'us. Now that we expect to have intellectual property, that is part of the new situation, to which a new pesaq applies. Similarly, I understood Rabbeinu Gershom's mandating monogamy in the same terms. He was less worried about being seen as immoral, or learning morality from Xian marriage norms. Rather, once society created different expectations of what marriage is, we had no ability nor obligation to reset to the old expectations (after all, even chazal referred to sister wives as "tzaros"), and therefore have to support a moral solution to the new expactations. A woman gets married expecting a man for herself. Rabbeinu Gershom mandated treating that woman morally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:22:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150812202233.GC8165@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:04:47PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : ... But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent : the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no corresponding : safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. Given the size of the two porn industries, or the difference between what "porn" usually refers to and locating smut in a romance novel, I would think that it's not just Chazal who would conclude the threat of objectfication is assymetric. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 16:24:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:24:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> References: , <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <13CC426F-297A-4E3A-AC33-979E5391FA35@sibson.com> > > But I do not think RYBS would be happy learning that he had a talmid in > the job of mara de'asra who had so little confidence in his own ability > to map theory to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronos > and desires of the people in it that he hands the job off to people who > know less of that reality. > > I agree but I think it's also true That RYBS would not be happy learning that he had a talmid in the job of mara de'asra who had so so much confidence in his own ability to create the theory to map to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronosand desires of the people in it that he doesn't hand the job off to those more qualified to break new ground. Kol tuv 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 20:21:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:21:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: I wrote: : ... But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent : the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no : corresponding safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. R' Micha Berger responded: > Given the size of the two porn industries, or the difference > between what "porn" usually refers to and locating smut in a > romance novel, I would think that it's not just Chazal who > would conclude the threat of objectfication is assymetric. Chazal were aware of the differences between those two industries, and they suggested reasons for it on the top few lines of Kesubos 64b. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 12:36:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:36:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Copyright Message-ID: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> Back in Jun 2001, Napster was in the news, and I heard a shiur from R Zev Reichman, then of REITS' Kollel Elyon. So at the first on-list mention of copyrights, I used it as an excuse to post a summary on-list at and . It's been 14 years, and I just learned of a beautiful einfahl by R' Asher Weiss on the subject. So, I'm reviewing the list, and adding to it. (v7n58 #13 is marked ">", #4 is marked ":".) > 1- Dina dimalchusa issues: > According to Tosafos on Gittin, dina dimalchusah dinah is only on > taxation. > The Beis Yitzchak does rule that ddd applies here. However, RZR opined > that ddd still wouldn't apply apply to Sony Bono's law that was aimed > specifically at Disney, allowing them to extend their copyright on some > animated characters. It's not an evenly applied rule. > 2- I already cited the most chamur, the Sho'el uMeishiv 1:44, who goes > beyond ddd. : The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral : obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it : is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership : of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal : (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights : are lehalachah also eternal. : Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for : that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a : halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos : of copyright. : I just want to note the SuM's assumption, and the importance he assigns : moral rights identified by the surrounding culture. > RZR wondered if the SuM would also recognize the French philosophy of > copyright: that the artist could sell reproduction and profit rights, but > eternally retains rights to controlling how the idea is changed. (So even > if you sell a painting, the owner is allowed to copy it, but not modify > it.) After all, this is also a secularly identified moral right. Would > it be a halachah only in France? > 3- Hasagas gevul: > There is an old cheirem, invoked in many if not most haskamos for a few > centuries, against copying sefarim. (The SuM mentions it.) The cheirem > is at least as old as the publication of Tomer Devora (about a century > after it was written) -- because it's mentioned in the haskamos. That > if one copies the sefer beli reshus, or buys such a copy he is subject > to the cheirem and will lose all the berachos showered on people who > learn TOmer Devorah listed in the begining of the haskamah. > The Chasam Sofer traces the cheirem back to the Maharam Padua's edition of > the Rambam. After he invested all the time and money preparing the plates, > a non-Jewish publisher, Justinian, took those plates and printed his > own copy of the Yad, charging one gold coin less than the original. The > Rama said that anyone who bought a Justinian edition was under cheirem, > as they prevented him from recouping his loss. > Given this lashon, the CS concludes that the problem is hasagas gezul. > However, as RZR noted, hasagas gevul only applies to unfair competition, > not to give copies away as a tzadakah or a fundraiser. > This is also the conclusion of R' Moshe. R' Bleich, back when he was > a talmid at Torah Vadaas found a rare publication of a notebook of R' > Chaim and had it published as a TvD fundraiser. The original publisher > found out about it and cried "hasagas gevul". They went to R' Moshe who > ruled in favor of R' Bleich. > 4- Issur geneivah: > R' Bleich himself, when writing on the subject, quotes "ein berei'ach > mishum me'ilah", and that there is no geneivah without a cheftzah. > 5- Hezek > Now we're in "Micha's 2 cents" territory. Li nir'eh that even for a > tzedakah to do it, even if not hasagas gevul, you are causing hezek to > someone who would otherwise earn money. > Even if not quantifiably assur, I would want to invoke bal tishaktzu on > this one. > 6- Chilul Hashem > In a case like Napster, where the case will have a kol and a trial in > the press, I would think that the risk of chillul Hashem, and therefore > *dinei nefashos*, is enough to assur it -- even in cases where the > copying would be found to be technically legal. 7- Chamas So I heard from R' J Ziring (YUTorah.org) that R' Asher Weiss in a 2013 shiur compared the theft of intellectual property to the dor hamabul (after revisiting some of the above). I found a blog post of RJZ's that describes it or : Chazal explain that the sin of the dor hamabul was that they would each steal less than a shaveh perutah. Thus, in the aggregate they would destroy people's livelihood, but none of them could be prosecuted in court. From here he argued that there is an issur to do something, which while not formally theft, lends to a society that destroys other people's financial well being. If no one respects intellectual property, then inventors, writers, and the like will have no way of supporting himself. Thus, even if no one can properly be called a gazlan, they have all participated in chamas. Tir'u baTov! -Micha > PS: While on the subject, I should point out that we obtain reshus to > include any emails that are reposted on Avodah. When asking, I make it > clear that a copy will appear in the web archive as well. -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 15:08:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baal Nefesh in the Igeros Moshe Message-ID: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> R' Elli Fischer contrasted the use of baal nefesh yachmir in the MB with its use in the IM. (Also heard via R' Jonathan Ziring.) The MB uses baal nefesh yachmir to refer to chumeros where the person is acting in a way to fulfill all shitos. The MB lists the more recent opinions, and then advises that the baal nefesh follow the most stringent. (Although I believe we found in previous iterations that the MB doesn't actualy use the expression particularly often. The IM argues that chalav hacompanies is actually chalav yisrael, so that there is no textual reason to only drink milk that was literally Yisrae'el ro'ahu, as opposed to using anan sahade eidus. But leshitaso, FDA certified milk is kosher even according to the Peri Chadash. (YD 1:47) In 1:48 he dismisses all other possibilities, and then says baal nefesh yachmir. RMF's baal nefesh is not being chosheish for all shitos, he dismissed those other shitos. Instead he is keeping minhag yisrael saba beyond halakhah. Pretty much the opposite of the MB's baal nefesh, who is ignoring accepted pesaq in order to make sure all the textual bases are covered. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 20:27:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 05:27:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Baal Nefesh in the Igeros Moshe In-Reply-To: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> References: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55CD6005.7020707@zahav.net.il> I don't have it open in front of me, but IIRC, in his psak on eating veal RMF makes it very, very clear that the baal nefesh will not eat it and anyone who does is (to use my words) walking on thin ice. The way he relates to a baal nefesh in the CY issue (it is a nice thing to do but if you don't keep, no big deal) vs the veal issue (you really shouldn't be eating this stuff) is stark. Ben On 8/14/2015 12:08 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In 1:48 he dismisses all other possibilities, and then says baal nefesh > yachmir. RMF's baal nefesh is not being chosheish for all shitos, he > dismissed those other shitos. Instead he is keeping minhag yisrael saba > beyond halakhah. > > Pretty much the opposite of the MB's baal nefesh, who is ignoring accepted > pesaq in order to make sure all the textual bases are covered. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 14 12:13:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Heather Luntz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 20:13:15 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> I have been struggling with this thread, but have not found it easy to explain why, although I will do my best: On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:153am EDT, R Saul Guberman wrote: : RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & : the Tosafists. : http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ : Our *Torah shebe'al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish : history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a : great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, : but the *Torah shebe'al peh* would have survived without him. However, : without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, : any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe'al peh* today. And RMB then wrote: >Which is a different statement than the subject line. >I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to >the survival of mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue understanding the gemara. I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? I really struggle with that statement. Now, if you want to limit the claim, and say that Rashi and Tosphos are far more key than the Rambam to what people do in modern day yeshivas all day, including (if not particularly) the Briskers, then it would be hard to disagree. But is what people are doing in yeshiva all day in the 21st century "the mesorah" or is the Shulchan Aruch "the mesorah"? What are the consequences if we relegate the Shulchan Aruch and elevate the Tosphists in terms of halacha as she is practiced? Somehow these seem troubling directions in which to be heading, but I must log off as shabbas is coming very soon in this part of England (and I, for one, am not about to rely on Rabbanu Tam, Tosphotist par excellence, regardless of his mesorah, I don't know about you,). -Micha Shabbat Shalom Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 14 13:48:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:48:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 08:13:15PM +0100, Heather Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> Which is a different statement than the subject line. : :> I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah :> through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who :> stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of mesorah :> than the parshanim... : : I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan : Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the : Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, : we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. : : Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the : Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? Let me make it far more more explicit. The subject line differs from my understanding of RGS' expansion of RYGB's idea in that it claims "Mesora ONLY through Rashi" (emphasis added), whereas I heard them talking about cofication being "less critical". Comparative terms, not absolute ones. IOW, the mesorah could survive without codes, if we had to. But it couldn't survive without parshanim. Without them we couldn't handle any new case that isn't in a code, nor even have the skills to always determine which are the new cases. In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that discusses how the conclusions are reached. Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The parshan connects the past to the now. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 15:41:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:41:09 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> I wrote: : I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan : Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the : Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, : we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. : : Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the : Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? And RMB replied: <<>Let me make it far more more explicit. The subject line differs from my understanding of RGS' expansion of RYGB's idea in that it claims "Mesora ONLY through Rashi" (emphasis added), whereas I >heard them talking about cofication being "less critical". Comparative terms, not absolute ones. >IOW, the mesorah could survive without codes, if we had to. But it couldn't survive without parshanim. Without them we couldn't handle any new case that isn't in a code, nor even have the >skills to always determine which are the new cases.>> Firstly of course, the Rambam wrote his perush on Mishnayos, so I don't think it is merely parshanut that distinguishes the two. Secondly, in the Rambam's code there are various "nire li" statements where he comes across areas where the answer from the gemora is not clear, and he therefore inserts his own view. It seems slightly bizarre to suggest that he or the Shulchan Aruch ever assumed that their code would make determining new cases more difficult, nor does that seem accurate historically. >In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that >discusses how the conclusions are reached. So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no Rambam and no Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any distinction at all between the halacha of the Orthodox and the halacha as championed by the Conservative movement? Is that not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would of necessity lead (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent than we have today - one that would perforce have to embrace the Conservative movement, and certainly all the forms of Open Orthodoxy that RGS is so vehemently against. Part of RAM's distress on one of the other threads on this list at the moment, regarding modern day psak vis a vis sexual relations versus the postion of the Shulchan Aruch has to do with the fact that Orthodoxy in general (although not, I would note, at least some of the Chassidic movements, such as Ger, and possibly increasingly not other groups within the Charedi world) has without appearing to notice, abandoned the position as set out in the Shuchan Aruch (albeit for one that can be said to be the more majority position of Chazal). But take the codes out of the equation and *all* these multiple rishonic positions become tenable, allowing a general free for all within the vastness of the parshanut tradition. The codes therefore are a critical part of what might be considered a dual process - equivalent to the situation where one first brainstorms ideas, and then whittles away to those most tenable. There are of course, situations where Sephardim do not posken like the Shulchan Aruch, and there are even more situations where Ashkenazim do not hold like the Rema, preferring a Shach, Taz or Magen Avraham (or even a Bach). But in the post-Shulchan Aruch world the conversation that RAM has been leading on the other thread is fundamental and critical - if we do not posken like the Shuchan Aruch in the particular case in question - we need to understand and investigate precisely why not, because by and large, the Shulchan Aruch draws the line as to where we go or do not go halacha l'ma'aseh. Without the Shulchan Aruch, we are only left with the brainstorming side of the halachic endeavour, and that means - as I intimated in my closing remarks, that if you find Rabbanu Tam's shkia analysis compelling (or indeed, that of a more minor rishon), there would seem to be little to prevent you holding like it halacha l'ma'aseh. What would hold us together? Indeed you are, I see, engaged in a debate regarding hair covering on another thread. But surely those who seek to justify the practice of many, many women who otherwise led and lead fully halachic lives are full square within the mesorah of tosphos. It is only those who also have an eye to the codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in the light of common practice. >Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The parshan connects the past to the now. That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation handed over to the next. And the generation of the Shulchan Aruch, in accepting it as "The" Code which shall be followed in most circumstances (with exceptions) handed that down to all generations following - making the Shulchan Aruch the mesorah par excellence. I can debate the nature of shkia with the Tosphotists in a conversation down the generations, but my mesorah regarding Shabbas is unlikely to be based upon any such conversation, nor is it expected to be. If you want to redefine the word mesorah to mean only that which Rashi has given us, then of course the title of this thread becomes 100% correct, just rather pointless. Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more of them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the Rambam, were able to formulate their halachic conclusions. Without them it would be far more difficult to have anything like the number of people we have today engaging with the gemora. The Rambam in contrast might well not see the point - if you can't manage without Rashi and Tosphos, then, in his view, maybe you shouldn't be trying, and should be relying on his code instead, leaving gemora engagement to the true elite who should be leading the people. That aspect of the Rambam's view has not dominated as "the mesorah" - using the more commonly understood use of the term. While we might debate the length of time that should be spent in yeshiva, and whether one should do work/army instead of long term yeshiva study - there is pretty close to universal agreement within Orthodoxy that all Jews should spend at least some significant time engaging with the fundamental texts, even if they are of only average intelligence. But what people do in yeshiva is still, in my view, only a small slice of "the mesorah", as it is commonly understood (as opposed to as redefined by RYBS) and a far greater slice is the Shuchan Aruch itself, and for that, the Rambam's influence is surely pre-eminent. >-Micha Shavuah tov Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 13:35:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:35:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim Message-ID: Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? [image: --] Shui Haber [image: https://]about.me/shuihaber *"The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are."* ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 19:20:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:20:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55CFF350.3030205@sero.name> On 08/15/2015 04:35 PM, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: > Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? Devarim 6:13, 10:20. Hil' Yesodei Hatorah 2:1 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 22:14:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:14:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R. Micha offered the following critiques: > Although there is long evidence of rabbis saying it's a problem, but > not a battle they can win. So the mimetic side is dismissable. (Also, > how does someone who advocates for more roles for women in shul make a > mimetic argument?) If the same rabbi's whose wives were not covering hair were the same ones saying it is a problem, this critique makes sense. otherwise, there is no reason to say that those whose wives were not covering their hair were unhappy with the mitziut. The mimetic argument here is that the shitta existed and was followed. It doesn't mean that it is obligatory. So I think this is apples and oranges regarding roles of women in shul. >: In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of >: uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is... >: If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered >: hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. > But saying it's not a breach of tzeni'us doesn't say it's allowed, > that's your addition not in the translated text you quote. RYB could > mean what the AhS says, that it's terrible things came to this, but you > may daven in her presence. Or, that whle it's not a tzeni'us problem, > it's still prohibited deOraisa as per the implication in parashas sotah. I think that you are making a moving target, one rationale knocked down and another rationale surfaces. Obviously hair covering could be mandated for a number of different reasons, but all of them? I am not sure it is necessary to be yotzei l'chol hadayot and even if so, the sources who permit, permit it regardless of the rationale against. I also have to go back and look at the source because I think it said more than the quote. >: Here is a list of easily accessable sources: >: Rabbi Marc Angel... > He presumes hair covering is das Yehudis, which makes his a rare > shitah. (Again, given the derivation from a pasuq.) > But then again, R' Ovadiah Yosef firmly disagrees. He obviously is not paskening like R. Ovadiah > But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And > two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. There are Ashkenazim among the sources as well.....I am illustrating that not only the shitah exists, but was followed and continues to be followed by a significant segment of the MO community. And, were it not for the shoah, it seems that a large segment of Lithuanian Jewry would still be following it. ... >: I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and >: not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. >: However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and >: everyone can come to their own conclusion. > ... which is what he does, that the theory is there, but it's a shitah > dechuyah. And noticably, he too quotes R' Yosef Masas, R' Moshe Malka > and the Kaf haChaim -- Sepharadi sources. >: Rav Yosef Haim... > So, assuming the woman doesn't eat qitniyos, may she go with her hair > uncovered? Again, apples and oranges, or peanuts and sesame. It isn't just a Sephardi shita. > And even if she does... At what point is a shitah dechuyah? Good question. From my limited point of view, if it makes sense and some Rabbonim of at least some stature (and I think Rav Messas et al quality) hold that position, it is not dechuyah. What is your definition? ... >: Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony >: of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. >: R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: >: "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did >: not cover her hair? ... >: Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in >: this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." >: I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the >: artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with >: uncovered hair. >: Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat >: common... > And yet the rabbanim protested. This isn't even admissable as mimetic > tradition, any more than noting how often people speak leshon hara or > buy off-the-books or anything else rabbis have failed to curb. I do not agree. Many in Meah Shearim protest that all women do not wear long thick stockings but that doesn't mean that every rabbi holds that long thick stockings are obligatory. if it is the rabbi whose wife didn't cover her hair, you have an argument. otherwise I suggest that those who protest do not speak for everyone. >: uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his >: wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. > He too, would only need to be convinced is wasn't ervah in the sense of > "all those men" sinning. But as we see in the AhS, that doesn't mean > it's allowed. It is a possible option, but not the probable one. It seems you are going out of your way to figure out how this could occur in consonance with your pre-selected approach, rather than accepting the most likely and obvious rationale. kol tuv. Noam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 16 14:05:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:05:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150816210531.GE28046@aishdas.org> : I think that you are making a moving target, one rationale knocked down : and another rationale surfaces... You gave two counterarguments: 1- Ashkenazi mimeticism 2- A list of sources that appear to be predominantly if not entirely Sepharadi. I therefore gave a teo part reply: 1- Ashk mimeticism was consistently gainst rabbinic will. Even the AhS who weighs halakhah-as-practiced as a major factor in pesaq laments the ubiquitous sin of neglecting this din. He also says it's not ervah. So, the sole person who does spell out Ashk position gives me no reason to equate either (1a) ubiquity nor (1b) a textual statement ruling out ervah with permissability. 2- Those sources are not only Seph, but are possibly dechuyos in their community as well. But at the end of the day, I did write: :> But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And :> two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. (And I still find it ironic that someone making a mimetic argument about hair covering wants to also change the role of women by looking at tets to the exclusion of 3-1/3 millenia of common practice.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 17 08:59:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 11:59:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Soloveitchik on Single Women Lighting Shabbat Candles Message-ID: <20150817155949.GA11283@aishdas.org> http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/single-women-lighting-shabbat-candles Snippet: Torah Musings Halakhic Positions of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik Single Women Lighting Shabbat Candles By Aharon Ziegler on Aug 14, 15 1:00 am in Halakhic Positions ... ... Those who have family customs and if their minhag [custom] is that the single women do not light their own candles then they should certainly not deviate from their custom- "Ve'al Titosh Torat I'mecha"... ... .... As a matter of fact Rav Soloveitchik suggested that Le'chat'chila, all women should indeed first turn off the electric lights, light the Shabbat candles, open the electric lights and then recite the Beracha. Regarding single girls, Rav Soloveitchik noted that this was the practice in Europe, even in his town, and that is how the Rav practiced with his daughters when they were single-that they lit their own candles, even with a Beracha, even when his wife also lit candles with a Beracha. Interestingly, RYBS promoted mimeticism in not taking on the practice of lighting candles if one's mother and grandmother didn't light when they were single and still living with their parents. Yet in the same discussion, he acknowledges how the new reality of electric lights makes relying on the mimeticism of making the berachah on the candles / oil alone just a bedi'eved. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 01:22:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 04:22:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Copyright In-Reply-To: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> References: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55D2EB40.1060303@sero.name> On 08/13/2015 03:36 PM, in a message that Gmail, for some reason, decided was spam, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Beis Yitzchak does rule that ddd applies here. However, RZR opined > that ddd still wouldn't apply apply to Sony Bono's law that was aimed > specifically at Disney, allowing them to extend their copyright on some > animated characters. It's not an evenly applied rule. This isn't true. > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, > it is impossible that the Torah is less moral. This assumes its own conclusion. The exact same reasoning could have been used during the Jim Crow era to "prove" that the Torah requires racial segregation of shuls and yeshivos, or during Prohibition to "prove" that the Torah requires teetotalism. > Now we're in "Micha's 2 cents" territory. Li nir'eh that even for a > tzedakah to do it, even if not hasagas gevul, you are causing hezek to > someone who would otherwise earn money. Even if not quantifiably assur, > I would want to invoke bal tishaktzu on this one. Why should he earn that money? You could invoke the same idea against giving anything away to someone who might otherwise have bought it. Every wedding takes parnassah away from wherever the guests might have bought their dinner that night. Sellers do not own their customers, and have no rights to them. > Chazal explain that the sin of the dor hamabul was that they would > each steal less than a shaveh perutah. [...] From here he argued > that there is an issur to do something, which while not formally theft, Stop right there. Stealing less than a shaveh pruta *is* formally theft. The thief is over on lo sigzol. It's not *returnable*, which is an entirely different matter. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 17 22:18:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:18:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Splendor of Clothes Message-ID: <20150818051824.9B2F7183235@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/the-splendor-of-clothes/ Rav Soloveitchik further added that wearing a Yarmulke, a Kippa, is more dignified than a baseball cap. He said, "If the President of the United States suddenly appeared and wanted to take a picture with me, would I wear a Russian hat, a baseball cap,- or a Kippa? That is the way we should stand Shemoneh Esrei when addressing the King of the Universe, HaKadosh Baruch-Hu. See the above URL for more. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 15:08:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:08:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150818220842.GA26873@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:35:26PM +0300, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: : Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? While it's obligatory (see Zev's citations), I am not sure it's halakhah rather than something prior to halakhah. As in Moshe rabbeinu's list: Mah H' sho'el mei'imakh, ki im - leyir'ah es H' Elokekha - lalekhes bekhol derakhav - ule'avah oso - vela'avod es H' Elokekha... - lishmor es mitzvos H' ve'es chuqosav... It would seem that MRAH is excluding these for thing from the realm of mitzvos and chuqim, and yet still mandatory. Even though the Rambam calls "lalekhes bekhol derakhav" to be "HILKHOS Dei'os". I don't know how to shtim this with the pasuq. It seems more like the Rambam's approach, that there is a duty of pursuing qedushah, yashrus and tov in ways beyond the limits of black-letter halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 10:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:17:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halachic Requirement for Dayanim Evaluating In-Person Facial Expressions of Parties in Bais Din In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150819171747.GA2506@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:49:07AM -0700, Baruch Cohen via Avodah wrote: : ... The Mishnah describes how the members of the Sanhedrin : sat in a row in the shape of a half-circle... : Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin 1:3) ... : The Tosefta : (8:1) cites differing opinions regarding the seating position of the : President of the Sanhedrin. Tanna Kamma holds that the President sat in the : center of the semi-circle, with thirty-five of the members of the Sanhedrin : seated on each side of him. R' Elazar b. Tzadok says that when Rabban : Gamliel sat in the Sanhedrin in Yavne, one of the sages sat to his right, : and all the others sat to his left.... My apologies to RBC that I don't have any thoughts about his intended topic, but he got me thinking about something else... To quote myself from 2010 : > REMT quoted the IE, which I found at Shemos 25:37, in what Bar Ilan > calls the short version of the IE: > Neiroseha: And the qadmonim said that one lamp was in the middle > ve"hashisha ne'erachim ze achar ze bachatzi iggul" (to cut-n-paste > from REMT's post) > And after the scripture said "vehei'ir al eiver paneha", and the > reason for "al eiver" one [eiver], behold the shape is clear. Not semicircular as seen from the front, but the lamps in that pattern as seen from above. Continuing: > The IE appears to very explicitly places all the lamps on the same side > of the middle one. Similarly, in the long version of the IE, Shemos 27:21: > Yaarokh: baavur hayos haneiros bechatzi igul. Ve'od adaber al zeh. Notice that leshitaso, the layout of the Sanhderin parallels the layout of the neiros in the keli most associated with chokhmah. Which makes it interesting that the definition of neir ma'aravi also parallels the machloqes about where the nasi sat. We generally assume it's the middle lamp, on the central shaft. However, Tamid 33a speaks of the two western lights, which we also find implied in Abayei hava mesader, "hatavas shetei neiros" being at a different time than "hatavav 5 neiros". >From which Rashi (see also Rashi Menachos 86b "mimenah hayah madliq") concludes that the neir ma'ariv was the 2nd in the row. So it looks like a two machloqes, leshitasam, setup. But... IE's semicircular menorah is based on the idea that the middle lamp was westmost, the other lamps curving off toward the NE and SE directions. A variant on the shitah that the menorah stood so the lamps run north to south. The idea that the 2nd was the ner hama'ari has the lamps running from west to east. The 2 neiros on the west are lit on their own. The second from the west end is the neir hama'arivi, a title not given the westmost candle because it is lit facing the NhM, with the wick on the east. But that leshitasam looked so pretty! Anyone want to help me salvage it? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 12:25:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:25:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? In-Reply-To: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> References: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150819192519.GB2506@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 12:28:27AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Question-from a torah point of view should it make a difference : who shows up at the therapist's (or Rabbi's)door (for any therapy or : advice)? How does Halacha balance the needs of the individual, the : family, the community, Jewish society and/or society in general? Confidentiality and for that matter focusing on the needs of the client serves society in general in the long run. Society needs not only therapists, but therapists clients are willing to get help from. If we tell therapists that they are to compromise client trust for the sake of the family, community or society, we will lose that. So, even if halakhah requires factoring others' needs in to a greater extent, it might not change things all that much. (After all, the profession developed those standards for a reason. That reason needn't reflect a different set of values.) There are also the secondary effects of the law... If someone loses the opportunity to offer therapy because disobeying those standards open them up to threat of suit or legal consequences, we still lose the therapy. Which has to be factored in to the halachic decision. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 14:45:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:45:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Bais Hamussar] The Small Things Message-ID: <20150819214542.GD812@aishdas.org> ----- Forwarded message from Bais Hamussar ----- Bais Hamussar Al Sheim HaRav Shlomo Wolbe zt"l Shoftim - Elul Rav Wolbe (Daas Shlomo) cites a mind boggling Medrash (Bereishis Rabba 2:7). Reb Avahu said, "From the beginning of time Hashem gazed at both the actions of the righteous and the actions of the wicked. Yet, it is not clear whose actions He desired. Once the Torah writes, 'And Hashem saw the light that it was good' it is clear that He desires the actions of the righteous and not the actions of the wicked." What is this supposed to mean? Could there be a possibility that Hashem prefers the actions of the wicked over the actions of the righteous? Rav Simcha Zissel Ziv, the Alter of Kelm, offers a beautiful explanation. Indeed, even the wicked perform good deeds. However, they limit their good deeds to grandiose actions whose effects can be heard around the world. They will found organizations, create moral ideologies and give their lives for the sake of their country. In contrast, the righteous focus on the small, even minuscule, actions. Chazal were asking who's good deeds are superior -- those performed by the righteous or those performed by the wicked? The answer was provided by the Torah: Hashem prefers the small actions of the righteous over the high-flying deeds of the wicked. A similar idea is mentioned by the Rambam. He asserts that for one who wishes to give tzeddaka, it is better that he give many small donations than one big donation. Many small mitzvos are preferential to a single big action. Rav Yisrael Salanter writes that the focus of teshuva also must be on the small actions. Many are overcome with despair when faced with the prospect of teshuva. "There is no possible way for me to stop speaking lashon hara" or "I simply can't overcome this middah" they lament. However, there is no room for despair when the topic is teshuva. They are absolutely right; at the present time they cannot entirely overcome their inclinations. Nevertheless, they can greatly reduce the severity of their actions if they would merely desist at the times when it is easy for them to refrain from transgressing. If they would take small steps and resist for five minutes here and there, they will already have progressed tremendously down the road of teshuva. With this in mind, our understanding of Chazal's well known statement becomes even more profound. "Hashem says to Klal Yisrael, 'Open for me a hole like the eye of a needle and I will open for you gateways that wagons and carriages will be able to pass through!'" Hashem specifically is interested in the small holes. Teshuva must begin with a focus on the small actions. "Just five minutes" is a mantra that can change your life. I will refrain from lashon hara just for five minutes. I will learn just for five minutes. I will spend just five minutes on helping another Yid. The truth is that sometimes one doesn't even need five minutes. A wave of the hand to motion that one can't talk now can save a person from pages of bittul Torah or loads of lashon hara. Moreover, Hashem guarantees that He will reciprocate our small gesture with a huge dose of Heavenly assistance, as He waves us through big gateways of teshuva! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 20:49:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:49:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: I'm really very unsure what this thread is asking. Let's take, for example, this paragraph from R' Micha Berger: > In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the > BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, > but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that > discusses how the conclusions are reached. What can you possibly mean, that we COULD HAVE limped along without it? We ARE limping along without it! There is so much that is ALREADY missing from the Mesora! There are so many masechtos missing from the Bavli, for example. I suppose it is possible that Ravina and Rav Ashi never saw a need to compile them, but it's much more likely that they were written and then lost, no? Now, imagine, if you will, a halacha which was decided (by a rishon, acharon, it doesn't matter) because of one obscure gemara that some ingenious thinker found and applied to a particular situation. Without this gemara, the halacha pesuka would have been different than we are accustomed to, but because that gemara -- obscure though it might be -- WAS found, and is a legitimate part of our Mesora, the halacha as we know it came to be. There must be hundreds of such halachos, maybe even thousands. But what if that particular gemara was not hiding in Chullin or Makos? Suppose it was a gemara in Terumos? Then that halacha would never be known to us, because that gemara has been lost. R"n Chana Luntz wrote: > Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more > of them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the > Rambam, were able to formulate their halachic conclusions. You do realize, of course, that there was no such person as "Tosphos". The Tosaphists were very real, and very important, but they were not the ones to decide on the inclusion or exclusion of any particular comment. That was the choice of the publisher of the gemara, and if his whim had gone in another direction, who knows what other views would have gotten more press coverage. (Yes, I know that there are many volumes filled with the writings of even the most obscure Tosaphists, but the fact remains that getting included in the standard printed edition is the path to widest influence.) My point is that while RMB and RCL are trying to imagine what Torah would look like without Tosaphos, as I see it, even the Tosaphos that we do have is a somewhat random document. If Hashgacha (or, some might prefer, blind luck) had gone in another direction, Tosaphos would be very different, and practical halacha with it. But it doesn't stop there. Need I remind anyone that even our Torah Sheb'ksav is a reconstruction (or, some might prefer, an approximation) created by the Baalei Mesorah? If the sources that they worked from had been just a bit different, then our Sifrei Torah today would be different too. And yet, somehow we manage. We use the Torah that we have today, because it rendered the previous versions (the source material of the Baalei Mesorah) to be passul. What an amazing concept! One day, these several Sifrei Torah, all with known yichus, each had its own chezkas kashrus. And the next day, a new document, different from those that preceded it, comes to center stage and replaces the others! I would like to suggest that this is exactly how it would have worked if there was no Rashi, or no Rabenu Tam, or no Rambam, or no Rav Yosef Karo: We would use whatever we did have, and that would be our Torah. It would be different than the Torah that we do have, but so what? Rashi's Torah was different too! IN CLOSING, RCL asked: > So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no > Rambam and no Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any > distinction at all between the halacha of the Orthodox and the > halacha as championed by the Conservative movement? Is that > not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would of necessity lead > (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent than > we have today ... If you've been following me, then my answer to this should be clear: No! This "much broader tent" is pure speculation. If we had no Rav ABC to guide us, the void would have been filled by Rav XYZ, whose views might have been to the right, to the left, or the same. And in *exactly* the same manner as how we are obligated by the new Torah created by the Baalei Mesorah, the possibility of differences is much less important than our confidence and emunah that this Torah is the right one FOR US. Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller on gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:19:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:19:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mesorah only through rashi Message-ID: <> Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against the concept. Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own interpretation and not rely or be bound by any text. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:29:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:29:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mimetism Message-ID: <> I understood mimetism and trying to follow the custom of one's family. This is of no help when the physical circumstances have changed. Would anyone suggest using outdoor toilets because that is what our ancestors did and would object to an indoor bathroom. Plumbing changed the halacha. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:25:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:25:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] splendor of clothes Message-ID: > Rav Soloveitchik further added that wearing a Yarmulke, a Kippa, is > more dignified than a baseball cap. He said, "If the President of the > United States suddenly appeared and wanted to take a picture with me, > would I wear a Russian hat, a baseball cap,- or a Kippa? That is the > way we should stand Shemoneh Esrei when addressing the King of the > Universe, HaKadosh Baruch-Hu. The average person would also not wear a black hat while taking a picture with the president. I have noted before there has become a new minhag of wearing a hat all the time not only when wearing davening or saying a bracha. I went this week to a charedi wedding and most of the men wore their hats throughout the meal. OTOH I also went to a shiur of Rav Zilberstein this week. Throughout the shiur he wore a kippah. In the break he took some food and put on his hat for the bracha and then removed it for the shiur. This is also what I observed from RYBS If so why do other rabbis insist on giving a shiur wearing a hat? [Email #2.] BTW I just received a copy of a formal photo of RYBS with Ed Asner. RYBS is wearing a black kippa -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 05:10:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 08:10:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] splendor of clothes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 3:25 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > I have noted before there has become a new minhag of wearing a hat all > the time not only when wearing davening or saying a bracha. I went this > week to a charedi wedding and most of the men wore their hats throughout > the meal. For me, at least, this is a practical matter: There is often no place to leave a hat, not even in the coat room; and certainly no place from which the hat can be easily retrieved before bentching. --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 16:16:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 19:16:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:49pm EDT, R Akiva Miller wrote: : I'm really very unsure what this thread is asking... Part of the difficult of this thread is that we came in mid-conversation. RGS quoted Qinot Mesorat haRav. The quote is long, so I'm just giving part: Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebe'al peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... This is a comment RYBS frequently made in shiur. Picture sitting in a brisker shiur, where every talmid needs a reference set of shas and Rambam. It is logical for the rebbe to need to remind people that they couldn't play this game of comparing that Yad back to shas if we didn't have Rashi and Tosados opening up shas to understanding. Interestingly, RGS compared this to the Yam Shel Shelomo: Rav Shlomo Luria, the Maharshal, famously said that Rabbeinu Tam was greater than the Rambam (introduction to Yam Shel Shlomo). In discussing Kinah 42, Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik suggests that the French and German Tosafists were more important than the Rambam, without discussing who was greater. The Maharshal was very opposed to the SA. He had a hostile attitude toward the whole notion of codification which goes way beyond RYBS's intent in ways RYBS wouldn't agree to. He and the Maharal (his brother) were of the "many" in RET's response. On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:19am IDT, R Eli Turkel wrote: : Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against the : concept. : Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own : interpretation and not : rely or be bound by any text. This coming in in the middle caused language confusion and consequent frustration for RnCL. On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:41:09PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the :> Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The :> parshan connects the past to the now. : That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. : Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation : handed over to the next. Yes, but if you want to know what RYBS meant, it requires knowing what the word means in RYBS's lexicon, with the connotations he assumed. Notice my suggestion about how "mesorah" was being used fits the quote from the qinos and the example of the Yerushalmi. I understand the frustration of thinking you were discussing a statement that meant one thing and only after formulating a log response being told that it likely meant something else. But that's a straightforward misunderstanding due to your being outside the target audience when RYBS was saying / learning Qinos, and therefore not being used to the connoctations he assumes; and Lewis Carrol refferences aren't needed. I intend to write a post on the meaning of the word "mesorah" as developed in RYBS's and RHS's thought as the start of its own thread. Because it not only comes up here, it comes up in the discussions raging elsewhere (Torah Musings, Cross Currents, Facebook) on RWMO's objections to Open O and feminism. RnCL argues for the importance of codes in that post: : So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no Rambam and no : Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any distinction at all between : the halacha of the Orthodox and the halacha as championed by the : Conservative movement? Is that not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would : of necessity lead (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent : than we have today... ... : But take the codes out of the equation : and *all* these multiple rishonic positions become tenable, allowing a : general free for all within the vastness of the parshanut tradition... ... : It is only those who also have an eye to the : codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in : the light of common practice. Actualy, it's only those who have an eye on common practice. After all, we discuss machloqesin between Rashi and the Rambam in halakhah lemasseh contexts all the time. And if Ashkenazim accepted Rashi's ruling, or one found in Tosafos, the Rama has no problem limiting his pesaq to that rather than that of the Rif, Rambam or Tur. And had there not been a Rama, then some shu"t or parshan could as well. For that matter, there is also the middle ground, the shu"t writer (eg the Ritva) who discusses halachic sevara and lomdus without either using a study of a pre-existing text as his organizing principle nor trying to codify a complete set of rulings. For that matter, the Beis Yoseif and AhS also sit in the middle ground -- code-like works that spend more space discussing how they understood the sources to get there. Returning to RAM's post for his reply to RnCL's question: : If you've been following me, then my answer to this should be clear: No! : This "much broader tent" is pure speculation. If we had no Rav ABC to guide : us, the void would have been filled by Rav XYZ, whose views might have been : to the right, to the left, or the same. And in *exactly* the same manner as : how we are obligated by the new Torah created by the Baalei Mesorah, the : possibility of differences is much less important than our confidence and : emunah that this Torah is the right one FOR US. Without the parshanim, there is no way to fill in the holes between se'ifim, to know how the conclusions were reached so that halakhah can survive beyond the limited set of cases in the Rambam or SA. However, without the codifiers, it's hard to find Rashi's ruling, but not impossible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 02:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:02:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha Message-ID: RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear as ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) 1) Prozbul - while the originial takanah was for individuals that made loans and meant a trip to bet din today it has become a piece of paper signed given to the rabbi or some ad hoc bet din (similar to hatarat nedarim). 2) nonJewish produce during shemitta - whther bought directly from nonJews or through heter mechirah the end result is that the consumer feels little difference between a shemitta year and a regular year. Only consumers that use Otzar bet din have to account for shemitta rules (of course it affects the farmer) 3) mechirat chametz - In the extreme one goes away for the entire Pesach, sells everything in the house and returns after Pesach to eat whatever is around, no need to even put away the chametz. For the rest of us it means putting what we sell in some closet and for some getting rid of "real" chametz like cakes 4) heter iska - again originally meant making a document for a specific loan and allowing a possibility pf loss. Today (in Israel) the banks and other financial insitutions have the document on the wall somewhere and most customers are not even aware of it. Because of court cases the heter iska has been refined so that the possibility of loss to the bank is essentially zero. In addition the heter iska today applies to non business loans - eg renovating a house, buying a car or going on a pleasure trip In addition to things that appear as cereonies to the average layman there are halachot called "ha-aramh" which is a trick way of avoiding the usual halacha. Again some eamples (again including inyana de-yoma" 1) paying the chazan for RH and YK for singing the first night of selichot 2) returning to shemitta - buying the lulav and throwing in for free the etrog 3) R Tarfon "married" 300 women so they could eat termah In an actual case involving yibum a couple without children and the husband was senile and near death while the brother-in-law lived in New Zealand. The solution was for the brother-in-law t "marry" the wife's sister and then divorce her but now the wife no longer needs a yibum or chaitzah. Note that pruzbol and heter iska began as ha-aaramah and later became a ceremony. I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview it. Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 11:57:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 14:57:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah Message-ID: <20150821185758.GA8815@aishdas.org> The word "mesorah" is overloaded with too many meanings. Literally, it's "that which was passed on". So logically, a common usage would make it synonymous with TSBP. And yet it's also used for the near opposite -- we speak of the mesoretic text, its vowels and its trope -- the ultimate in TSBK. And the collections of notes that describe that text are also called "mesorah". (So the mesorah describes the mesorah?! And you can join the email list if you wish to discuss the mesorah, diqduq, nusach hetefillah and the like.) More along the lines of the direction I want to head in, unlike talking about TSBP and thus focusing our attention on Divine origins, when we speak of mesorah we focus out attention on the chain of people. And so there is the usage of "mesorah" to mean mimetic tradition, and is often posed in contrast to textual TSBP. Notice R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik not only defines "mimetic tradition" as knowing what a kezayis is because you remember what your father and greandfather ate at the seder but also considers such cultural mesorah (my term) rather than textual transmission to be the carrier of value and emotion. It is the loss of mimetic tradition that he blames for the loss of dread of the Yamim Noraim and (in speech, not writing) for the loss of what his father RJBS called the "Erev Shabbos Jew" (from "On Repentance, pp 97-98): Even in those neighborhoods made up predominantly of religious Jews, one can no longer talk of the 'sanctity of Shabbat.' True, there are Jews in America who observe Shabbat... But it is not for Shabbat that my heart aches; it is for the forgotten 'erev Shabbat'.... There are Shabbat-observing Jews in America, but there are no 'erev Shabbat' Jews who go out to greet Shabbat with beating hearts and pulsating souls. There are many who observe the precepts with their hands, with their feet, and/or with their mouths - but there are few indeed who truly know the meaning of the service of the heart!" Then we speak of someone "having a mesorah" in two different uses: both if they have a received practice and cultural (as above) and if they have a known rebbe-talmid lineage. Still in contrast to texts, we're talking about the importance of all that Torah that doesn't fit into books. We also talk about those in the hands-on kelei qodesh, such as a sofer, a mohel, a shocheit, etc... also of "having a mesorah" from the one who taught them the craft. And that too is all about the kind of thing you need to learn with your senses and muscles, and not know from books discussing the topic in the abstract. To pasqen mar'os, a rav must also have a mesorah in that sense. It's a skill, a craft, that is learned from practice under the guidance of a mentor. Usually called "shimush". For regular pesaq too there is an element that is a craft, an art, a skill, the kind of thing one needs to learn from shimush, not by studying from abstract texts. Qara veshanah velo shamash TC, harei zeh am ha'aretz. ... - Sotah 22a This is why I like R/Dr Moshe Koppel's metaphor of laws of grammar for some usages rather than always comparing halakhah to civil law. (More as per his sefer "Metahalakhah" than in the essay "Judaism as a First Language" .) As I wrote in Feb : The "First Language" model is much like R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik's mimeticism, but also somewhat different. Halachic rules are an approximation of something that is inherently more complex in kind than rules and algorithms. Much the way grammar is only approximated by ever more complex rules which still never get a foreigner studying the language in class to the same feel for grammar that the native-speaker has. (And why TSBP loses something when not be'al peh.) So the ESL student may know what a past pluperfect is, and I don't, but the native speaker is more likely to know what is valid poetic license and what will produce non-English results. Similarly, a poseiq needs to pick up that feel, not the formal rules. Unstructured knowledge. I have two rather lengthy quotes that help create a feel for what I am talking about. They're quite beautiful, so I appreciate this excuse to share them. Notice how RYBS explicitly defines the word "mesorah" at the beginning of this first quote, UBiqashta miSham 10:1, pp. 63-65 (tr. RARR, The Rav, vol. I, pp. 247-250): Let me stress the idea of the Mesorah by telling you a personal story. I remember that when I was growing up I was frightened and lonely boy. I was afraid of the world. For me, the world was a cold and strange place. I imagined that everyone was mocking me. But I had one friend; do not laugh at me, it was the Rambam [Maimonides]. How did we become friends? Simply, we met. Rambam was a constant guest in our home. During the days when my father was newlywed, supported by my grandfather... father studied Torah day and night. A small group of outstanding young scholars gathered around him and eagerly absorbed his teachings. My father studied with his disciples in the room where my bed was located. My wont was to sit on my bed and listen to my father's words. He constantly quoted Rambam. His method was to first open the Talmud and analyze the text under discussion and the relevant commentaries. He would generally say: these are the explanations of Tosafot. Now, let us analyze the explanations of Rambam. My father would inevitably discover that Rambam rejected the basic explanation of the text and differed with Tosafot. My father would declare, as if to complain, that we cannot comprehend the approach and conclusion of Rambam towards the Talmud text. It was almost as if my father were directly saying to Rambam: "Rabbi Moshe, why have you taken this approach?" My father would continue, "at first glance, the Ra'avad (commentary on the Rambam) is correct at his criticism." The students would jump forward and each would express his thoughts. My father would carefully listen but would refute their proposed interpretations. Once again he would exclaim that the words of Rambam were incomprehensible. Nevertheless, my father would not give up. He would place his head on his hand and soon be engrossed in deep thought. The students would not disturb his thought process. Finally, my father would gradually lifts his head and begin to expound the true meaning of Rambam. Sometimes he would be lengthy, and on other occasions brief. I would strain my ears to catch my father's every word. In my young and impressionable mind, there developed a duel impression: First, that the Rambam was being attacked by enemies who wanted to hurt him, and second, that the Rambam's only defender was my father. I felt strongly that without my father, who knows what would happen to the Rambam? It was as if the Rambam himself were with us in the room, listening to my father's words. The Rambam sat next to me on my bed. What did he look like? I don't know exactly. He seemed to look like an exceedingly handsome and good father. His name was also Moshe, just like my father. Intensely following my father, the students absorbed his every word. Slowly but surely, the tension evaporated. My father continued his discourse with strength and courage. New ideas were clarified; the laws under discussion were classified and carefully articulated. A new light emerged; the questions were resolved and the topic properly explained. Rambam emerged triumphant, and my father's face was filled with happiness and delight. He had defended his friend, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon. The Rambam was comforted and smiled. I too was delighted and joined in the feeling of joy in the room. I would jump from my bed and run to my mother and cry out the good news: "mother, mother, the Rambam won; he beat the Raavad. Father helped him. Look how wonderful my father is!" But once in a great while my father did not succeed, and despite all his efforts the enemies of the Rambam defeated him. Their questions were as strong as iron. Although my father mustered all his strength, he could not save the Rambam from his detractors. Salvation did not come for the Rambam. Deep in thought, my father would lean on his head on the palms of his hands on the table. The students and I, and even the Rambam, waited in great tension for my father's words. But my father would raise his head and sadly state: "there is no answer. The words of the Rambam are difficult. The shiur ended with no explanation. The students were sad, and even my father was depressed. A sense of despair descended upon all of us. I cried. Even the eyes of the Rambam glistened with tear-drops. With a broken heart, I would walk slowly to my mother and cry out to her: "Mother, father cannot answer the Rambam. What will we do? He did not succeed today." And my mother would tell me: "Don't worry. Father will find and answer to the Rambam. If he does not succeed, then when you grow up perhaps you will find an answer to the Rambam. Always remember, my son, the important thing about Torah is to study it in happiness and enthusiasm." It is true that this story is part of my youth. It is not, however, the fantasy of a young child or the creation of mystical feelings. This story is an historic and psychological reality that guides me at all time. When I sit down to learn, the giants of the Mesorah are with me. Our relationship is personal. The Rambam sits to my right, Rabbeinu Tam to my left. Rashi sits at the head and explains, Rabbeinu Tam asks, the Rambam decides the halacha, and the Raavad objects. All of them are with me in my small room, sitting around the table. They look at me with fondness. They world the text out with me, and life a father, they encourage and strengthen me. Learning Torah is not just a didactic, formal, and technical experience whose purpose is the creation and exchange of ideas. Learning Torah is the intense experience of uniting many generations together, the joining of spirit to spirit, and the connecting of soul to soul. Those who transmit the Torah and those who receive the Torah are invited to meet one another at the same historic juncture. And Reflections of the Rav, vol II, pp. 21b-23 (original language in: RARR's The Rav vol II, pp 186-189) this quote winds up with mention of the mesorah: The old Rebbe walks into the classroom crowded with students who are young enough to be his grandchildren. He enters as an old man with wrinkled face, his eyes reflecting the fatigue and sadness of old age. You have to be old to experience this sadness. It is the melancholy that results from an awareness of people and things which have disappeared and linger only in memory. I sit down; opposite me are rows of young beaming faces with clear eyes radiating the joy of being young. For a moment, the Rabbe is gripped with pessimism, with tremors of uncertainly. He asks himself: Can there be a dialogue between an old teacher and young students, between a Rebbe in his Indian summer and students enjoying the spring of their lives? The Rebbe starts his shiur, uncertain as to how it will proceed. Suddenly the door opens and an old man, much older than the Rebbe, enters. He is the grandfather of the Rebbe, Reb Chaim Brisker. It would be most difficult to study Talmud with students who are trained in the sciences and mathematics, were it not for his method, which is very modern and equals, if not surpasses, most contemporary forms of logic, metaphysics or philosophy. The door opens again and another old man comes in. He is older than Reb Chaim, for he lived in the 17th century. His name is Reb Shabtai Cohen, known as the Shach, who must be present when civil law (dinai mamonot) is discussed. Many more visitors arrive, some from the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, and others harking back to antiquity -- Rabbeinu Tam, Rashi, Rambam, Raavad, Rashba, Rabbi Akiva and others. These scholarly giants of the past are bidden to take their seats. The Rebbe introduces the guests to his pupils, and the dialogue commences. The Rambam states a halacha; the Raavad disagrees sharply, as is his wont. Some students interrupt to defend the Rambam, and they express themselves harshly against the Raavad, as young people are apt to do. The Rebbe softly corrects the students and suggest more restrained tones. The Rashba smiles gently. The Rebbe tries to analyze what the students meant, and other students intercede. Rabeinu Tam is called upon to express his opinion, and suddenly, a symposium of generations comes into existence. Young students debate earlier generations with an air of daring familiarity, and a crescendo of discussion ensues. All speak one language; all pursue one goal; all are committed to a common vision; and all operate with the same categories. A Mesorah collegiality is achieved, a friendship, a comradeship of old and young, spanning antiquity, the Middle Ages and modern times. This joining of the generations, this march of centuries, this dialogue and conversation between antiquity and the present will finally bring about the redemption of the Jewish people. After a two-or three hour shiur, the Rebbe emerges from the chamber young and rejuvenated. He has defeated age. The students look exhausted. In the Mesorah experience, years play no role. Hands, however parchment-dry and wrinkled, embrace warm and supple hands in commonality, bridging the gap with separates the generations. Thus, the "old ones" of the past continue their great dialogue of the generations, ensuring an enduring commitment to the Mesorah. So there is a community of baalei mesorah that carries down a mimetic tradition of how to pasqen. A tradition of informal knowledge that cannot be codified into books and that creates a feel and emotional consequence. This is RYBS's usual usage of the word, "mesorah". No better or worse than any of the other usages, but more relevant to two of the conversations we've (we as in various members of the A/A chevrah, not necessarily here on Avodah) been having lately. In the discussion of feminism and Torah (which hasn't been here, but we have had identical cycles here before), RHS's piece "Preserving Our Mesorah in Changing Times" and others like it are often cited. RHS opens: What is Mesorah? Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today.[1] The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers.[2] 1. Avot 1:1. 2. For a more extensive discussion of mesorah, see Nefesh HaRav, pp. 34-58 and Beikvei HaTzon, pp. 21-37. Firmly in line with what we've seen from his rebbe, mesorah is used in the sense of the chain of transmission down time that conveys the art and culture of halakhah decision-making and Torah as a whole. And a bit further down he discusses "Who Is Authorized to Institute Change?" {emph mine): Changes in practice require delicate evaluations that only a master Torah scholar, a gadol baTorah, can properly conduct. Only someone with a broad knowledge and a deep understanding of the corpus of halachah, with an intimate familiarity with both the letter and the spirit of the law, WITH A MASTERY OF BOTH THE RULES AND THE ATTITUDES OF THE MESORAH, can determine when a change is acceptable or even required. The more wide-reaching the proposed change, the greater the expertise required to approve it. The evaluator must not only be a master of the mesorah, but he must also be able to consider new practices based solely on values internal to the mesorah, removing external influences from the deliberation.[14] 14. See Halakhic Mind, n. 98. But I think this example from a teshuvah (tr and poor title by YWN is more on-topic: Indeed, the Rav would often say (see drasha to Parshas Korach), that every person must recognize that he needs a Rav or a Rebbe. Even a Talmid Chochom whose Rebbe had passed away must constantly ask himself in truth (when they present questions to him) what his Rebbe would have said in such a scase, and what stance he would have taken. ... The expression that some of those who have permitted this utilize that according to the technical halacha a certain act is permitted, and that which people wish to prohibit it is because of political considerations is incorrect. For even a matter such as changing the mesorah the traditions of the Jewish people is in and of itself an integral section of halacha. When one rules on the donning of Tefillin for women it is not enough to merely examine the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch in Hilchos Tefillin and in the sources there and treat it as a simple question. The version of mesorah in RYBS's usage is the same concept RHS invokes to reject a "but it can be fit to the technical halakhah so your objection is merely political" attitude. Change must conform to mesorah to be valid, even if the textualists are satisfied. This is not an invocation of "daas Torah", because we're talking about questions of Torah, not politics or other metzi'us; we are invoking knowledge, if cultural and informal knowledge rather than book knowledge, and not invoking any metaphysical or mytical power; and because we do not expect a single correct answer that "the gedolim hold". But it still makes halachic decisionmaking when it comes to significant change subject to the skill of a few, and the rest of us are forced to submit to their understanding. The other use we've been knocking around, and this was here on-list, is RYBS's statement (Qinos Mesorat haRav, quoted by RGS here : Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebeal peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... RYBS identifies mesorah as the ineffible skill to think like a poseiq. And that we do get from those who explain how the prior generations developed the law, how the community down the ages conversed about the law, from living in the culture whose mimeticism is mesorah. And we saw Sotah's opinion of someone who learns without shimush. From only a little further down in that sugya (22a): Tanna: Hatannaim (those who repeat codified law) are swallowers of the world. Could you really think [they] are "swallowers of the world"? Ravina said: For they are morah halakhah from their repetition of the law. There is a a beraisa like this: R' Yeushua said, "And are they 'swallowers of the world? Aren't they settlers of the world, as it says 'halikhos olam lo' (Chavaquq 3)? Rather, because they are moreh halakhah from their repetition of the law. You can't pasqen from codes, from legal knowledge. It takes knowledge of how the codes reached their conclusion -- both textual knowledge obtained from the meforshim, and the skills to pasqen obtained by shimush. As R Yochanan quotes besheim Rashbi (Berakhos 7b), "gedolah shimushah shel Torah yoseir meilimudah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 22 16:06:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 00:06:16 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:41:09PM +0100, RMB wrote: :> Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the :> Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The :> parshan connects the past to the now. I replied: : That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. : Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation : handed over to the next. And RMB further replied: <> I read the quote and the original RGS posting before commenting on the thread because I generally try not to jump in mid-conversation without understanding what has previously been said. And that is precisely what I am objecting to. Because the RGS piece (including the quote) - is actually about our mesorah *regarding learning* (ie a much narrower slice of the wider definition). In that, as I said, I think it correct - our mesorah regarding how to learn - how to sit in Yeshiva and deal with the texts owes far more to Rashi and Tosphos than to the Rambam. But as stated in the quote, this suddenly becomes "our mesorah" in general and that is what I find problematic as I will try and articulate below. So let us look at the quote again: RGS quoted Qinot Mesorat haRav. The quote is long, so I'm just giving part: Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebe'al peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... The point I am making is that "any mesorah, "any chain of tradition" is much, much wider than what is done in Brisker yeshivas as part of the learning process. <> Now, if the point you are making is that RYBS was addressing yeshiva bochrim within a yeshiva setting (albeit explaining kinos on Tisha B'av) and hence explaining what it is that they do all day learning-wise- then the use of such language is probably excusable without the modifier - ie in this context mesorah is simply short for "mesorah with regard to how to learn". But the problem is that this language has now been pulled, by way of RGS's article (and lends itself to being pulled by its sheer breadth), into a wider application and wider audience, and not modified as such. It was then pulled across into Avodah, and the reference questioned, which I think it should be, because RGS's argument is implicitly if not explicitly far wider. And that I think is a problem, because what is true for one slice of "the mesorah" is not necessarily true for the whole. Whether this imprecision is RYBS's or RGS's is hard for me to be sure, as you say, this is a quote taken out of context. <> And this is where this slide from discussing one slice of the mesorah - what to do in Yeshiva, to a much wider slice of the mesorah becomes problematic, because of the implication you have just made which is that what is true of the section applies to the whole. And in this context you are dealing with what is called in common parlance the mesorah, not about conversations down time. So by slight of hand what you are doing is taking a definition which you acknowledge is a very limited and idiosyncratic one, but then sliding the conclusions that arise from that definition into the more standard debate, and claiming that was RYBS's opinion regarding the debate about what is more commonly known as "the mesorah". Let us therefore back up for a minute and discuss that aspect of RGS's post which in my view is unquestionably correct, even using the usual definition of mesorah: RGS comments that he and his father tried to learn meseches Nedarim just using the meforash, in the absence of Rashi, and were not able to do so (they were then only able to do it using the Ran, a much later commentary) - thus demonstrating the point of the post, which is, without Rashi, most of the Talmud Bavli would be a closed book to most people of average, and even above average, intelligence (like the Talmud Yerushalmi). This is unquestionably true. The Rambam was also aware of this problem (after all he learned all of Talmud Bavli without Rashi and everybody he knew either did so or tried to do so). His solution to RGS's problem was to tell RGS and his father, and people like him, not to try and learn Talmud Bavli, but to learn his, the Rambam's, Code instead. Ie instead of trying to tackle Maseches Nedarim, he would suggest that RGS and his father learn Hilchos Nedarim from the Mishne Torah. Now the truth is that if RGS and his father had in fact learnt all of Hilchos Nedarim from the Rambam, and all of the rest of the Mishne Torah, backwards and forwards and inside out - they are likely then to be well set up to tackle the Talmud Bavli without Rashi. Ie you *can* use the Rambam as a guide back into the Talmud if you are bright enough (because you have most of the concepts already explained by him), but it is not an easy way to do it. The Rambam assumed that the average person would stop with his Code, and only the best and brightest would need then to go back to the Talmud, to help determine the ambiguous cases not caught by his code, in a method not a million miles away from the one use by smicha students in learning Hilchos Shechita or Kashrus - first learn the Shulchan Aruch, then work your way back to the underlying gemoras so you are in a position to posken those cases the Shulchan Aruch doesn't catch. Our mesorah is like Rashi in this regard and not the Rambam (except when it comes to smicha students). We open up the Talmud Bavli even to children using Rashi and hundreds of thousands are sitting in yeshiva following Rashi. The problem is that people (it would appear including you) then generalise from "how we learn" to "how we posken" - which is what really is involved in the discussion regarding Open O and feminism. And they are not the same thing at all. Indeed, the fact that smicha students (those that are being set up to posken) are taught in a totally different way to the more general way of learning in yeshiva, and one that owes far more to the Rambam than to Rashi and Tosphos should alert you to that. I am then going to diverge a bit to discuss RAM's post, because he is discussing something completely different again: I wrote: > Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more of > them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the Rambam, were > able to formulate their halachic conclusions. And RAM replied: <> But you here (and it is even more explicit later) are discussing something completely different to what I was and am discussing. To best differentiate, I would say that you are discussing *content* and I am discussing *process*. Yes with regard to *content* it makes a difference which particular one of the Tosphosim were included on the page, and which weren't - but that is not what I am discussing. Rather I am discussing *how to learn* - ie how to make sense of this Talmud Bavli which (as RGS elucidated so eloquently) is so difficult for people to get into without help. What Rashi did was to provide a clear and simple explanation of the words on the page. What Tosphos did (and in this regard the whole commentary called Tosphos - despite the fact that it was made up of many different people, in fact teaches pretty much the same thing) was to teach people to say "hold on a minute, if we take the simple explanation provided by Rashi, then: a) there is a contradiction with what the gemora says somewhere else; or b) there is a contradiction with what in fact people do - so therefore we need to try and solve this problem. I then further goes on to teach people to say: very commonly we can solve this problem by: (i) re-interpreting this gemora; and/or (ii) reinterpreting that gemora; and/or (iii) finding some way of harmonizing the two gemoras, or the gemora and people's practice, or if we cannot manage to that (but only in extremis), (iv) working out that a certain gemora is more authoritative or the people are wrong. Note that when you are considering the process, it doesn't matter which particular sets of Tosphos' questions made it onto the page and which didn't - what is far more important is the fact that the commentary in general teaches people to ask these questions and mechanisms for trying to answer them. That is what a (eg child) who is first taught to study the gemora with Rashi suddenly encounters when he moves on to Tosphos. Hold on, Rashi's commentary may make a lot of sense in localised context, but we now have to try and consider the whole. Now of course the Rambam had not only to be his own Rashi, but he had to be his own Tosphos. He could not have written his Code if underneath the surface he did not deal with the fact that the gemora appears to contradict itself all over the place, and also to contradict what people are actually doing. The fundamental job of most meforshim on the Rambam is therefore (a) to explain how the Rambam understood the simple explanation of the gemora (ie what the Rambam would have said if he had written Rashi) and (b) how the Rambam resolved the contradictions in the various gemoras and with common practice (ie how the Rambam deals with the kinds of problems raised by the Tosphosim). But all of this is under the surface. All we have from the Rambam is the result, what we have from Tosphos are the questions. And it is the questions which give people a better window into how to learn gemora. So that is why, when discussing *process* it does not matter that: <> Because while we might have different Tosphos questions (ie content) on (or off) the page if hashgacha had gone in a different direction, or if there were gemoros on some of the mesechtos on which we have none, the process of *how* Tosphos (or the Rambam) would have dealt with that content is still the same. But if we would have had no Rashi and no Tosphos at all, ie the process they originated, but only the Rambam, we would all have learnt the code backward and forward, and a few bright sparks would have then used that to understand the gemora - a very, very different process of learning. In that regard our mesorah of learning comes from Rashi and Tosphos. On the other hand, RET is correct: <> Although I would modify that statement not to say "and not be bound by any text", as most at that point agreed that they should be bound by the gemora (and the Tanach as understood by the mishna/gemora), just not beyond that. And that is the point. There are two different concepts being discussed here, the mesorah of "how to learn" and the mesorah of "how to posken" (which then leads into what it is that people do). And when the Shulchan Aruch came out a lot of people strongly objected to the way of poskening that is a consequence of the codes. They thought that each posek should re-learn the relevant underlying gemoras, and work out their own harmonisation of them without being influenced, and certainly not bound, by what the Shulchan Aruch said. Some people perhaps thought that was a bit extreme, and that at least they should learn the underlying gemoras with all the rishonim, and, to the extent there was rishonic view, at least make a judgement within that spectrum (but not necessarily prioritise eg the Rambam, Rif and Rosh, or the Trumas HaDeshen and the Mordechai, being the most recent, over the others). The problem you have though is that - well, according to the gemora there are at least 50 ways of determining that a sheretz is kosher. Even if you then say that the gemora draws certain lines in the sand, there is no question that - well, let us take the hair covering question as illustrative. There are clearly (at least) two ways of reading the question: (a) hair covering for married women is an absolute and immutable d'orisa principle; (b) hair covering for married women is a tznius related convention - and given the convention at the time of the gemora (and earlier) it is required in those societies where it is practiced by modest Jewish women by virtue of rabbinic decree. If you can't see that the underlying sources (eg the mishna and gemora) *could* lead to either interpretation, then you are either wilfully blinding yourself or you can't learn. If you purely follow Rashi and Tosphos, then *if* you can read the underlying gemora sources in such a way as to harmonise with common practice today (even if you believe it is a bit of a dochek), then you would be free to do so, or at least, have no basis to criticise others who do this. However, nobody has that conversation today. The conversation you are having is about "how authoritative" are the various poskim (and from which tradition) who do appear to rule in one way or another. The power of Rav Broyde's article for example - is that he argues that the Rosh (and hence the Tur) and even the Rambam actually posken (b) out of the options, and this can be seen in the Shulchan Aruch. That is the kind of conversation we have today - with others of course rejecting that this is what can be read into the Shulchan Aruch. Hence I said: : It is only those who also have an eye to the : codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in : the light of common practice. And RMB replied: <> But neither Rashi nor Tosphos gave us any method of limiting where psak went, and indeed the Ri can hold one thing and Rabbanu Tam another within the same Tosphos. The Codes are far less open. And the language of the Shulchan Aruch is in the vast majority of cases the language of the Rambam thereby leading back to the thought process of the Rambam. The Rema then picks up a few of the cases where Ashkenazi practice differs and used a Code process to insert Rashi's explanation into the Code (although often where it had already been filtered through the Rosh and the Tur first). That is taking Rashi content and using it in a Rambam like way. Which is why the mesorah for how we posken is much closer to the Rambam than it is to Rashi. And what we do outside of the yeshiva is more about how we posken than about how we learn. Which is why I disagree: >Without the parshanim, there is no way to fill in the holes between se'ifim, to know how the conclusions were reached so that halakhah can survive beyond the limited set of cases in the Rambam >or SA. Of course there is, you have to go back to the original gemora - having first learnt through all of the related si'ifim in the Codes, and then make sure you understand how the rulings that are in the Codes relate to the underlying gemora. Once you have done that you can start to fill in the gaps, But only the select few who need to actually posken need to know this method - which is why it only needs to be taught to smicha students. But it is obvious that is the method used by the Rambam when answering questions outside of his own code in his teshuvos. <> And if you don't find it, it probably doesn't matter - because without the attitude of the codifiers, you really only need Rashi to understand the gemora and if you can do it without him, then great. And if you can't understand the gemora without him you wouldn't have a hope of formulating any ruling as the gemora would be a closed book. >Micha Shavuah tov Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 04:38:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:38:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Daf HaKashrus August 2015 Message-ID: <20150823113822.1203D183A0B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/daf_hakashrus_aug_2015.pdf This issue includes articles about bishul on Shabbos and dairy bread as well as other topics. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 02:10:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:10:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: [Email #1, in reply to R' Akiva Miller.] > My point is that while RMB and RCL are trying to imagine what Torah would > look like without Tosaphos, as I see it, even the Tosaphos that we do have > is a somewhat random document. I believe this is somewhat of an exaggeration. The school of Tosafot was basically begun by Rabbenu Tam followed by Ri (haZaken). Unfortunately we don't have much of their notes and Sefer haYashar is fragmentary. However, from Tosfat Shantz through Tosafot Tuch we have several manuscripts. It is true that the early publishers (or more exactly the rabbis chosen by these publishers) used whatever material they had however, I don't think that in most cases the differences between different talmidim were that great. Obviously some were more verbose and some less so and each included their individual rebbes and their own opinions. Nevertheless on the whole they were similar. Tosafot haRosh was the main version used in much of Spain. For reasons that are not clear to me this version was lost for many centuries before reappearing relatively recently. In individual cases one learns something new from Tosafot haRosh but I am not sure that on the whole it is that dramatically different from the printed versions [Email #2, in reply to me. -micha] > To pasqen mar'os, a rav must also have a mesorah in that sense. It's > a skill, a craft, that is learned from practice under the guidance of > a mentor. Usually called "shimush". I recall seeing recently (on avodah?) a machloket of poskim whether one needs shimush in order to pasken on maaros or it is sufficient to learn from seforim. In general some poskim feel that for many areas shimush is no longer needed now that we have detailed seforim. A number of gedolim of the 20th century essentially learned alone with minimal input from teachers. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 07:20:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 17:20:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] child conversion Message-ID: The recent court to allow conversion of under bar/bat mitzvah children is controversial. The bone of contention is whether it is considred a zechut for children to become Jewish when they grow up in a non-religious setting. R. Rosen recently gave a list of rabbis that allow it (at least bideved) and those that forbid it. I found the list interesting and not what I would have guessed Machmirim and not allowing the conversion: R Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor, Sridei Eish,R. Kook and R. Yisraeli Mekilim (at least bideved) Bet Yitzchak, Mateh Levi, Achiezer, RMF, R. Elyashiv, ROY -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 15:03:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:03:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150823220352.GA13158@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:10:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : In general some poskim feel that for many areas shimush is no longer : needed now that we have detailed seforim. A number of gedolim of the : 20th century essentially learned alone with minimal input from teachers. Well, RYBS's notion of "mesorah" is broader than that, as Rashi and Tosafos are considered part of it. Yes, shimush is more central to relaying a feel for how halakhah should be decided, but books that spell out past decisions also apparently play a role. But the truth is most of the gedolim in the 20th cent (Slabodka alumni aside) learned one-on-one often moving in with their rebbe. What you call "minimal" I would call "short and intense". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 25 18:27:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:27:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion Message-ID: The assumption is that it is better to be a non-religious Jew (thereby violating numerous halakhos) than a moral non-Jew. (I am being over simplistic as being non-Jewish citizen in Israel is more of a liability than elsewhere, so there may be a zechus to be a non-religious ger katan.) The irony as many have noted is that those who are most lenient about child conversion tend to be those who are also lenient in accepting that one could lead a perfectly good life as a non-Jew. Those who think that it is better to be Jewish than non-Jewish by extension should accept the conversion of a ger katan who will be raised by a non-religious family. The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for reasons of Nationalism. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 25 18:50:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:50:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) Message-ID: To parachute into an ongoing discussion, I have found that people use Mesorah in four different ways: 1) Personal Mesorah from a Rebbe to a Talmid. What a scholar or layman learns from his teacher. 2) Mesorah as the unbroken chain of Torah going back to Sinai. Rambam zt"l has the most famous mesorah chart, though I like Micha Berger's. (Parallels can be in Hadith transmission traditiona, Sufi traditions or the Catholic Church's assumption of an unbroken chain back to Peter). 3) Communal norms and traditions. This is how the term is commonly used in the Chareidi communities and also how it is being used in the ongoing discussion. This is the idea that there are legitimate practices, norms, values or halakhic understandings. For example different methodologies of learning. Or, as my brothers-in-law say to me, well if that is the mesorah of your community, then it is legitimate, even if they don't relate to this practice. (Personally, I do not relate to such a usage. Either an approach is valid/true or not valid/true.) I discussed the last category in an essay that Gil was kind enough to post: http://www.torahmusings.com/2011/07/two-types-of-orthodox-judaism/ There are probably other uses of the term *mesorah*, but I cannot think of them at the moment. Best wishes, Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 26 00:43:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:43:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] smart lighting Message-ID: can one use smart lighting on shabbat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_lighting -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 05:00:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:00:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov Message-ID: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? KVCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 10:37:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:37:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:00:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party : to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not : actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) My own lexicon: hakaras hatov: realizing that a good thing came into your life hoda'ah: acknowledging the one who / One Who provided that good Say Avi gives Berakhah a ball. Berakhah's hakaras hatov has an primary object, which is the ball -- the tov she received from Avi. Not taking life's gifts for granted. But her hoda'ah has a primary object -- which is Avi, and a secondary object, the ball. As in the grammar of "Modim anachnu Lakh al..."; the prespositional phrase giving you the secondary object is a list of all the things Hashem does for us. I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. Which, if you think about it, is what Chazal say about the early makos and how Moshe would not be the one to launch a makah that afflicts the water that saved him as a baby or the sand that hid the body. I'm not thrilled with the whole idea of exchanging favors, creating a market. It turns everything back on self-service -- every positive act is tainted by expectation of being repaid. : How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? Perhaps kibud av va'eim and kavod harav are their own concepts for a reason. And that hakaras hatov might explain the issur against hurting or cursing one's parents, but not kavod and yir'ah. I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 10:55:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:55:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". Tir'u baTov! -Micha Zechiyah uMattanah - Chapter Seven Translated by Eliyahu Touger Halacha 1 It is a universally accepted custom in most countries that when a man marries, his friends and acquaintances send him money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Then the friends and acquaintances who sent him this money come and eat and drink with the groom during all - or part - of the seven days of wedding celebration; everything should be done according to the accepted local custom. The money that he is sent is called shushvinut, and the people who send the money and then come and eat and drink with the groom are called shushvinin. Halacha 2 Shushvinut is not an outright gift. For it is plainly obvious that a person did not send a colleague 10 dinarim with the intent that he eat and drink a zuz's worth. He sent him the money solely because his intent was that when he would marry, he would send him money as he has sent him. Therefore, if the sender marries a woman, and the recipient does not return the shushvinut, the sender may lodge a legal claim against the recipient and expropriate the money from him. KVCT 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 12:01:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:01:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55DF5E92.9020405@sero.name> On 08/27/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". I believe the reference is to the law of shushvinin. But that is not a matter of hakaras hatov; it's an explicit quid pro quo arrangement. If you don't pay it back when it falls due, you're cheating the person of a quantifiable amount of money that you explicitly owe him, so he can sue you for it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 12:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <55DF64EA.6000201@sero.name> On 08/27/2015 01:55 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Mistranslation: This should be "...the expenses of the feast." -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 11:40:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 11:40:40 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus Message-ID: if there is a general assumption that one eats in another shomer shabbos' house without going thru their pantry, does the same hold in a shmitta year in israel where there are also multiple minhagim ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 14:08:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:08:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> On 08/28/2015 02:40 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > if there is a general assumption that one eats in another shomer > shabbos' house without going thru their pantry, does the same hold > in a shmitta year in israel where there are also multiple minhagim ? Lich'ora, since there is no consensus about shmita standards among shomrei shabbos, one who has a stricter practise can't assume that a randomly selected shomer shabbos is at least as strict as his. Therefore, without ascertaining this he can't eat those things which (according to his practise) are subject to shmita, but can eat those things which are not. Most importantly, though, he *can* eat from the other person's kelim, even if he *knows* that his shmita practices are more lenient than his own; for this purpose he can rely on "stam keilim einam benei yoman", even though normally one may only rely on this bediavad. This is the famous kula of "keilim divnei rhenus". -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 13:56:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:56:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov Message-ID: R' Micha Berger: <<< I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. >>> "Mah ashiv laShem, kol tagmulohi alai?" Akiva Miller On Aug 28, 2015 2:46 PM, "via Avodah" wrote: > Send Avodah mailing list submissions to > avodah at 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 at lists.aishdas.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." > > > A list of common acronyms is available at > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi > (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Child Conversion (Kaganoff via Avodah) > 2. Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) (Kaganoff via Avodah) > 3. smart lighting (Eli Turkel via Avodah) > 4. hakarat hatov (Rich, Joel via Avodah) > 5. Re: hakarat hatov (Micha Berger via Avodah) > 6. Re: hakarat hatov (Rich, Joel via Avodah) > 7. Re: hakarat hatov (Zev Sero via Avodah) > 8. Re: hakarat hatov (Zev Sero via Avodah) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:27:59 -0400 > From: Kaganoff via Avodah > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion > Message-ID: > oOARsdknGfHD5uwwUfKrmZGA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > The assumption is that it is better to be a non-religious Jew (thereby > violating numerous halakhos) than a moral non-Jew. > > (I am being over simplistic as being non-Jewish citizen in Israel is more > of a liability than elsewhere, so there may be a zechus to be a > non-religious ger katan.) > > The irony as many have noted is that those who are most lenient about child > conversion tend to be those who are also lenient in accepting that one > could lead a perfectly good life as a non-Jew. > > Those who think that it is better to be Jewish than non-Jewish by extension > should accept the conversion of a ger katan who will be raised by a > non-religious family. > > The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious > Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also > for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for > reasons of Nationalism. > > Yonatan > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150825/68f7e72c/attachment.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:50:52 -0400 > From: Kaganoff via Avodah > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) > Message-ID: > JWwz1eftmfgGuULn71A at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > To parachute into an ongoing discussion, I have found that people use > Mesorah in four different ways: > > 1) Personal Mesorah from a Rebbe to a Talmid. What a scholar or layman > learns from his teacher. > > 2) Mesorah as the unbroken chain of Torah going back to Sinai. Rambam zt"l > has the most famous mesorah chart, though I like Micha Berger's. (Parallels > can be in Hadith transmission traditiona, Sufi traditions or the Catholic > Church's assumption of an unbroken chain back to Peter). > > 3) Communal norms and traditions. This is how the term is commonly used in > the Chareidi communities and also how it is being used in the ongoing > discussion. This is the idea that there are legitimate practices, norms, > values or halakhic understandings. For example different methodologies of > learning. Or, as my brothers-in-law say to me, well if that is the mesorah > of your community, then it is legitimate, even if they don't relate to this > practice. (Personally, I do not relate to such a usage. Either an approach > is valid/true or not valid/true.) > > I discussed the last category in an essay that Gil was kind enough to post: > http://www.torahmusings.com/2011/07/two-types-of-orthodox-judaism/ > > There are probably other uses of the term *mesorah*, but I cannot think of > them at the moment. > > Best wishes, > Yonatan > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150825/4814ca39/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:43:29 +0300 > From: Eli Turkel via Avodah > To: Avodah > Subject: [Avodah] smart lighting > Message-ID: > < > CAGDtJ1GVgO0Ez55DoorrtQw_kfhbpGcPtQS8J8mV2rq-8rjYAA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > can one use smart lighting on shabbat > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_lighting > > -- > Eli Turkel > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150826/394e7ffd/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:00:05 +0000 > From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" > To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group (avodah at lists.aishdas.org)" > > Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: > <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de at VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party to > return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not > actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) > How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? > KVCT > 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. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150827/99422da9/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:37:32 -0400 > From: Micha Berger via Avodah > To: "Rich, Joel" , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <20150827173732.GA29088 at aishdas.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:00:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > : Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party > : to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not > : actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) > > My own lexicon: > hakaras hatov: realizing that a good thing came into your life > hoda'ah: acknowledging the one who / One Who provided that good > > Say Avi gives Berakhah a ball. > > Berakhah's hakaras hatov has an primary object, which is the ball -- > the tov she received from Avi. Not taking life's gifts for granted. > > But her hoda'ah has a primary object -- which is Avi, and a secondary > object, the ball. As in the grammar of "Modim anachnu Lakh al..."; > the prespositional phrase giving you the secondary object is a list > of all the things Hashem does for us. > > I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although > there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, > Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an > obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. > > Which, if you think about it, is what Chazal say about the early makos > and how Moshe would not be the one to launch a makah that afflicts the > water that saved him as a baby or the sand that hid the body. > > I'm not thrilled with the whole idea of exchanging favors, creating a > market. It turns everything back on self-service -- every positive > act is tainted by expectation of being repaid. > > > : How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? > > Perhaps kibud av va'eim and kavod harav are their own concepts for a > reason. And that hakaras hatov might explain the issur against hurting > or cursing one's parents, but not kavod and yir'ah. > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, > micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just > http://www.aishdas.org beginning. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:55:37 +0000 > From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" > To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group (avodah at lists.aishdas.org)" > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: > <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7 at VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > > Zechiyah uMattanah - Chapter Seven > Translated by Eliyahu Touger > > > Halacha 1 > > > It is a universally accepted custom in most countries that when a man > marries, his friends and acquaintances send him money to support the > expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Then the friends and > acquaintances who sent him this money come and eat and drink with the groom > during all - or part - of the seven days of wedding celebration; everything > should be done according to the accepted local custom. > > The money that he is sent is called shushvinut, and the people who send > the money and then come and eat and drink with the groom are called > shushvinin. > > > Halacha 2 > > > Shushvinut is not an outright gift. For it is plainly obvious that a > person did not send a colleague 10 dinarim with the intent that he eat and > drink a zuz's worth. He sent him the money solely because his intent was > that when he would marry, he would send him money as he has sent him. > > Therefore, if the sender marries a woman, and the recipient does not > return the shushvinut, the sender may lodge a legal claim against the > recipient and expropriate the money from him. > > KVCT > 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. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:01:38 -0400 > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > To: Micha Berger , The Avodah Torah Discussion > Group > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <55DF5E92.9020405 at sero.name> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > On 08/27/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > I believe the reference is to the law of shushvinin. But that is not > a matter of hakaras hatov; it's an explicit quid pro quo arrangement. > If you don't pay it back when it falls due, you're cheating the person > of a quantifiable amount of money that you explicitly owe him, so he > can sue you for it. > > -- > Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you > zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in > the street and commands me to surrender my purse, > I have a right to kill him without asking questions > -- John Adams > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:28:42 -0400 > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > To: "Rich, Joel" , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <55DF64EA.6000201 at sero.name> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > On 08/27/2015 01:55 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > > money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. > > Mistranslation: This should be "...the expenses of the feast." > > -- > Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you > zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in > the street and commands me to surrender my purse, > I have a right to kill him without asking questions > -- John Adams > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Avodah Digest, Vol 33, Issue 117 > *************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 30 20:32:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 23:32:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz - Lu'ach 5776 Message-ID: <20150831033207.C42DF1831DF@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 00:33:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 03:33:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz - Lu'ach 5776 Message-ID: <20150831073325.1618E182644@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 18:44:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 21:44:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: <20150901014419.GA6761@aishdas.org> Something I noticed... After the animal is shechted, a lung could be hollow, or full of liquid, and it's still kosher. But if there is a pinhole in both membranes around the lung, it's treif. Similarly the brain -- if the outside is solid, the inside could be rotten and the animal is still kosher. These are laws of tereifah that we refuse to change recardless of whether veterinary medicine disagrees about survivability. So I assume there is some point being made about chiyus in general in all this. However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is more important than penimius. Maybe something more like "fake it till you make it" -- as long as you keep the externals going, there is hope that the internals will fill in. But I'm fishing for better suggestions. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 19:18:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 22:18:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Factory Farming and Panicking the Animals Message-ID: <20150901021819.GA14109@aishdas.org> If the lung is tzemuqah (dried enough to be wrinkly like a raisin, but not dry enough to be called yeveishah)... There is a halakhah leMoshe miSinai that if it was due to fright caused by a person, the animel is tereifah if it's caused by HQBH (eg a lion attack), the animal is kosher. (AhS YD 36:70) If you do not know what the cause was, you check the lung -- man-made rei'ah tzemuqah won't rehydrate when soaked in water for 24 hours. But, this test is only used if the cause of the fright wasn't known (se'if 74); the cause of the stress is the iqar, not the dryness. Interesting is a comment at the end of se'if 70: Therefore it is correct that shoechtim be careful not to shecht one ba'al chai in front of another ba'al chai so that the lungs not get wrinkly and will require checking, ae will be explained. Also, there is tza'r ba'alei chaim in it ve'issur gamur hu and so wrote a number of gedolei ha'achronim. So I'm wondering, is our factory-style slaughter mutar? Can you say that this speed is a tachlis that makes the tza'ar needful, and thus mutar? Do people disagree with the AhS and his unnamed acharonim? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 20:52:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 05:52:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus In-Reply-To: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> References: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> Message-ID: <55E5210A.9050302@zahav.net.il> I would just add that like any other kashrut issue, a lot depends on why one has a particular practice. If one refuses to eat heter michira vegetables (that is the real issue) because he feels the HM is simply invalid, that is quite different than not using HM products because one wants to be machmir (assuming of course that not relying on the HM is a chumra). Ben On 8/28/2015 11:08 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > Lich'ora, since there is no consensus about shmita standards among > shomrei shabbos, one who has a stricter practise can't assume that > a randomly selected shomer shabbos is at least as strict as his. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 10:49:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 13:49:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another Tereifos Observation Message-ID: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> As I mentioned yesteday, any hole in the surface of the lung large enough to leak air would make the animal tereifah. What if the hole heals? AhS YD 36:7 (and elsewhere) says that a qerum (membrane) she'alah machmas makkah doesn't count. In se'if 14 he learns peshat in Rashi (Yavamos 76a "eino qerum") that there are two sevaros: 1- because this kind of closure isn't permanent 2- the closure is new. Akin to Chullin 68b "kivan shenitrefah, shuv ein lah heter) But in reality, the AhS says, "be'emes chad ta'amah hu" -- what makes the closure temporary is that it is made from the liquids of the makah. And therefore once the makah is healed, it has no cause. RYME notes that this is bedavqa when a new membrane is closing the hole. But if the side grow in until it closes, the lung is kosher. What about "kivan shenitrefah"? He writes "keshehaheter hayah mukhan be'eis hatarfus, lo chal alahh sheim tarfus ba'olam." Continuing what I wrote yesterday, that there must be much lehislameid from the halakhos of tereifos, given how we etched them in stone despite many of the rules losing their veterinary explanations.... We are told to have bitachon that before sending troubles, "Ein HQBH makeh es Yisrael ela im kein borei lahem refu'ah techilah" (Megillah 13b) This rule of tereifos, that the chalos sheim "tereifah" doesn't apply if the means by which the hole would close were pre-existing, seems to imply something further. In a sense, the makah itself isn't real because the refu'ah is already prepared. It is not that the bad times cause the good ones. Because they aren't permanent enough to be the root of permanent solutions. Rather, it is because it's all one process, the bad times being a bump in a road that from the moment you strarted traveling it leads to good. Or as Nachum ish Gam Zu said, "gam lu LEtovah" (emphasis mine), not "gam zu tovah". What redeems the bad times is that the route from them to tov is there before they even begin. ---- Language note: I noticed that rei'ah means "lungs", even though the term is in the singular and the translation is in the plural. There is no term of art for a single lung -- the main body of each lung is an omah and the lobes are onos or in Hebrew "aznayim". Tir'u baTov! -Micha Off-topic PS: I am seriously finding the beginning of YD turning me off to meat. -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 09:55:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 19:55:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Kosher Switch, Grama and Rav Osher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://podcast.headlinesbook.com/e/8-15-15-headlines/ where Rav Osher Weiss explains in detail his approach to grama, and electricity on Shabbos in general. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 11:17:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 14:17:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another Tereifos Observation In-Reply-To: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> References: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55E5EBB7.7060400@sero.name> On 09/01/2015 01:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Language note: I noticed that rei'ah means "lungs", even though the term > is in the singular and the translation is in the plural. There is no > term of art for a single lung -- the main body of each lung is an omah > and the lobes are onos or in Hebrew "aznayim". Yes, Chazal conceived of the lungs as a single organ. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 18:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 21:45:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > Similarly the brain -- if the outside is solid, the inside > could be rotten and the animal is still kosher. > ... > However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that > chitzonius is more important than penimius. > > Maybe something more like "fake it till you make it" -- as > long as you keep the externals going, there is hope that > the internals will fill in. > > But I'm fishing for better suggestions. I will offer another data point which also seems to suugest that chitzonius is more important than penimius. Mechaber 78:1 and Mishne Brurah 78:2,3 are obviously talking about a person who unfortunately suffers from incontinence. If he urinates while davening, he must pause, but can continue when the flow stops. This applies even if his legs and undergarments are totally wet, but NOT if the urine is on his outer garments. It seems that the cleanliness of one's outer garments is more important than the cleanliness of his undergarments, or even of his body itself. Similarly, if one needs to defecate, but he can hold himself for 4 mil, he will be yotzay davening b'dieved -- Mechaber 92:1. But that leniency is because it is mere pnimius; Mechaber 76:4,5 seems to be stricter once the tzoah has gone external. (Note: I think that it would not be difficult to show that chitzonius *is* important. The problem as I see it is that we've found some cases where it is *more* important than pnimius.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 00:17:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 10:17:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] bavli variants Message-ID: We are pleased to announce the launch of a new version (1.2) of the ' *Hachi **Garsinan*' Site for Variant-Readings of the Talmud Bavli. The site is freely accessible to all through the Friedberg portal: http://jewishmanuscripts.org . Version 1.1 of the website shows all hand-written text witnesses of the Talmud Bavli from the Cairo Genizah, with digital images (more than 4,600) and their transcriptions, in the framework of a software that allows the display of all text-witnesses of a specific Talmudic text in parallel columns in small units. Identical excerpts in a specific text-witness and in the Vilna can be marked, in order to spare the user the effort of comparing the texts. There are also additional helpful functions such as Save and Print, as specified in the website Homepage. *In the new version (1.2) - text witnesses from the following early printings have been added:* - *Guadalajara**(1480?), Spain / Portugal (Toledo? 1480-1490), Portugal (Faro? before 1498), Faro (1497?), Fez (1516-1521)* - *Soncino (1484-1489), Italy (1489-1498), Barco (1498-1499), Pesaro (1509-1516), Constantinople (1505-1509)* - *Venice** (1520-1523) * *(for details on tractates included in early printings - see Homepage). * *Furthermore, a function has been added to enable the user search for **terms or expressions in the Vilna** edition and each of the text witnesses that take part in the current version (Genizah and early printings) as well as a function to display the lexicon (**list of different words and their frequency**) of Vilna and of each of the other text-witnesses. Finally, the new version allows each user to alter the way that the text units are displayed on the variant-readings screen, using special editing tools designed for this purpose.* -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 05:05:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 08:05:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In my previous post, I cited some halachos which seem to demonstrate - surprisingly - that externals are *more* important than internals. Perhaps the source pasuk for those halachos might help us out. Devarim 23:15: "... v'hayah machanecha kadosh, v'lo yir'eh v'cha ervas davar..." "... your *camp* will be holy, and nothing unseemly will be seen in *you*..." We learn much from each of these phrases, but does anyone compare the relative importance of the reisha to that of the seifa? Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 08:31:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 11:31:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150902153128.GB27954@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 09:45:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Mechaber 78:1 and Mishne Brurah 78:2,3 are obviously talking about a person : who unfortunately suffers from incontinence... : Similarly, if one needs to defecate, but he can hold himself for 4 mil, he : will be yotzay davening b'dieved -- Mechaber 92:1. But that leniency is : because it is mere pnimius; Mechaber 76:4,5 seems to be stricter once the : tzoah has gone external. I am not sure these are examples. It may have to do with when tzo'ah smells, or when it starts being "tzo'ah" rather than part of the person. : (Note: I think that it would not be difficult to show that chitzonius *is* : important. The problem as I see it is that we've found some cases where it : is *more* important than pnimius.) Thinking about it more, I have more confidence in my earlier guess, that chitzonius is a better indicator of future penimius than current penimius is. Someone who is a passionate eved H', but for some reason isn't acting on it will likely lose that passion, and someone who develops the right habits in attempt to develop the feelings, mitokh shelo lishimah, ba lishmah. So it's not that it's more important; it's still of derived value. And yet, this reasoning explains Yahadus's focus on halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 18:30:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 21:30:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In Avodah V33n118, R'Micha wrote: > However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is more important than penimius. < Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what can be seen? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 06:30:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:30:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We recently had a thread which discusses the meaning of the word "mesorah". Coincidentally or not, I'd like to ask about the meaning of the verb "moser" as it occurs in the context of the Prozbul. I'd like to begin by giving two different *colloquial* uses of "moser": It can refer to the act of literally handing a fellow Jew to the authorities, but it can also refer to merely informing the authorities about a fellow Jew. My question about Prozbul is this: When the Prozbul says that the lender is "moser" the loans to Beis Din, does he actually hand them over, or does he merely inform? For decades, I had thought that the lender actually gives the loans to the Beis Din, in a manner similar to how anyone can use a commercial collection agency: Usually, if someone owes me money, I can sell that debt to a collection agency, but in the context of Shmitta, I give it as a gift to the beis din. Then, the beis din authorizes me to collect the debt on their behalf, and will allow me to retain 100% of it as my service fee. With the above, I have accomplished three important things: (1) When Rosh Hashana arrives, no one owes me anything, so I have no possibility of violating any halachos of Shmitas Kesafim. (2) When I collect from the borrower, I'm merely acting as an agent of beis din, to whom Lo Yigos does not apply, so I'm not violating anything. (3) Although the lender did not repay anything to me directly, my finances did not suffer, and future Shmitos will not influence to me avoid lending. BUT - From what I've learned, when a Prozbul is done, no kinyan ever occurs between the lender and the Beis Din, not even a kinyan sudar of the sort that I do when authorizing the rav to sell my chometz. Without a kinyan, I can't see how the loan ever leaves the ownership of the lender. So it is clear to me that Prozbul does NOT follow the "collection agency" model. Is there some other model that it does follow? The Mechaber Choshen Mishpat 67:8 talks about a situation that I will presume occurs before Erev Rosh Hashana: "If one claims money, and the other denies it, and the first sues in beis din and wins, and the psak din is that the second one must pay - this is a gibui, and shmita does not cancel it." If I'm understanding this correctly, then when a court verdict declares the A must pay B, this is not the sort of debt that shmita cancels, because the requirement to pay does not come from any interaction between the two men, but directly from the beis din's power. In other words, the lender can ask the borrower for money, but he is not asking for the loan to be repaid; rather, he is enforcing the court's ruling. This is a new obligation upon the borrower, which was created by the court, and is therefore exempt from Shmitas Kesafim. Perhaps this is how Prozbul works: Without any evidence or documentation, or even an itemized list, a person approaches the beis din and tells them that there are debts which are owed to him. The beis din responds with a court order that those debts must be paid. He can now collect them, because it is the *Beis Din* that wants them to be paid (irrespective of the fact that the lender wants them paid). This explanation solves the problem of Lo Yigos: The lender is not pressing the borrower for repayment of a personal loan; he is pressing the borrower to pay the court judgment. But the personal loan does still exist, doesn't it? The lender would still have an obligation to be personally m'shamet the loan at some point, but I think most people think that the Prozbul relieves them of that obligation. I'm stumped. When the lender is "moser" the loan to Beis Din, exactly what is happening? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 11:26:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 18:26:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0b20dda77d534fbdbec18095eaf0ce72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> We recently had a thread which discusses the meaning of the word "mesorah". Coincidentally or not, I'd like to ask about the meaning of the verb "moser" as it occurs in the context of the Prozbul. Akiva Miller ================================= Listen hear for discussion on point http://www.torahbase.org/prozbul-concept-halachos-5775/?lang=en Rav Asher Weiss-Prozbul ? Concept and Halachos 5775 Kvct 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 13:07:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:07:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch Message-ID: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> S"A O"C 55:11 as recorded in the 1st volume of the mishna brurah (it's not in my regular S"A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of the S"A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn't apply "now" because dina dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? KVCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 14:41:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2015 23:41:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What am I missing? Message-ID: <55EB6184.5050706@zahav.net.il> Re prozbul, I seem to be missing something. Personally I haven't loaned out any huge sums such that if I don't get them back, I would be reticent about loaning in the future. If I did loan out something small, why should I sign the prozbul? If the borrower doesn't pay me, well he doesn't have to (right?). If the borrower does pay me, he gets a bracha and everyone is a winner. What am I missing? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 21:10:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 00:10:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <55EBBC9C.9070304@sero.name> On 09/04/2015 04:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > S?A O?C 55:11 as recorded in the 1^st volume of the mishna brurah (it?s not in my regular S?A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of the S?A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn?t apply ?now? because dina dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? The note appears in the first edition, so presumably it was put there by the original publisher, in order to get it past the censor. Or perhaps it was inserted at the censor's insistence. In any case it houldn't need saying that it was not intended to be taken seriously by the intended audience. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49623&pgnum=170 (BTW, the censor's approval is dated 23-Dec-1882, the Hebrew date on the front page is 5683, but the secular date on the front page is 1884. Presumably that's how long publishing took.) -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 21:04:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 00:04:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Factory Farming and Panicking the Animals Message-ID: From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> If the lung is tzemuqah (dried enough to be wrinkly like a raisin, but not dry enough to be called yeveishah)... There is a halakhah leMoshe miSinai that if it was due to fright caused by a person, the animel is tereifah if it's caused by HQBH (eg a lion attack), the animal is kosher. (AhS YD 36:70) ....Interesting is a comment at the end of se'if 70: Therefore it is correct that shoechtim be careful not to shecht one ba'al chai in front of another ba'al chai so that the lungs not get wrinkly and will require checking, ae will be explained. << Micha Berger >>>> I remember reading that Temple Grandin had designed a spiral ramp with high walls for cattle to walk along before reaching the slaughtering spot. The design was such that the animal could not see out the sides or very far ahead as it walked, and would thus not witness other animals being slaughtered. This was meant to keep the animal calm and not frightened. I did not find the article with a quick google search but I am sure it's available somewhere. Temple Grandin is a famous expert in humane methods of animal slaughter. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 01:19:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 11:19:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? Message-ID: Most of selichos is us beseeching Hashem (poetically) for forgiveness and declaring that we are unworthy and sinners. However, the main part of selichos is the recitation of the 13 middos. However, the recitation of the 13 kiddos seems like almost magic, something we say because Hashem told us to as we say in the preceding paragraph "Hashem you commanded us to say the 13 [middos] ... as you told Moshe [the anav] ...". What is our kavannah supposed to be when we say the 13 middos? What should we be thinking? Why is saying the 13 middos so important? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 16:25:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 19:25:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150906232531.GA15175@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 11:19:51AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Most of selichos is us beseeching Hashem (poetically) for forgiveness and : declaring that we are unworthy and sinners. However, the main part of : selichos is the recitation of the 13 middos. However, the recitation of the : 13 kiddos seems like almost magic, something we say because Hashem told us : to as we say in the preceding paragraph "Hashem you commanded us to say the : 13 [middos] ... as you told Moshe [the anav] ...". What is our kavannah : supposed to be when we say the 13 middos? What should we be thinking? Why : is saying the 13 middos so important? Actually, the wording in the gemara is Whenever Israel sins *ya'asu* lefana keseder hazaeh, and I will pardon them. The point isn't to say the 13 Middos, they're just a reminder that we're supposed to do them. If we remember the essential, to be merciful people in His Image, HQBH is ready to pardon everything else. (I am defining "mocheil" as pardon as in being mochel a debt, in contrast to full forgiveness. That's a choice among how acharonim take selichah, mechilah and kapparah, so your mileage may vary.) I passionately recommend printing up and keeping it with your selichos and YK Machzor. It's a summary of the 13 Middos as per Tomer Devorah mapped to the version of the Thirteen Middos in Shemos that we say in Selichos. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 16:58:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 19:58:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 08:07:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : S"A O"C 55:11 as recorded in the 1st volume of the mishna brurah (it's : not in my regular S"A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of : the S"A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting : for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn't apply "now" because dina : dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. However, the MBs Poland wasn't it. Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 07:31:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 10:31:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: Let's go back to one of the sources: Yoma 72b - "Any talmid chacham whose tocho (inside) is not like his baro (outside) is not a talmid chacham." Is this speaking only of one who appears fine externally, but is deficient internally? Or does it also apply to one who is fine internally, but doesn't look it to an outside observer? If it applies to both, does anyone compare the two? I have always presumed that the one who is not-so-good on the inside is a bigger problem than the one who is okay on the inside. But if I understood them correctly, RMB and RMP brought independent reasons why one should focus on the externals. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 01:32:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 11:32:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What am I missing? Message-ID: R' Ben Waxman asked: > Re prozbul, I seem to be missing something. Personally I haven't loaned > out any huge sums such that if I don't get them back, I would be > reticent about loaning in the future. If I did loan out something small, > why should I sign the prozbul? If you have money in the bank in Israel then you have lent the bank money and therefore Shemitta will cancel your loan and the bank could keep your money. Now, the fact is that all the banks in Israel have a hater iska so that they can pay interest, but even with a heter iska half the amount is an iska but half is a loan, so the half that is a loan would be cancelled by shemita. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 17:56:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 20:56:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> I passionately recommend printing up . It explains the 13 Middos as found in Shemos and therefore Selichos in terms of the version in Michah and the Tomer Devorah thereon. Rather than repeating the same words / names over and over throughout selichos and much of Yom Kippur, it can become an opportunity to commit and recommit to emulating them. As the gemara (RH 17b) says Whenver Israel sin, they shall perform before Me like this structure (ya'asu lefanai keseider zeh), and I will forgive them. Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:27:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:27:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 08:56 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > As the gemara (RH 17b) says > Whenver Israel sin, they shall perform before Me like this structure > (ya'asu lefanai keseider zeh), and I will forgive them. > > Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:18:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:18:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55ECF3DF.8090003@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 04:19 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > However, the recitation of the 13 middos seems like almost magic, > something we say because Hashem told us to as we say in the preceding > paragraph Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we say them and invoke that promise. Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a magical power that the holy ketores has. The Malach Hamaves told Moshe Rabbenu about this trick, and when the occasion arose Moshe told Aharon to use it. "There are more things in heaven and earth..." -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:22:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:22:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was > written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? No. > Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law > and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't > practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. > > However, the MBs Poland wasn't it Yes, it absolutely was. > Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 12:08:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 15:08:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dr. Leo Deutschlander - Father of the Bais Yaakov Movement Message-ID: <20150907190830.A1951181640@nexus.stevens.edu> The name of Sarah Schneirer is invariably associated with the Bais Yaakov Movement. However, she was not the only one who was responsible for the success of the movement before WW II. Sarah Schneirer was an idealist who decided that religious schools for girls were needed in Poland and who set out to found such schools. However, WADR to Sarah Schneirer, she had a very limited academic background and her Jewish education was quite basic. (This was the case for most girls who lived when she did.) Thus others were needed to assist her in the development of the Bais Yaakov Movement. One such person was Dr. Leo Deutschlander. Up until today I knew very little about him. I did know that there had been an article in the Jewish Observer about his life, but I did not have access to it. Today a friend mine, who has a complete collection of all issues of the JO, brought me a copy of the article about Dr. Deutschlander. I have put it at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/deutschlander.pdf Note that other people who helped Sarah Schneirer with the development of the Bais Yaakov movement are mentioned and almost all of them have a Frankfurt background which means they attended the school that RSRH started in Frankfurt that educated both boys and girls. Thus in a certain sense RSRH is to be considered the grandfather of the Bais Yaakov Movement. Judith nee Rosenbaum Grunfeld played a key role in the development for the Bais Yaakov movement. See her article about Sarah Schneirer at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/sara_schenierer.pdf Anyone really interested in the history of the Bais Yaakov movement should read Rabbi Abraham Atkin's PhD thesis which is titled The Beth Jacob Movement in Poland 1917-1939. I have put this document at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/beth_jacob_movement_poland.pdf Note that the article about Dr. Deutschlander says that he never had children. To the best of my knowledge, he never married, yet he taught Bais Yaakov girls of seminary age and perhaps even younger, something that would be considered scandalous today! Given that Dr. Deutschlander never married, I find him being characterized by Chaim Shapiro as the "Father of the Bais Yaakov Movement" somewhat amusing. >:-} YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 11:41:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 14:41:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar Message-ID: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> Please click here to download a back issue of Halachically Speaking on eating before Shofar. ---------- From the article Custom of Some Gedolim The Steipler zt"l used to recite the zohar and other tefillos during the break. In his later years he recited portions of tehillim.[1] He did not make kiddush before tekios.[2] Harav Moshe Feinstein zt"l did not eat before tekios.[3] Harav Elyashiv zt"l [4] and Harav Yisroel Belsky Shlita do not eat or drink before tekios. [1] Orchos Rabbeinu 2:page 182:4. Refer to Darchei Chaim V'sholom 716:page 251. [2] Orchos Rabbeinu 2:page 181:1. Refer to Chelek Levi 189. [3] As related by Harav Aron Felder Shlita. [4] As quoted in Chag B'chag page 113:footnote 79. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 14:13:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 17:13:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar In-Reply-To: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <55EDFE13.7010505@sero.name> I have to admit that this is one of the Lubavitcher customs that puzzle me. All year, not just on Shabbos but also on weekdays, the official Lubavitch minhag is to allow eating before davening (after saying sh'ma, on weekdays in tefillin), on the grounds that it's difficult to daven properly without it. In the Tzemach Tzedek's words, "it's better to eat in order to daven, than to daven in order to eat". If you find that you're davening in order to get to breakfast, you'd do better to get breakfast over with and then daven with kavanah. And yet on Rosh Hashana, when one often doesn't get to kiddush until 2 or 3 in the afternoon, and when one needs kavanah in davening more than ever, Lubavitchers fast until kiddush! I don't understand it. If you can make it on Rosh Hashana, why not on any other day? And if you can't daven on an empty stomach on a weekday without thinking about breakfast, then how can you daven on an even emptier stomach on Rosh Hashana without thinking about lunch? -- Zev Sero KVChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 16:32:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:32:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:18:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. : Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we : say them and invoke that promise. : Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores : to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a : magical power that the holy ketores has.. Where is this made explicit? On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:27:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. : That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". Who said that remembering something in tefillah, unlike lekhishah, talks about the words themselves without internalization? What's the verb for tefillah, anyway? In any case, the idea that it's about saying the words until we're committed to emulating them isn't mine, it's R' Elimelekh miLetzhinsk's, the Chafeitz Chaim's and R YL Chasmin's. The latter two relate this gemara to "mah Hu 'Rachum' af atah..." Hashem is not only just, He's not a Vatran. The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 16:43:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:43:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:22:37PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was :> written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? : No. Source? :> Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law :> and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't :> practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. :> However, the MBs Poland wasn't it : Yes, it absolutely was. Again, source? Actual excommunications were commonplace. Comes up in teshuvos on agunah. :> Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. : Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could : be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the : MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. In the CC's hayday, Radun was in the Vilna Voivodship, Poland. And I didn't ask about censortship, I asked about autonomy, as in having courts empowered to punish, and the Jewish community certainly did. At least, azoi shteyt YIVO The Polish government never recognized Jewish communal autonomy de jure, but autonomy existed de facto in hundreds of local communities, school systems, and youth movements during the interwar period. Because regardless of whether this appeal to dina demalkhusa was real or to satisfy a censor, the mileau that created this footnote had to have such a law. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 17:42:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 20:42:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EE2EF6.2060509@sero.name> On 09/07/2015 07:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:18:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. > : Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we > : say them and invoke that promise. > > : Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores > : to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a > : magical power that the holy ketores has.. > > Where is this made explicit? It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell? Also, the gemara deduces that this is where Moshe must have got it, because how else could he possibly have known about it? Now if it was about the kavanos or the zechus of the mitzvah stopping plagues, then why couldn't Moshe Rabbenu have worked it out from first principles? This shows that it isn't anything that could be worked out, there's no reason why it should be so, it just is. In other words, magic. > > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:27:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. > > : That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". > > Who said that remembering something in tefillah, unlike lekhishah, talks > about the words themselves without internalization? What's the verb for > tefillah, anyway? "Lehazkir" doesn't mean to remember, it means to mention, to pronounce words. For that matter, the word "yaasu" that you're basing yourself on refers not to the midos themselves but to the "seder tefillah", i.e. the ritual of naming the midos. > Hashem is not only just, He's not a Vatran. The notion of magic words > that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah > would be very problematic. But that is what the gemara seems to say. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 18:06:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 21:06:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EE34A8.7060303@sero.name> On 09/07/2015 07:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:22:37PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was > :> written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? > > : No. > > Source? There is no source that it was banned then. Why would you even imagine that it would be? There is no such note in any edition of the Shulchan Aruch. In any case, the concept of banning cherem doesn't seem to have come up until the late 18th century. http://t95.el.sl.pt > :> Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law > :> and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't > :> practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. > > :> However, the MBs Poland wasn't it > > : Yes, it absolutely was. > > Again, source? Actual excommunications were commonplace. Comes up > in teshuvos on agunah. Catherine the Great banned cherem in 1795. Of course they ignored the law and did it anyway, but to get a sefer past the publisher they had to pretend to be obeying the law, so if the sefer mentioned cherem they had to note that this was written before it became illegal. > :> Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. > > : Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could > : be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the > : MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. > > In the CC's hayday, Radun was in the Vilna Voivodship, Poland. What Poland? There was no such place as Poland. It was Russia, and there was no autonomy. > And I didn't ask about censortship, I asked about autonomy, as in having > courts empowered to punish, and the Jewish community certainly did. > At least, azoi shteyt YIVO > > The Polish government never recognized Jewish communal autonomy de > jure, but autonomy existed de facto in hundreds of local communities, > school systems, and youth movements during the interwar period. Read what you just wrote: "The Polish government". What period could this paragraph possibly be talking about? The period when there was a Poland and a Polish government. IOW not the time we are discussing. And indeed if you look at the page again, you will see that it is explicitly discussing the interwar period, after Polish independence. > Because regardless of whether this appeal to dina demalkhusa was real > or to satisfy a censor, the mileau that created this footnote had to > have such a law. Yes, it did. Catherine's law that I mentioned above. And it also had a strict censorship law, which this sefer was subject to. If you need any further convincing, note the language of the censor's stamp. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 20:16:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 23:16:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Joel Rich wrote: > Listen hear for discussion on point > http://www.torahbase.org/prozbul-concept-halachos-5775/?lang=en > Rav Asher Weiss - Prozbul - Concept and Halachos 5775 Thank you very much for showing me this. I listened to it a few times, and it seems that he gives his conclusions right at the beginning: (00:42 to 01:05) "The takana of Pruzbul is that there is no need to physically give over your notes to Beis Din and there is no need Beis Din should be the ones to collect your money. Hillel was metaken: it is enough if you declare, either orally or in writing, Mosrani lachem..." (02:00-02:24) "The takana of Hillel was: It is enough if you write 'Mosrani lachem ploni v'ploni'. It is considered AS IF you transferred your notes to Beis Din, and when you collect the money, you would be considered AS IF you would be shliach of Beis Din even though it's not really the real thing in practicality. But that was the takana of Pruzbul." But how does it work? He clearly says (at 8:40 to 9:23) that the functions of a Beis Din do not include acting as a collection agency. There ARE (9:49 to 10:30) are very limited circumstances where Beis Din does have that function, such as collecting for yesomim, because that *is* one of the roles of the Beis Din, as "avi yesomim". One the other hand, (10:30 to 10:52) yesomim do not need to make a pruzbul at all, because Beis Din is *automatically* the Avi Yesomim, and their loans will not be cancelled by shmitta. So he suggests (12:19 to 12:40) that although it is not Beis Din's practice to accept the responsibility of collecting loans except for unusual cases, perhaps the difficulties posed by Shmitta put other loans in this category, and so if someone would be moser his loans to Beis Din, then Shmitta will not cancel them. But exactly why are such loans exempt? He explains (14:20 to 14:40), "You have to be m'shamet loans, but the moment you gave your notes, your loans over to Beis Din, it is k'gavui dami - it is as if those monies were already collected." He then compares this situation to the case where the lender has collateral for the loan, and that too is "already collected" and exempt from Shmitas Kesafim. It seems to me that this is how Rav Weiss understands the Pruzbul: The loan was and remains property of the lender, but Beis Din accepts the responsibility to go to the borrower to demand payment. From that point, it is considered as "already collected". Since it is already collected, not only is he allowed to request the money after Rosh Hashana, but there's no need to even state "M'shamet Ani". There is no need for any kinyan, because the loan remains property of the lender, and the role of Beis Din is simply to accept responsibility for collecting the loan; this occurs automatically at the inception of the loan where the lender is an orphan, and it also occurs automatically at the execution of a Pruzbul per Ezra's takana. ON THE OTHER HAND, over Shabbos a friend lent me his copy of Sefer Dinei Shviis Hashalem, published by Keren Hatarbut Degel Yerushalayim, which contains a photo of a pruzbul on the stationery of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and (apparently) in his handwriting, dated 29 Elul 5754. It contains a very interesting clause. Other pruzbuls avoid details, and simply say something like "I am moser my loans to beis din", but this one adds some very significant points. Here is the full pruzbul, as best as I can render it: "[B'mosav tlasa bei dina k'chada havinu] We were three dayanim sitting together, [uva l'faneinu...] and R' Aharon Dovid Goldberg came [v'amar lanu] and said to us: [Hen shana zu hee shnas hashviis] This year is the seventh year, [v'yesh li chovos b'shtar uv'al peh] and I have loans - both in writing and orally - [al ayzeh anashim] against certain people. [V'hareni moser lachem pruzbul] I am now moser a pruzbul to you, [viyhavis l'chon b'matana] and give it to you as a gift [b'kinyan dalet' amos karka] with a kinyan of four amos of land, [me'arah d'ees li] from the ground that is mine. [V'al gabayhon] And through that, [arshees yas'chon] I give you permission [limigbah kol chovos] to collect all my loans, [d'ees lee al inshee] which I have against people. [Mayatah t'havoon li daiyna] Henceforth you will be my dayanim, [v'sagbuhu uskabluhu li] and you will collect and accept payment for me. [V'im lo tagbuhu atem] And if you do not collect it yourselves, [mayata kayvan shemasarti lachem pruzbul zeh] then since I was moser this pruzbul to you, [ani goveh kol chov] so I can collect any loan [sheyesh li ad hayom etzel kol adam] which I have up to today against anyone, [kol zman she'ertzeh] any time I want. [next paragraph] - "[Anachnu beis din] We the court [shamanu dvarav] heard his words, [veefinu kocho] and affirm its validity, [shelo t'shamet lay] that he will not have a cancellation, [v'yigbeh kol chovosav] and he can collect all his loans, [al ydei pruzbul zeh] via this pruzbul, [k'takanas Hillel v'Chazal] in accordance with the takana of Hillel and Chazal. [next paragraph] - "[Banu al hechasum] We have signed below [yom kaf"tes l'chodesh Elul, shnas heh-tav-shin-nun"dalet] this day, 29th of Elul 5754 [poh Ir Hakodesh Yerushalayim] here, the holy city of Yerushalayim. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach [I cannot read the other two signatures]" (end of pruzbul) I don't understand the purpose of the four amos of land. (Yes, I'm quite aware of the requirement in halacha, I just don't understand why that requirement was included. That's a topic for another thread.) And I quite likely made some errors in the transliteration and the translation. But I think that I understood it well enough to state with confidence that it seems that RSZA does indeed subscribe to the "collection agency" model, which Rav Asher Weiss had so clearly rejected. RSZA explicitly uses the word "kinyan". One could argue that the "matanah" which the lender is giving to the beis din is merely the pruzbul and not the loans. One could also point out that after the kinyan has occurred, the lender continues to refer to the loans (which beis din would collect) as "MY loans", suggesting that they are still owned by the lender and not the beis din. But if that is so, then what does it mean to make a kinyan on the *pruzbul*? This pruzbul is merely a record of the court proceedings, and it seems very likely to me that the intent is for the court to acquire the loans themselves, in very much the same way that a modern collection agency works. If anyone disagrees, and feels that RSZA does *not* subscribe to the "collection agency" model, please explain how you think this pruzbul works. And if anyone does agree with me, then I wonder if any other poskim hold that way, because every explanation of pruzbul that I've seen describes the document itself, and no one ever mentions any requirement of kinyan. Thank you Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 02:10:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 05:10:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar Message-ID: And if you can't daven on an empty stomach on a weekday without thinking about breakfast, then how can you daven on an even emptier stomach on Rosh Hashana without thinking about lunch? Kal v?chomer, how can you daven on T?B and Y?K when you wake up without having even drinking or eating and then must go another good 12 hours on an empty stomach? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 03:51:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:51:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote; > "It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that > ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to > have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there > the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so > obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. > How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell?" Rashi in Chumash quoting the Mechilta offers a second explanation of why the ketores was used to end the plague. Bnei Yisrael were complaining about the ketores that it was a sam hamaves, that it killed people. The ketores killed Nadav and Avihu, it killed the 250 people, therefore Hashem said watch that it can stop the plague and that sin is what really kills people. We see clearly from this explanation that there was nothing magical about using the ketores, rather Hashem wanted to make a point to the Jewish people about the ketores. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 07:35:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:35:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very problematic. (Or perhaps "confusing" would be a better description, as it moves the focus away from a "problematic halacha", chalila, and towards my obligation to understand it.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 08:14:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 11:14:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:35:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a : measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very : problematic... And I don't believe there is such a thing, so I have no problem. I suggested twice now 2007 http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol23/v23n174.shtml#12 and 2010 http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n130.shtml that itzumo shel yom mechaperes only someone who acknowledges and embraces the etzem shel yom. >From 2007: > My understanding is that itzumo shel yom is mechapeir, but without inuyim, > one isn't connected to that etzem. IOW, someone who eats on YK doesn't > get kapparah, but someone who observes YK gets kapparah from YK itself, > not the zekhus of observance. > And it's clear from R' Elazar ben Azaryah on Yuma 86a that YK is never > effective in and of itself. > - For an asei, teshuvah is effective > - For a regular lav, teshuvah must first achieve selichah (removal of > onesh) before YK can effect kaparah > - For a chayav kareis, one needs teshuvah and YK for selichah, and onesh > brings kaparah > - For chillul Hashem, only misah brings kaparah. > The philosophical problems are > (1) The justice in YK being mechapeir > (2) Given a ba'asher hu sham approach, why would onesh or misah in and > of itself help? > I couldn't make heads or tails of it without stretching the notion, > and saying that YK is mechapeir to the extent that one allows oneself to > experience the soul-changing nature of YK, and thus change the ba'asher > hu sham. Similarly oneshim or misah. I know all this could be seen as dachuq BUT, Divine Justice is the 11th iqar. I would prefer to take a number of chazal's statements as colloquial shorthand for more nuanced ideas than to dismiss what we have blessed as a defining feature of Yahadus. Or IOW, given that Ani Maamin and Yigdal made it into the siddur, I feel the burden rests on those who take itzumo shel yom in its simple sense. (And yes, "problematic" should be tken as "a problem for us to understand.") Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 10:08:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:08:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 midos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55EF15F0.8060200@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 06:50 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote; >> "It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that >> ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to >> have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there >> the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so >> obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. >> How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell?" > Rashi in Chumash quoting the Mechilta offers a second explanation of > why the ketores was used to end the plague. Bnei Yisrael were > complaining about the ketores that it was a sam hamaves, that it > killed people. The ketores killed Nadav and Avihu, it killed the 250 > people, therefore Hashem said watch that it can stop the plague and > that sin is what really kills people. > > We see clearly from this explanation that there was nothing magical > about using the ketores, rather Hashem wanted to make a point to the > Jewish people about the ketores. Yes, this is an alternative explanation, offered because the primary explanation leaves some question unanswered. But it is the second explanation rather than the first, because the problem with it is obvious: Hashem didn't tell Moshe to do this. Moshe told Aharon on his own initiative, which is why the gemara wonders how he knew that it would work. This is also why the Malach Hamaves challenged Aharon's right to stop him; if the instruction had come from Hashem he would have had no reason to object to being stopped. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 12:04:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:04:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55EF3124.3060704@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 05:10 AM, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: > Kal v?chomer, how can you daven on T?B and Y?K when you wake up > without having even drinking or eating and then must go another good > 12 hours on an empty stomach? Absolutely. But you don't have a choice. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 12:07:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:07:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> References: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EF31E7.5090303@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 11:14 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:35:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > : True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a > : measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very > : problematic... > > And I don't believe there is such a thing, so I have no problem. > > I suggested twice now 2007 > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol23/v23n174.shtml#12 and 2010 > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n130.shtml that > itzumo shel yom mechaperes only someone who acknowledges and embraces > the etzem shel yom. Rebbi is the one who says Itzumo shel yom mechaper, and he explicitly says that one who eats on YK is automatically forgiven the moment he swallows the food, so that the only way to get kares for eating on YK is to choke on the food and die before swallowing it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 10:18:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:18:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] thermostats Message-ID: as thermostats for the house get more sophisticated do they present a shabbat problem? http://www.cnet.com/products/nest-learning-thermostat-third-generation/?ftag=CAD1acfa04 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 10:37:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:37:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 12:11:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 15:11:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> References: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F08476.8010605@sero.name> On 09/09/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay > (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan. Whether it's allowed is a different question from how it works. Moser Shtorosav leveis din worked even when shmitah was d'oraisa. Tosfos says that Hillel didn't invent it, he merely legitimised it. Before his day it was known, but it was considered unethical, and no reputable beis din would go along with it. To do it required finding a fly-by- night beis din willing to entertain it, so upstanding lenders didn't take advantage, and instead were reluctant to lend. Then Hillel decreed his "solution for rich and poor", which was to instruct botei din to accept and even encourage such applications, so that people would be willing to lend. And he only felt comfortable doing so because shmita was d'rabonon. -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 15:32:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 18:32:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 09:30:46PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V33n118, R'Micha wrote: :> However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is :> more important than penimius. : Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what can : be seen? How is the surface of a lung or brain more visible than the innards? The only difference is how much cutting is required. In general, halakhah only deals with what can be seen in principle, not what happens to be visible in this instance. You can't eat unchecked lettuce any more readily because the light bulb blew in the room you're in. And in principle, these things can be checked. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 17:23:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:23:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> Re: Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom - Rabbi Natan Slifkin From: Ben Rothke via Areivim <_areivim at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:areivim at lists.aishdas.org) > >> "The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom" is the latest book by Rabbi Natan Slifkin. I found it to be a fascinating work. My review is here: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/book-review-the-torah-encyclopedia-of-the-ani mal-kingdom Let me know what you think. << --Ben Rothke >>>>> I think the book is magnificent. I've seen the first volume and read a good chunk of it (the projected second volume is not out yet). It is a fascinating work based on tremendous research, and also aesthetically beautiful. The first volume is about wild animals mentioned in the Torah. The projected second volume I believe is about domestic and kosher animals. The book definitively answers, at least to my satisfaction, a question I've wondered about for a long time: What is a re'em? According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). In Moshe's brachos to the shevatim he says Yoseph has "the horns of a re'em" (Dev. 33:17). Bil'am says when Hashem took the Jews out of Egypt He had "like the strength of a re'em" (Bamidbar 23:22). R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs, a huge and powerful horned animal, a wild ox, nearly the size of an elephant, that lived in Europe, Asia and North Africa. It went extinct only about 400 years ago. The last recorded aurochs died in Poland in 1627. BTW a description and drawing of the aurochs can be seen on pages 17 - 18 of a lovely 28-page monograph that is particularly appropriate for this season. See *Exotic Shofars: Halachic Considerations* by R' Natan Slifkin. http://zootorah.com/assets/media/essays/ExoticShofars.pdf --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 21:37:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:37:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> ------------------------------ I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem?s love for His people: ?If you sin, even if you?re not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here?s a ?ticket? of sorts that I?m giving you _now_ to show my love for you, that if you ?remind? me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate that you see yourselves as close to me, and I?ll give you some measure of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah.? The best Mashal I could think of for this is a PBA placard ? you buy it and put it in your car, and when the cop pulls you over for speeding, you show it to him and he goes easy on you, because he sees that you?re really a friend of the police. NOT because you demonstrated regret for speeding, necessarily. Does that make sense? KT, MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:14:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:14:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Thinking about, knowing about, and knowing G-d In-Reply-To: <000601d0eb81$09d77c90$1d8675b0$@gmail.com> References: <20150901180343.GC11612@aishdas.org> <20150903002115.GA1793@aishdas.org> <55F08884.3010503@sero.name> <000601d0eb81$09d77c90$1d8675b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150910191452.GD3345@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:27:43AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Areivim wrote: : R' ZS: :> The Nachum in your story is too busy to think about HKBH, and that's not :> good, but OTOH HKBH Himself said "I wish they would forget me and keep my :> Torah", so this Nachum is better than someone who is constantly :> thinking about HKBH but doesn't keep mitzvos. But this is why Tanya :> (ch 41) says to interrupt ones learning once an hour to think about why one :> is learning. : This discussion reminds me that there's another step - not only to think : about Hashem, but to _know_ about Hashem, as in the old story (excerpted : from a piece I wrote for "A Daily Dose of Torah"): : R' Levi Yitzchok of Berditchev studied for an extended period of time with : the Maggid, R' Dov Ber of Mezeritch. When he returned, his father-in-law - : who did not approve of R' Levi Yitzchok's leanings towards chassidus - asked : him, "What did you learn there?" R' Levi Yitzchok answered, "I learned that : Hashem exists." His father-in-law, annoyed, protested that everyone knows : that, and to prove it, asked the maid, "Does Hashem exist?" She answered, : "Certainly!" : "She says it," R' Levi Yitzchok responded, "but I know it!" : Certainly pertinent to Malchiyos. I often quote something R/Prof Shalom Carmy wrote in (Aug '01): > [RGStudent: ] >> However, in his Al HaTeshuvah (pp. 195-201), R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik >> investigates what it means to "know" God. As he points out, it is >> impossible to know God. Rather, the Rambam means that we are obligated to >> constantly recognize God's existence. As it says in Mishlei (3:6), "In all >> your ways know Him." Cf. Rabbeinu Yonah's commentary to Mishlei, ad loc. > People who throw around big words on these subjects always seem to take > for granted things that I don't. > The people who keep insisting that it's necessary to prove things about > G-d, including His existence, seem to take it for granted that devising > these proofs is identical with knowing G-d. > Now if I know a human being personally the last thing I'd do, except as > a purely intellectual exercise, is prove his or her existence. RMYG's point is similar to that in the quote from RGS. There is a difference between knowing about Gcd and knowing Gcd. The latter is experiential, and doesn't demand proof. And IMHO more related to Malkhios. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:23:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:23:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150910192331.GA25852@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 04:56:04PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger: :> I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although :> there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, :> Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an :> obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. : "Mah ashiv laShem, kol tagmulohi alai?" I do not see obligation here. Rather, how can I possibly repay, given that everything I have is from Him. Even if voluntarily. Therefore (next pasuq), I will simply recognize what He gave me (kos yeshu'os esa) and that He was the One Who gave it (uvsheim H' eqra), follow through on what I already promised.... Do you see new obligations in this pereq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:47:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:47:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:02:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. : I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear as : ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) ... It's an intersting point, but relating it to RYBS's position just confuses the matter. You're using the word "ceremony" in nearly the opposite sense. And while you note that: : I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview it. : Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not : ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view This isnt' merely an answer, it's an indication that you're discussing two different topics. There is no question, just a miscommunication. Anyway, the contrast between the usages of the word "ceremony" interested me. You listed a number of cases where a halachic legality can be accomplished through something the lay-person considers meaningless ritual: pruzbul, mechiras chameitz, heter isqa, ha'aramos, etc.. RYBS made that statement about ceremony in the sense of ritual in which the person finds meaning, but lacks halachic structure. The two examples that most readily leap to mind are (1) his disparaging kiruv that focuses on white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos candelabra, and (2) his modifying the minhagim of the Three Weeks and Nine Days because leshitaso, the minhagim must follow the same forms as ones found in hilkhos aveilus. I posted about this in Aug '08 at . I also noted in 2011 that RYBS's position that minhag must mirror halachic structure is in opposition to the Brisker Rav's (his uncle's) shitah. RYZS holds that one makes berakhos on minhagim that have a cheftzah shel mitzvah (eg lighting a Chanukah menorah in shul), and that the Rambam and Rabbeinu Tam don't argue about that. What they do argue about is whether Chatzi Hallel is close enough to Hallel to qualify for a berakhah. However, leshitas RYBS, there are no such minhagim that wouldn't require a berakhah. If Chatzi Hallel didn't require a berakhah because it's not close enough to the cheftzah shel mitzvah, it would be "ceremony", and not a valid minhag. He therefore would have to reject his uncle's chiddush. Neo-Chassidus is basically a MO rebellion to this kind of Halakhic Man approach to Yahadus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 10:54:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:54:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle Message-ID: <20150910175503.5E910182948@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6500 Picture, if you will, the hallowed halls of almost any Yeshivah, almost anywhere in the world, on Rosh Hashanah morning. As the strains of Shiras Chanah conclude, followed by the post-Haftarah brachos, there suddenly is a loud bang on the Bimah and the Gabbai calls out "Kiddush!" Most of those assembled take a break for a quick Kiddush and then return for the day's main Mitzvah - the Tekiyas Shofar, the Blowing of the Shofar. The reciting of 'Lamnatzeach' soon reach a crescendo, not unlike a deafening roar, as the congregation eagerly anticipates and prepares for the Shofar Blowing. Although this is indeed the common custom in almost every Yeshivah, curiously, the idea of making Kiddush and eating prior to the main Mitzvah of the day is considered an anathema to some. In fact, the Matteh Efraim, who is considered the authority on issues relating to the Yomim Nora'im, writes that it is actually prohibited to eat before Tekiyas Shofar, barring if one is weak, and, even only then, a small 'Te'imah', tasting of food, in private, is allowed.[1] If so, why do so many make Kiddush[2] and eat before Tekiyas Shofar? To sum up the matter, and although this dilemma is quite complicated, one must ascertain from his knowledgeable halachic authority, as well as taking his personal situation, strength level, and minhag into account, as to what to do on Rosh Hashanah morning.[23] Postscript: One interesting upshot of this machlokes seems to be the recent proliferation of Vasikin Minyanim on Rosh Hashanah. In this way, it is possible to daven all of Shacharis and Mussaf and still be able to make Kiddush after completing davening but still before Chatzos, as well as gain all the spiritual benefits of 'Davening Haneitz'.[24] A seemingly excellent way to avoid spiritual conflict on the Day of Judgment, all the while literally fulfilling the Rambam's famous dictum (Hilchos Teshuvah Ch. 3: 4) of 'Uru Yesheinim Mi'shnascham, Wake up you slumberers, from your sleep', for the clarion call of the Shofar. See the above URL for more. ---------- Any one living in Flatbush is welcome to come to the YI of Ave J Haskama Minyan on RH morning. We start at 7:15 and davening will be over by 11:30 (with Musaf). Then there is plenty of time to go home and make kiddush before Chatzos. Davening is on the second floor in the Simcha Hall. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 08:46:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:46:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha responded to me: >> Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what >> can be seen? > How is the surface of a lung or brain more visible than the innards? > The only difference is how much cutting is required. And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an external tool is required in order to 'see' something. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 13:00:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:00:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:46:32AM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: : And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external : magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an : external tool is required in order to 'see' something. You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying glass. To me that seems obvious. But to articulate it, I find myself going to words like cheftzah, which is a bit too technical to be appropriate language for relaying why I find it self-evident. The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. The magnifying glass compensates for the fact that water bears and other microscopic beasties are not in the realm of experience. We aren't getting the situation right, we are compensating for something with the cheftzah itself. To put it another way, maggot eggs do not have halachic existence. Do tiny crustaceans cease to exist and come back into existence if you flip the light off or on? (This is just different kind of appeal to cheftzah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 13:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:19:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha noted: > You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. < I omitted the blown lightbulb because IMHO the level of required light is a murky subject (poor attempt at humor :)). > I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying glass. < And I am disagreeing: you need an external tool to reach that inside area. Since you're pushing your "kasuv hashelishi", you also need to define what level of light is "normal" -- surely you're not saying that a bug which can only be 'seen' when the level of light exceeds *olam-hazeh* norms (e.g. the lumen level exceeds that of the sun at its strongest) qualifies as visible? > The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. < I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:46:32AM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: > : And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external > : magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an > : external tool is required in order to 'see' something. > > You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen > by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. > > I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing > the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying > glass. > > To me that seems obvious. But to articulate it, I find myself going > to words like cheftzah, which is a bit too technical to be appropriate > language for relaying why I find it self-evident. > > The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, > the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside > the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an > aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is > within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. > > The magnifying glass compensates for the fact that water bears and > other microscopic beasties are not in the realm of experience. We aren't > getting the situation right, we are compensating for something with the > cheftzah itself. > > To put it another way, maggot eggs do not have halachic existence. > Do tiny crustaceans cease to exist and come back into existence if > you flip the light off or on? (This is just different kind of appeal > to cheftzah.) > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole > micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." > http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, > Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 17:40:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:40:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911004049.GA29555@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 05:20:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> The recent court to allow conversion of under bar/bat mitzvah children is :> controversial. The bone of contention is whether it is considred a zechut :> for children to become Jewish when they grow up in a non-religious setting. I thought we dissuade geirim (non-qetanim) in part because this is not true. Alternatively: How do the meiqilim justify this practice, particularly in venues (Golden Age of Spain, much of the world today) where there is comparatively little antisemisim? Rashi (Yevamos 74a, "de'amar) is concerned about the sinning convert's influence on other Jews. This being R' Chelbo's "qasheh ... kesapachas". Tosafos understand R' Chelbo as referring to the extra issurim of mistreating a geir, or that they make us look bad. The Semag (Lav 116, quoted by the BY YD 268) says we dissuade the ger to make sure he knows exactly what he is accepting, avoiding a "meqach ta'us" (my term). On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:27:59PM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious : Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also : for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for : reasons of Nationalism. Or, that being a Jew in Israel is so much better that zakhin le'adam shelo befanav applies. IOW, not by reasons of nationalism, but by taking nationalism into account as part of the metzi'us. Similar to those who rule that we do not dissuade a non-halachic convert, since they will be living among the Jews and their children will quite likely marry Jews either way. And in the latest volume of IM (vol 9, EhE 14), RMF similarly tells a BD to be proactive in convertain someone who thought until now they were Jewish. He even invoked the case of Timna, saying that to not do so would be to be repeating the avos' mistake. So we do see that facts on the ground about whether it is beneficial for the life they will be leading do matter. The bigger problem I have is qabbalas ol mitzvos. RnCL and I argued at length about whether the following qualifies as QOM, but whatever you want to call it.... Upon reaching adulthood, the geir has to affirm their acceptance of the mitzvos. While people pictures this means coming to BD on their 12th or 13th birthday, that is impossible -- the affirmation would have to be tokh kedei dibur of growing shenei sa'aros. Instead, BD sees if during that span of their lives they were observant, and if they were, we consider the geirus affirmed. This din is real enough that the gemara asks about a giyores from when she was less than 3, who is married of to a kohein as a qetana may be given terumah. After all, she might annull the geirus, in which case should would retroactively not have been an eishes kohein! The gemara answers based on rov (most children do not choose to convert out of the religion they were raised with), not that the affirmation is optional. So, what's going to happen to these qetanim when they reach adulthood? How can they be said to have effectively accepted ol mitzvos? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 17:20:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:20:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan >>> Agreed. But there still has to be rules, logic, framework. My original post was a request for help in identifying those rules. (And for now, Rav Asher Weiss' explanation seems quite plausible.). Example: If the streets in my town are a reshus harabim, there's no way to carry on Shabbos without actual walls. If the streets are merely karmelis, then we can make a haarama to say that the area is surrounded by a series of doorways. But they have got to be real halachic doorways; if even one lechi has the string on the side instead of above, forget it. So too here. I don't mind being moser to beis din, if only I was clear on what it is that I'm giving them, and how that happens, and what it accomplishes. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:04:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:04:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911010426.GA12008@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 08:20:47PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I actually thought pruzbul only works because : ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan >>> : : Agreed. But there still has to be rules, logic, framework... I was mostly dismissing your mentioning the lack of qinyan sudar. We can make a shaliach without one, for a ha'aramah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:25:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:25:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> References: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150911012558.GA18449@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:37:41AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: :> The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without :> necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> : I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem's love for His people: "If you : sin, even if you're not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, : here's a "ticket" of sorts that I'm giving you now to show my love for : you, that if you 'remind' me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate : that you see yourselves as close to me, and I'll give you some measure : of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah." But spending time demonstracting our desire for or actual closeness to HQBH is itself arguably a measure of teshuvah. And in any case avoids my problem with ascribing power to a sequence of syllables in and of themselves. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:29:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:29:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:23:44PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job : 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and : 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). : R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs... He argues that it's an auroachs. Calling any identification of this sort a "demonstration" is overly confident. Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we can use mythical creatures as metaphors. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 20:00:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:00:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I was mostly dismissing your mentioning the lack of qinyan sudar. We can make a shaliach without one, for a ha'aramah. >>> I presume you mean like how I can make the rav my shaliach for mechiras chometz without any kinyan. (In practice we do make a kinyan, but only as a chumrah.) So I don't need a kinyan at pruzbul either, and I can make the beis din a shliach without any kinyan. Okay. But if so, then exactly what is it that I'm making the beis din my shaliach FOR? What are they doing on my behalf? If I am making them my shaliach to collect my loans on my behalf, then that sounds like Rav Asher Weiss' explanation. Sure, beis din is patur from lo yigos, but it was a big chidush to me that that's enough to exempt me from being m'shamet a loan that I still own. (But if one wants to go with the Collection Agency idea, then shlichus is irrelevant - beis din would need to own the loan.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 20:51:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:51:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: <1a9316.271c37fb.4323a9c7@aol.com> In a message dated 9/10/2015 9:29:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, micha at aishdas.org writes: Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. >>> That is a fascinating and insightful point! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 02:00:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:00:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha In-Reply-To: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> References: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > Please elaborate BTW The Jewish Action had a recent article on the popularity of MO neo-chassidut. I went to a wedding this week where the chatan learns in a yeshiva from Ofra. To my sight it looked like a Breslov Yeshiva. Big white kippot with extreme dancing. The boys mostly has long peyot. The Rosh Yeshiva/mesader kedushin put on a tallit for the chuppa which I had never seen. He stressed that the chatan's tallit had techelet and he should make a shecheyanu but no bracha on the tallit since it was night, etc However, this was a RZ wedding with a bracha for the soldiers etc. On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:02:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > : RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. > : I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear > as > : ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) > ... > > It's an intersting point, but relating it to RYBS's position just > confuses the matter. You're using the word "ceremony" in nearly > the opposite sense. And while you note that: > : I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview > it. > : Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not > : ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view > > This isnt' merely an answer, it's an indication that you're discussing > two different topics. There is no question, just a miscommunication. > > Anyway, the contrast between the usages of the word "ceremony" interested > me. > > You listed a number of cases where a halachic legality can be accomplished > through something the lay-person considers meaningless ritual: pruzbul, > mechiras chameitz, heter isqa, ha'aramos, etc.. > > RYBS made that statement about ceremony in the sense of ritual in which > the person finds meaning, but lacks halachic structure. > > The two examples that most readily leap to mind are (1) his disparaging > kiruv that focuses on white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos candelabra, > and (2) his modifying the minhagim of the Three Weeks and Nine Days > because leshitaso, the minhagim must follow the same forms as ones found > in hilkhos aveilus. I posted about this in Aug '08 at > . > > I also noted in 2011 that RYBS's position that minhag must mirror halachic > structure is in opposition to the Brisker Rav's (his uncle's) shitah. RYZS > holds that one makes berakhos on minhagim that have a cheftzah shel > mitzvah (eg lighting a Chanukah menorah in shul), and that the Rambam > and Rabbeinu Tam don't argue about that. What they do argue about is > whether Chatzi Hallel is close enough to Hallel to qualify for a berakhah. > > However, leshitas RYBS, there are no such minhagim that wouldn't require > a berakhah. If Chatzi Hallel didn't require a berakhah because it's not > close enough to the cheftzah shel mitzvah, it would be "ceremony", and not > a valid minhag. He therefore would have to reject his uncle's chiddush. > > Neo-Chassidus is basically a MO rebellion to this kind of Halakhic > Man approach to Yahadus. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, > micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just > http://www.aishdas.org beginning. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 09:03:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:03:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> I have been asking this question to various people, and several have suggested that the answer is somewhere in the range of "hefker bes din" and "amiraso legavoah kimsiraso lahedyot". IOW, beis din doesn't need to make a kinyan; its inherent power is sufficient to take possession of your loans as soon as you verbally relinquish them. -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 08:02:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:02:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony Message-ID: <> It would seem that RYBS's definition of a ceremony is almost a tautology. If it is anything of religious significance then its not a ceremony. Otherwise who cares. It is only modern customs that present a difficulty because we don't establish new categories. In the old days customs like lighting the menorah in shul or havdala in shul became invested with religious significance because they were public customs Question minyana d-yoma Is the custom of "simanim" on RH a ceremony? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:53:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:53:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911175305.GC18449@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 06:02:04PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : It would seem that RYBS's definition of a ceremony is almost a tautology. : If it is anything of religious significance then its not a ceremony. If a ritual is of halachic significance then it's not a ceremony (as RYBS used the word in coining the aphorism we're discussing). Now, to Halakhic Man, one can say there is no Yahadus except halakhah, and therefore ceremony is not part of Yahadus. So, RYBS's position on ceremony is a natural consequence of Halakhic Man, but they aren't a tautology according to other derakhim. To other hashkafos, white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos licht may not define Shabbos, but they can for many help foster the atmosphere hilkhos Shabbos create. Which is why I mentioned the spread of Chavaquq-like Judaism in YU. Because Chassidus is big on ritual. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 05:49:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:49:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. >>> R' Michael Poppers responded: <<< I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. >>> The lungs of a *dead* cow are easily accessible if one has a knife; no super-vision is needed there. It is only the lungs of a *living* cow where one would need super-vision (especially if I need the cow to stay alive for more milk next week). Hmmm... Do we consider the lungs of a living cow as visible like a large insect, or as nonexistent like beitzei kinim? The nafka mina is the kashrus of that cow's milk. I would *like* to say that the lungs are invisible and inconsequential. But IIRC we can drink the milk because of rov - most lungs are kosher. There is a real possibility that the lungs are treif, and we deal with that possibility in a manner *other* than "lo nitna Torah l'malachei hashareis". Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 09:47:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:47:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] asmachta Message-ID: see point 5 , on the idea that could asmachta be a talmudic example of , well let the reader decide http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/09/artscroll-and-more.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:23:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:23:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? Message-ID: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, but again whatever Hashem does is good.) Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 11:06:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:06:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150911180646.GE18449@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 01:23:04PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" : (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever : Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the : year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, : but again whatever Hashem does is good.) >From my blog post at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov :-)BBii! -Micha Shetir'u baTov The Bostoner Rebbe (of Boston) commented once on the expression "Shanah tovah umsuqah - a good and sweet new year", which is related to the famous custom of having apple and honey on Rosh haShanah.What does "umsuqah -- and sweet" add, beyond the notion of "tovah -- good"? As Rabbi Aqiva often said, "All that the All Merciful does, He does for the good". An echo of the words of one of his rabbeim, Nachum ish Gamzu, who would greet events that would disappoint or depress most of us with "Gam zu letovah -- this too is for the best." So actually, wishing one another a good year could be thought of as being redundant. Everything is good, how could this year be any different? However, not everything I was told was "for my own good" was particularly pleasant. Therefore, the rebbe teaches, we wish that the year not only be tovah, good, but also be mesuqah, sweet to our perception as well. Along the same lines, I had a thought about a phrase in Shabbos and Yom Tov davening : Our L-rd, and the L-rd of our fathers, sanctify us bemitzvosekha (through Your mitzvos), and put our portion beSorasekha (in Your Torah), satisfy us mituvekha (from Your Goodness), and make us (or: our souls qua living force) biyshuasekha (in Your salvation)... The predicate prefix has an oddity: it says bemitzvosekha, beSorasekha, and later, beyshu'asekha. But by goodness, the prefix is "mituvekha" -- "from", not "be-" ("in" or "through") like by the others. The reason, I believe, is because we are asking for something inherently different. We can ask G-d to make us more holy by allowing us to do more mitzvos, or give us the opportunity to learn more Torah, or make us happier by saving us more often. This is "be-", we are asking for more of a gift by asking for more of the vehicle He uses to give it to us. Since everything G-d does is good, we can't be asking for G-d to give us more good, and thereby make us more satisfied. There is no more good for us to get. Rather, we are asking for more satisfaction with the goodness He already provides. This is why the "mi-" prefix is used. This is also in contrast to Rebbe's words (Berakhos 50a) about benching, that a wise person says "uvtuvo chayinu -- and through His good we live", and a boor, "umituvo chayinu -- and from His good, we live". Rebbe says that "umituvo" is incorrect because it says that we live through some of His Good, implying that Hashem gives meagerly. Perhaps it's different here, when we ask for happiness, because the truth is that if we had a full realization of even a small part of His Good would be enough to satisfy. Like the piyut we sing at the seider. We list fifteen things Hashem did for us when taking us out of Egypt. But had He done any one of those 15 alone, "Dayeinu"! R Shelomo Wolbe^zt"l would part someone's company wishing him "shetir'u batov -- may you see the good!" Because the tense of "tir'u" is ambiguous, this is both a berakhah and a mussar shmuess. Taken in the future tense, "May you see", it becomes a blessing that Hashem allow him to see all that's good in his life. In the imperative, the same work becomes "Look", advice to the person to take the initiative and seek out the good of every situation. To aspire to the middah of Nachum ish Gamzu and Rabbi Aqiva of realizing the Hand of G-d in everything, and looking to see how even the tragedies in our lives are necessary steps to something bigger which He has in store for us. The two together yields a profound combined meaning. Live is the product of a partnership between myself and G-d. It is the sum of my free-willed decisions and the hand Hashem deals me. "Shetir'u beTov" addresses both at the same time, by praying that Hashem show the person good, and that the person look to find it. A greeting that recognizes the fundamental covenant by which man is redeemed. It's a beautiful greeting, one worth adopting. Wishing others could taste the sweetness. Shetir'u baTov! (With thanks to RYGB for helping me find the gemara.) Like this: Like Loading... Related You may also like... * [13]3 [14]The Devastating Power of Leitznus ? ???? ???? - December 28, 2006 * [15]0 [16]The Desire to Desire ?? ????? ???? - August 28, 2007 * [17]0 [18]Nine Qavim at the Buffet ?? ????? ???? - March 27, 2008 2 Responses * [19]Comments1 * [20]Pingbacks1 1. Anonymous says: [21]? ????? ???? - September 29, 2006 at 1:25pm Possibly related - stolen waters are described as sweet, which tells us something unpleasant about the human condition. Perhaps what we are requesting is not only an objectively good year, but the ability to appreciate that goodness, similar to the way in which we regrettably now enjoy the prohibited. - Moishe Potemkin [22]Reply 1. [23]Aspaqlaria ? Blog Archive ? ?? ???? ???"? ?? ????? ???? - September 5, 2007 [...] berakhos for a Shanah tovah umsuqah, as the Bostoner Rebbe put it, a year that is we not only conceptually know to be good, but has a sweetness we can taste and [...] And your thoughts...? [24]Cancel reply IFRAME: [25]jetpack_remote_comment Follow: * * * * * [26]Next story Sweet Charoses * [27]Previous story Nine Qavim at the Buffet ____________________ Subscribe Name: ____________________ email: ____________________ * [28]Entries * [29]Comments * [30]PodCast New & Popular * [31]Recent Posts * [32]Popular Posts * [33]Recent Comments * [34]My Life as a Pendulum ? ????? ???? - September 3, 2015 * [35]Copyright ?? ??? ???? - August 13, 2015 * [36]What does Hashem ask of you? ?? ??? ???? - August 7, 2015 * [37]?? ?????? ???? ? ??? ???? - July 23, 2015 * [38]Gratitude and Thankfulness ?? ????? ???? - July 16, 2015 * [39]Emunah Peshutah vs Machashavah ?? ????? ???? - November 30, 2004 * [40]Balancing Simplicity and Authenticity ? ????? ??? - July 1, 2010 * [41]The Kuzari Proof, part I ?? ???? ???? - December 22, 2004 * [42]What is Frumkeit? ? ???? ? ???? - February 9, 2014 * [43]The Curriculum at Volozhin ? ????? ???? - May 23, 2012 * David Zalkin says: [44]Regarding giving precedence to the Aruch HaShulchan over the MB, my... * Eliezer Eisenberg says: [45]Excellent. Thanks for sharing. * Ilana Sober Elzufon says: [46]Intriguing. I really value the all-women's spaces that Orthodox Judaism provides,... * micha says: [47]You're right. A poor choice of words. Correcting.Thank you. * Dr. Yitzchok Levine says: [48]You wrote, "Shul looks like a boy's club because it was... Aspaqlaria ? 2015. All Rights Reserved. Powered by [49]WordPress. Theme by [50]Alx. * * * * IFRAME: [51]likes-master %d bloggers like this: References Visible links 1. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/feed 2. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/comments/feed 3. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov/feed 4. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 5. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/sweet-charoses 6. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ 7. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/category/mussar/middos 8. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#comments 9. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/author/admin 10. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#stbt 11. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/01/vetaheir-libeinu.shtml 12. http://www.aishdas.org/rygb 13. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus#comments 14. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus 15. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire#comments 16. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire 17. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet#comments 18. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 19. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#commentlist-container 20. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#pinglist-container 21. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov/comment-page-1#comment-72 22. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov?replytocom=72#respond 23. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/09/%d7%9b%d7%92-%d7%90%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%9c-%d7%aa%d7%a9%d7%9e%d7%90.shtml 24. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#respond 25. http://jetpack.wordpress.com/jetpack-comment/?blogid=11004584&postid=134&comment_registration=0&require_name_email=1&stc_enabled=1&stb_enabled=1&show_avatars=1&avatar_default=identicon&greeting=And+your+thoughts...%3F&greeting_reply=Leave+a+Reply+to+%25s&color_scheme=light&lang=en-US&jetpack_version=3.7&sig=04e58004b358ee700890b798c328f7cfd8e7fee6#parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aishdas.org%2Fasp%2Ftireh-betov 26. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/sweet-charoses 27. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 28. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/feed 29. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/comments/feed 30. http://feeds.feedburner.com/AspPodCast 31. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-recent 32. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-popular 33. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-comments 34. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/my-life-as-pendulum 35. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/copyright 36. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask 37. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/%d7%91%d7%9f-%d7%97%d7%9e%d7%99%d7%a9%d7%99%d7%9d-%d7%9c%d7%a2%d7%a6%d7%94 38. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gratitude-thankfulness 39. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/emunah-peshutah-vs-machashavah 40. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/balancing-simplicity-and-authenticity 41. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/kuzari-proof-part-i 42. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-is-frumkeit 43. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-curriculum-at-volozhin 44. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/textualism-mb/comment-page-1#comment-60227 45. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask/comment-page-1#comment-60184 46. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60105 47. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60102 48. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60101 49. http://wordpress.org/ 50. http://alxmedia.se/ 51. http://widgets.wp.com/likes/master.html?ver=20141028#ver=20141028 Hidden links: 53. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus 54. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire 55. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 56. http://www.facebook.com/micha.berger 57. http://www.linkedin.com/in/rmsberger 58. https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MichaBerger 59. http://www.twitter.com/aishdas 60. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/textualism-mb/comment-page-1#comment-60227 61. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask/comment-page-1#comment-60184 62. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60105 63. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60102 64. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60101 65. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov 66. http://www.facebook.com/micha.berger 67. http://www.linkedin.com/in/rmsberger 68. https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MichaBerger 69. http://www.twitter.com/aishdas From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:01:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:01:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> Message-ID: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when shmitta is d'Orayta again? On 9/11/2015 7:03 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > I have been asking this question to various people, and several have > suggested that the answer is somewhere in the range of "hefker bes din" > and "amiraso legavoah kimsiraso lahedyot". IOW, beis din doesn't need > to make a kinyan; its inherent power is sufficient to take possession > of your loans as soon as you verbally relinquish them. > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:05:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:05:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F56682.4070005@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 04:01 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when > shmitta is d'Orayta again? Why wouldn't it? Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din declares it unethical. And I don't think that will happen, because such a declaration wouldn't stop it, it would just drive it to the disreputable batei din. Now that everyone knows about it you can't make people forget it; Hillel uncorked the idea and it can't be pushed back into the bottle. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:05:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:05:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> On 9/11/2015 4:29 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:23:44PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: > : According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job > : 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and > : 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). > > : R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs... > > He argues that it's an auroachs. Calling any identification of this sort a > "demonstration" is overly confident. Agreed. > Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever > sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim > who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we > can use mythical creatures as metaphors. How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty plural to me. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:02:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:02:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you won't experience that as a good thing. On 9/11/2015 8:23 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A > good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever > Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the > year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, > but again whatever Hashem does is good.) > > Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." > > Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. > > YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 02:22:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 05:22:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:02 AM 9/13/2015, you wrote: >On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But if >you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you won't >experience that as a good thing. Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries. If your injuries are not severe, and you collect a hefty sum from the driver's insurance company, then you may indeed view it as a good thing! All things have to be considered in context. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:57:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:57:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 05:22:08AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: :> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But :> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you :> won't experience that as a good thing. : Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries... We're getting off point. I believe Lisa's reponse was similar to my repeating the distinction between "shanah tovah" and "umsuqah", without leading to the problem of the "wrong" word being used in "Leshanah tovah tekhaseivu". We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- what ra? I thought there is no ra? It would seem we often speak of tov vara in terms of how they're experienced, rather than some abstract reality in which we know (or should know) "gam zu letovah". Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:57:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:57:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 05:22:08AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: :> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But :> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you :> won't experience that as a good thing. : Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries... We're getting off point. I believe Lisa's reponse was similar to my repeating the distinction between "shanah tovah" and "umsuqah", without leading to the problem of the "wrong" word being used in "Leshanah tovah tekhaseivu". We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- what ra? I thought there is no ra? It would seem we often speak of tov vara in terms of how they're experienced, rather than some abstract reality in which we know (or should know) "gam zu letovah". Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 06:39:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:39:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. In RM's opinion, shmitta won't be d'Orayata again until the Messiah comes. Ben On 9/13/2015 10:01 AM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when > shmitta is d'Orayta again? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:46:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:46:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: <<< Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din declares it unethical. >>> Perhaps. But I would think that the impropriety of using pruzbul in a d'Oraisa time was pretty implicit (perhaps even explicit) in how Hillel promoted it, and there is no need for a future beis din to point it out. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 06:41:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 09:41:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor Message-ID: <09a801d0ee29$ef34d030$cd9e7090$@com> The sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor is avail for free download at - http://hebrewbooks.org/53838 review of sefer - http://seforim.blogspot.ca/2015/09/review-of-dovid-bashevkins-sefer.html Review of Dovid Bashevkin's Sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor By Rabbi Yitzchok Oratz Rabbi Yitzchok Oratz, a musmach of Beth Medrash Govoha, is the Rabbi and Director of the Monmouth Torah Links community in Marlboro, NJ. God knows the nature of every generation, Rabbi Dovid Bashevkin has written a Sefer uniquely appropriate for the nature of ours[1]. Take a trip to your local Jewish bookseller during this time period, and you will find numerous seforim, old[2] and new[3], on the themes of sin and repentance. Although they certainly vary in style and quality, a common denominator among many is the heavy reliance on Rambam's Hilchos Teshuva and Sha'arey Teshuva of Rabbeinu Yonah of Gerondi[4]. And this is to be expected. Timeless classics, these works of the great Rishonim are unmatched in their systematic and detailed discussion of sin and punishment, free will[5] and repentance, and are a prerequisite study for any serious discussion of Teshuva. But therein lays the dilemma. For although Rabbeinu Yonah maps out the exalted levels of Teshuva that one should certainly strive for, they seem not to be for the faint of heart. Is our generation really up to the task of embracing the sorrow, suffering, and worry, the humbling and lowering oneself[6], without allowing for the concomitant sense of despair[7] and despondence[8]? And how many of us can honestly stand before the Creator, and proclaim that we will "never return" to our negative actions, to the extent that God Himself will testify that this is the case[9]? If confession without sincere commitment to change is worthless[10], does repeating last year's failed commitments not require choosing between giving up and fooling ourselves? This is where B'Rogez Rachem Tizkor comes in. Based heavily on the thought of Izbica in general, and Reb Tzadok ha-Kohen of Lublin in particular, it discusses the value of spiritual struggle, the interplay between determinism and free will, the redemptive potential of sin, and the status of those who have not yet arisen from their fall. Overall, the sefer is a good introduction to R' Tzadok for those who are not familiar with his thought, and offers many insightful and fascinating comments even for those who are. My main critiques are that some of the discussion of the more controversial statements of Izbica required more elaboration[14], the lack thereof leads to a seeming conflating of two similar, yet far from identical, concepts, and more contrasting and supporting texts (both from within Izbica and R' Tzadok's thought and without) would have made for a stronger case and deeper understanding. My hope is to fill in these gaps in some small measure. Hopefully it will further enlighten those whose appetite was whet by this fine work. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:05:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:05:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F59EAF.30104@sero.name> See Tanya chapter 26. There is really no such thing as bad; there is merely the good that we can see and the good that we can't see. But we'd much prefer the kind that we can see, and we ask Hashem to give us that kind of good rather than the other kind. http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7905/jewish/Chapter-26.htm -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:11:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:11:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F5A021.4040809@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 08:46 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The >> only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right >> to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when >> shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din >> declares it unethical. > > Perhaps. But I would think that the impropriety of using pruzbul in a > d'Oraisa time was pretty implicit (perhaps even explicit) in how > Hillel promoted it, and there is no need for a future beis din to > point it out. How so? He didn't say anything about it being improper when shmita is de'oraisa, he merely said here is a solution we can use. The question is why nobody did it before, and the answer is because batei din considered it unethical. Now when were these batei din considering it unethical? In the time of Bayit Rishon?! No, it was in Hillel's day, which is why he needed to make his takanah. And in his day it was already derabbanan. The only relevance of it being derabanan is that had it been deoraisa in Hillel's day, he would not have felt he had the right to promote a way around it, no matter how great the need he saw. But since it was derabanan, and he saw a problem that needed fixing, he was bold and publicised this trick, and declared that nobody should feel guilty about using it. There's no indication that he mentioned shmita's drabanan status at all. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 08:52:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:52:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In Avodah V33n123, RAkivaM responded to me: >> I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. << > The lungs of a *dead* cow are easily accessible if one has a knife; no super-vision is needed there. It is only the lungs of a *living* cow where one would need super-vision (especially if I need the cow to stay alive for more milk next week). < A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the human eye without opening it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 11:55:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:55:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150913185550.GC10636@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 08:57:35AM -0400, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: ::> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But ::> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you ::> won't experience that as a good thing. ... : We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- : what ra? I thought there is no ra? Addenda in response to private email: Well, I didn't mean to get all Izhbitz... I meant the evil we experience, the tragic, and not the evil that we do, the wrong.. But I did buy into more univeralistic models of hashgachah peratis, that at least every person's fate is subject to HP (pace the Rambam or Or haChaim), and thus the tragic has a point. If not itself tovsh, it is letovah. Which still leaves us with R/Prof Levine's original question sbout blessing others with shanah tovah. ... : Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be : experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even : that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) But even the evil that we do is more like a missed opposrtunity for good than a beryah. Much the way Yeshaiah pairs evil with darkness "yotzeir or uvorei choshekh ... uvorei es hara." Althouh it's possible that Yeshiah considered darkness to be a beryah, the way Chazal talk about the thick darkness of makas choshekh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 12:00:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:00:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:52:48AM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the : human eye without opening it. The sun is also an external tool. This is wh I think we need more nuance here. It might depend on whether a hollow inside the lung is judged as a lung that is defective in a way we can't see without a knife, or the hole is a mum that we could be able to see ourselves if the ourside of the lung weren't in the way. But in either case, I still csn't articulste what seems to me to be a obvious difference. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 07:07:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 10:07:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akeidah of the Mind Message-ID: <20150913140741.CE67A180E46@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from pages 588 - 590 of Rav Schwab on Chumash. Please note the words "Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave the human being a mind to understand Him. Whatever one studies in the world, be it science, history, economics, mathematics, or anything else, it is actually the study of the revelations of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Our mind is given to us to enable us to understand as much about C-d as is humanly possible. This is borne out in many places throughout Torah and Nach ... This means that we are not merely to accept that which our forefathers have taught us about C-d but we are to attempt to know, to understand as much as we can about Hashem ... The Rav (Rav Shimon Schwab, ZT"L) was firmly convinced that since Moshe emes v'Toraso emes, the Torah and our Rabbinic mesorah are inviolable and, one day, answers would be found answers these questions. He would say that sometimes one must offer his mind as an "akeidah" to Hakadosh Baruch Hu where human reasoning has not yet found answers to apparent contradictions between the inviolable eternal truth of the Torah, the truthful writing (Daniel 10:21), and historical or scientific finds which are subject to change. In his lectures on Iyov, he offered the following comments on this subject. "... By accepting C-d's command, Avraham Avinu had sacrificed his own mind to comply with the will of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. While Avraham attempts to understand C-d, nevertheless, when C-d1s command contradicts that understanding, Avraham sacrifices his mind to the will of C-d, just as one would forfeit his life if the halachah required it, rather than violate the three cardinal sins. "Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave the human being a mind to understand Him. Whatever one studies in the world, be it science, history, economics, mathematics, or anything else, it is actually the study of the revelations of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Our mind is given to us to enable us to understand as much about C-d as is humanly possible. This is borne out in many places throughout Torah and Nach ... This means that we are not merely to accept that which our forefathers have taught us about C-d but we are to attempt to know, to understand as much as we can about Hashem ... "... This is why the mitzvah of learning Torah is so important; in fact it is our most important mitzvah. When we learn Torah, we employ our mind in the service of Hakadosh Baruch Hu by studying C-d's will as revealed to us in the Torah. And if we have questions or contradictions, we must use our mind to the best of our capacity to attempt to resolve them within the parameters of Torah study. "... So, while we are encouraged to use our mind, as much as reason allows, to serve C-d, to understand Him, and to answer questions, nevertheless, when all reason fails us, and we cannot go any further with human understanding, when our mind is staggered, we must be prepared to I/sacrifice our mind/I to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. We must throw up our hands and say that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is right whether we understand it or not. One could call this 'the akeidah of the mind.' "When science poses questions which seemingly contradict our basic truths, we must make an effort to answer these questions. But if the answers are elusive, we must sacrifice our mind and subjugate it to the revealed truths of the Torah. Fortunately, baruch Hashem, as yet, I have not found any questions of this sort- for instance, regarding the age of the universe, evolution, ancient civilizations- for which I have not found possible answers. But it could happen, and one has to be ready for it. If suddenly a scientific discovery were to arise which clearly seems to contradict the Torah, we would then have to admit that the question is excellent but nevertheless, the Torah is right because it is the revealed wisdom of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. It is "Toras Emes, 11 absolute truth, all questions notwithstanding. Answers will no doubt eventually be found to such contradictions, but in the meantime, by accepting the veracity of the Torah without reservations, we will have offered our mind as an 'akeidah' to Hakadosh Baruch Hu.'' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 11:36:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:36:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? Message-ID: <1f9d87.3cc2b5a7.43271c34@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, but again whatever Hashem does is good.) Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. YL >>>>> When others wish you well you should wish them well too, mipnei darkei shalom. A long philosophical treatise about how even illness, accidents and financial losses are actually all good things will not endear you to anyone. Another answer to your question is: we wish our friends (and ourselves) brachos from the Ribono Shel Olam that are sweet and obvious even to our limited human eyes, and not the other kind. Certainly we appreciate that the dentist's drill or the surgeon's knife is doing us a favor and repairing what needs repairing, but we prefer not to have the cavity and not to need the surgery in the first place. However if you simply cannot bring yourself to utter a blessing that seems philosophically dubious to you, I would suggest that you overcome that feeling, bentsh your fellow Jews anyway, and may Hashem in turn overcome His philosophical doubts and bless you and all of us in kind. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 07:15:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (RCK via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 17:15:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty > plural to me. >Lisa Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book *Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew * [image: Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] [image: Academia.edu] [image: Google Scholar] [image: LinkedIN] [image: Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:00:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:00:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F59DB4.6080103@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 04:05 AM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >> Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever >> sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim >> who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we >> can use mythical creatures as metaphors. > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty > plural to me. Because Yosef is a shor, not a re'em, even if each of his horns is that of a re'em. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 12:29:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:29:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 10:15 AM, RCK via Avodah wrote: > Lisa wrote: >> How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty >> plural to me. > Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=11650&pgnum=227 I don't understand the Bachur's comment. Surely the Radak explicitly addressed his objection, so why does he still raise it? (Unless these notes were not written on the Shorashim at all, and some printer decided to mash them together at random.) -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 13:59:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 16:59:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> References: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha replied: > The sun is also an external tool. < Which is why I previously differentiated between the sun _or_ a substitute light source no brighter than it and between what I call "external tools." > This is wh I think we need more nuance here. < My theory is that anything we, a 6th-Day "creation", can see with the tools provided as part of the *b'riyah* (or, again, a fair substitute) is within our Halachic field of vision. Best wishes for a *shanah tovah umsuqah* from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:52:48AM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: > : A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the > : human eye without opening it. > > The sun is also an external tool. > > This is wh I think we need more nuance here. > > It might depend on whether a hollow inside the lung is judged as a lung > that is defective in a way we can't see without a knife, or the hole is > a mum that we could be able to see ourselves if the ourside of the lung > weren't in the way. > > But in either case, I still csn't articulste what seems to me to be > a obvious difference. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea > micha at aishdas.org of instincts. > http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter > Fax: (270) 514-1507 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 15 10:01:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (RCK via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:01:11 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> References: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> Message-ID: It's a good question, in fact, the Bayis HaGadol (also known as Biur) on Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer (end of ch. 19) asks this on HaBachur. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book *Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew * [image: Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] [image: Academia.edu] [image: Google Scholar] [image: LinkedIN] [image: Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/13/2015 10:15 AM, RCK via Avodah wrote: > >> Lisa wrote: >> > > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty >>> plural to me. >>> >> > Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. >> > > http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=11650&pgnum=227 > > I don't understand the Bachur's comment. Surely the Radak explicitly > addressed his objection, so why does he still raise it? (Unless these > notes were not written on the Shorashim at all, and some printer decided > to mash them together at random.) > > -- > Zev Sero KvChT > zev at sero.name > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 15 17:45:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:45:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150916004501.GA21666@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 04:59:29PM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: :> This is wh I think we need more nuance here. : My theory is that anything we, a 6th-Day "creation", can see with the tools : provided as part of the *b'riyah* (or, again, a fair substitute) is within : our Halachic field of vision. You mean, like a sharp rock? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 01:43:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:43:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: R' MYG wrote: "I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem?s love for His people: ?If you sin, even if you?re not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here?s a ?ticket? of sorts that I?m giving you _now_ to show my love for you, that if you ?remind? me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate that you see yourselves as close to me, and I?ll give you some measure of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah.? The best Mashal I could think of for this is a PBA placard ? you buy it and put it in your car, and when the cop pulls you over for speeding, you show it to him and he goes easy on you, because he sees that you?re really a friend of the police. NOT because you demonstrated regret for speeding, necessarily. Does that make sense?" Not really, Hashem is perfect and all knowing, you can't bribe him. Why should you need to remind him of anything? Hashem knows exactly who you are and how close you are to him. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 02:35:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:35:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916093543.GA10685@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:43:35AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Not really, Hashem is perfect and all knowing, you can't bribe him. Why : should you need to remind him of anything? Hashem knows exactly who you are : and how close you are to him. That's ust an inherent limitation in the mashal. (Any mashal where the nimshal is G-d, is going to be limited for the same reason you give.) Lemaaseh, He may Remember everything, but I don't. Going through the exercises keep my own beliefs more conscious and reinforces them. Setting up a pointless reminder to remind Him has function in that it reminds me. Which is how I understood RMYG's original answer: that reciting the 13 middoes is "more of a symbol of Hashem's love for His people: 'If you sin, even if you're not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here's a 'ticket' of sorts that I'm giving you _now_ to show my love for you...'" We need to remember the closeness, to keep it real in our minds, which then deepens our belief in it. Which is why I then said that this in itself is a minimal teshuvah, and not merely reciting words. IOW, if someone said the 13 Middos and didn't even think "these are G-d's 13 Middos of lovingkindness that He gave us", would they still be guaranteed not to leave empty-handed? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 01:58:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:58:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > There's no indication that he mentioned shmita's drabanan status at all. The simple reading of the Gemara in Gittin 36a-b which is the source of pruzbul says that pruzbul only works when shemitta is d'rabbanan and in fact this is how the Rambam understands the Gemara and how he paskens. The Gemara first states that Hillel was mesaken pruzbul and then asks how could Hillel be mesaken pruzbul and say that loans are not cancelled when the Torah says that they are? Abaye answers shemitta nowadays is derabban. The Gemara then asks how could the Chachamim be mesaken shemittas kesafim medrabban (and cancel loans) and Rava answers hefker beit din hefker. The simple reading of the Gemara is that the whole takana of pruzbul only works when shemitta is derabbanan. Rashi and the Raavad however understand the Gemara that Rava's answer also answers the first question of how could Hillel be mesaken pruzbul when the Torah cancels loans based on hefker beis din hefker and that pruzbul works even when shemmita is d'oraysa. [Email #2] R"n Lisa Liel asked: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when shmitta > is d'Orayta again? and R' Zev Sero asked why wouldn't it? Actually this is an explicit machlokes the Rambam and the Raavad and Rashi and Tosafos (Gittin 36a-b). The Rambam writes in Hilchos Shemitta V'Yovel (chapter 9) v'ein haprozbul moeel ela b'shmitas kesafim shehee midvrei sofrim aval shemitta shel torah ayn haprozbul moeel bo The Raavad there argues that prozbul will work even when shemmita is d'oraysa based on his understanding of Rava's answer of hefker beis din hefker (like Rashi in Gittin). From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 02:50:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:50:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916095007.GD14423@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:00:56PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : If I am making them my shaliach to collect my loans on my behalf, then that : sounds like Rav Asher Weiss' explanation. Sure, beis din is patur from lo : yigos, but it was a big chidush to me that that's enough to exempt me from : being m'shamet a loan that I still own. (But if one wants to go with the : Collection Agency idea, then shlichus is irrelevant - beis din would need : to own the loan.) The big problem is that the difference in sevaros may make a particular pruzbul text valid or not. For example, how does hefqer BD hefqer work today, when courts do not have a central Sanhedrin organizing them? I am giving the loan to three hedyotos. Which 3? The three I named? (Are we invoking Beis Shammai's notion that one can be mafqir only to a given person or set of people? [Ymi Pei'ah 6:1 19b]) Then how is it HBDH and not a simple matanah? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 03:09:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:09:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20150916100941.GE14423@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 03:39:14PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey : wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of : Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all : those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the : number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. : : In RM's opinion, shmitta won't be d'Orayata again until the Messiah comes. Also, the machloqes Rashi and Tosafos as to whether "kol yosheveha aleha" is by sheivet. I don't know what Tosafos do with the machloqes (Sanhedring 110b) about whether the lost shevatim will ever be restored. If they hold like R' Aqiva, this would have to refer to the descendents of those refugees from Malkhus Yisrael who fled to Malkhus Yehudah. Or, is that in itself enough reestablishment of the shevatim to contradict R' Aqiva? The masqanah of the gemara appears to be Rabba bb Chana (citing R' Yochanan) refuting R' Aqiva's position in favor of R' Eliezer -- that the missing shevatim will be restored (quoting Yirmiyahu 3:!2). Maybe they just consider the question closed. The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority of Benei Yisrael. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 05:08:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:08:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: from wikipedia Thus, if one would agree that shmita does not apply when Israelites are dispersed,[6] Hillel, great as he was, would not have changed a law of the Torah in order to fit the needs of his time. He and his beth din would have enacted a rabbinic exception to a rabbinic law. As the Rambam notes in Shmita V'Yovel chapter 9, when most Jews again live in the Land of Israel and the observance of the sabbatical and jubilee years are Toraitic commandments, the prozbul will no longer be able to be used. According to this theory, Prozbul, like `eruv , is a rabbinic exception to a rabbinic enactment. Prozbul cannot be used to get around the Torah commanded shmita and yovel, just as `eruv cannot be used to get around the fact that Torah prohibited carrying in the public domain. I recently saw the opposite question: There are many ways to avoid the problem of shmitta annulling laws without resorting to prozbul. One simple example is to make the loan end immediately after RH of this year. There are many other options. So the question is why the need for prozbul The only answer I saw was that the general population was not aware of the alternatives or else they were too cumbersome [Email #2] > In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench > that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the > true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people > who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is > much higher than we believe it to be. I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even for direct maternal descendants. i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. I would assume that a descendant of annusim would be Jewish since they kept their Jewish identification through various customs -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:40:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:40:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:36:20PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were :> exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on :> Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority :> of Benei Yisrael. : How do you know? (I assume you mean the reisha about yovel and therefore shemittah de'oraisa ending when eiver hayardein was conquered, not my last sentence.) Eirachin 32b Rambam, Hil Shemitah veYovel 10:8. GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 09:36:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:36:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> On 9/13/2015 4:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey > wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of > Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all > those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the > number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. On the contrary. The number of people who identify as "Jewish" in polls who are actually non-halakhic "converts" or children of non-Jewish mothers is vast, so the number of Jews is much *lower* than we believe it to be. [Email #2] On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were > exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on > Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority > of Benei Yisrael. How do you know? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:40:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:40:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F9A97D.2080405@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 08:08 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> >In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench >> >that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the >> >true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people >> >who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is >> >much higher than we believe it to be. > I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that > once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with > yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even > for direct maternal descendants. > > i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim > through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. That is an extreme daat yachid, with a very tenuous basis. Nobody else agrees with him, so there's no reason to expect R Melamed to take this view into account, or even to be aware of it. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:49:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:49:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Moderator Vacation Message-ID: <20150916174900.GC6146@aishdas.org> While Areivim has a team of mods, Avodah is still entirely dependent on me. Which makes me feel an obligation to forewarn y'all before I go on vacation. Tomorrow I will be leaving for 3 weeks in Yerushalayim ih"q. (Barring messianic intervention, to leave again the day after chutznik Simchas Torah.) I do not know what my internet access will be like, but it's quite likely moderation approval delays will increase. Please be patient. Yerushalayim crew: Avodah/Areivim Simchas Beis haSho'eivah anyone? Discussion on Areivim...) GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 11:30:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:30:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916183023.GD6146@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 03:08:53PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that : once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with : yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even : for direct maternal descendants. This was his famous teshuvah on the Brother Daniel case. That there are limits even on maternal descent. I found a nice summary by R/Dr Judah Goldberg : i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim : through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. >From there, RAL's meqoros in shas: In Yevamot 16b, Rav Assi states that if a gentile betroths a Jewess, we cannot dismiss the validity of the marriage, for perhaps he descends from one of the ten lost tribes. When Shmuel heard this ruling, however, he responded, "They did not move from that place until they made [the descendants of the lost tribes] into absolute gentiles, as it says, 'They have betrayed God, for they have begotten alien children' (Hoshea 5:7)" (17a). Similarly, Chullin 6a tells how Rav Ami and Rav Assi discovered that the Samaritan community, which had long been suspected of engaging in pagan worship, was no longer observing Jewish law at all. In response, They did not move from that place until they made [the Samaritans] into absolute gentiles. He cites three shitos from rishonim, although the Rambam's pesaq is as explacated by R' Chaim Brisker. 1- Rashba: The Samaritan's conversion was annulled, not that one can stop being a Jew. R Pinchas Horowitz (Sefer Ha-mikna) applies parallel reasoning to the 10 shevatim -- they didn't stop being Jews, they are just an ignorable mi'ut that only a derabbanan kept us from ignoring. And that was repealed. 2- A mi'ut hold that the geir who stops believing ceases being a geir, but we have to worry about what's really going on in his head, so lechumerah we have to acknowledge his marriage. 3- The Rambam as explained by RCB (contrasting Ishus 4:15 with peirush on Niddah 7:4, where he says a dead Samaritan is not metamei tum'as ohel) that someone who gives up his self-identity as a Jew and acts on it is But in either case, the hypothetical Ephramite is a machloqes amoraim. Unless you agree with the author of the Hafla'ah that it's just an issue of mi'ut, and therefore the one who could prove he is in the mi'ut would be Jewish. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless micha at aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 13:39:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:39:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Moderator Vacation In-Reply-To: <55F9B9EA.70600@sero.name> References: <20150916174900.GC6146@aishdas.org> <55F9B9EA.70600@sero.name> Message-ID: <43db8966934f6c727f16a67e6896f9cb@aishdas.org> It is much easier when my mechutan's work address is "1 Kotel Plaza" -- Yeshivat Netiv Aryeh. Thanks for the _berakhos_. _Gemar chasimah tovah_! On 2015-09-16 2:50 pm, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/16/2015 01:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > >> Tomorrow I will be leaving for 3 weeks in Yerushalayim ih"q. > > Mazal tov. Even if Moshiach doesn't come in the next week or so, > you can still fulfil a zecher to hakhel. I was there 14 years > ago at the "hakhel" rally at the kotel, but unfortunately I was > unable to be there 7 years ago, and barring either Moshiach (and > the real hakhel) or a lottery win I will not be able to be there > this year either. > > (Actually I'm not aware of any source that Moshiach will provide > transportation, so even if he comes today it may be impossible > for everyone to get there in time for hakhel.) _Tir'u baTov_! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 11:54:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:54:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> On 9/16/2015 8:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:36:20PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: > : On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were > :> exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on > :> Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority > :> of Benei Yisrael. > > : How do you know? > > (I assume you mean the reisha about yovel and therefore shemittah de'oraisa > ending when eiver hayardein was conquered, not my last sentence.) Actually, I meant your last sentence. How do you know that the area of the 2.5 shvatim didn't include a majority of Bnei Yisrael? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:47:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:47:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 09:54:59PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : Actually, I meant your last sentence. How do you know that the area : of the 2.5 shvatim didn't include a majority of Bnei Yisrael? Because the gemara has to explain why 2-1/2 shevatim needed as many arei miqlat as the rest of BY. And the answer is because those who settled for land on that side of the Yardein built a more careless culture. (See Rashi Bamidbar 35:14 which is based on Abayei Makos 10a, and the Maharal on the Rashi to explain that Rashi [and Abayei] assume that the number who need galus will be greater whent he number of murderers does.) Notice the answer was NOT "because HQBH knew there would be at least as many people Mei'eiver haYardein before bayis rishon ended". It would also take a notable statistical anomaly for the largest population to grow out of a small initial state, and yet never get a navi telling them anything, etc... GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your micha at aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender, Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:41:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:41:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question Message-ID: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: > Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking around at books and online. I see no > discussion whatsoever on whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, e.g. books > I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an > obligation to return a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? Thanks, Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:54:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:54:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F9E518.5090701@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 05:47 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Because the gemara has to explain why 2-1/2 shevatim needed as many arei > miqlat as the rest of BY. And the answer is because those who settled > for land on that side of the Yardein built a more careless culture. Do you understand that question and answer? How do the population *or* the number of manslaughterers affect the number of arei miklat needed? Surely the only determinant is geography. A manslaughterer has to cover the same distance regardless of how sparse the population, or how careful they are. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 12:37:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:37:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: I was asked to provide a list of (me-possible) mitzvaot which were considered kiyumit. Does anyone know of such a list? GCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 15:07:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:07:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 05:41 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: > >> Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking >> around at books and online. I see no discussion whatsoever on >> whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, >> e.g. books I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that >> addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an obligation to return >> a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? > I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? Shemita applies only to halva'ah, not to she'elah. English uses the same word, but they are very different transactions. It's actually strange that English, which is usually the most precise language, does not distinguish them. A book is a she'elah; the book remains her property, and she expects the borrower to return it. Thus it is not at all affected by shemita. It is also not subject to the prohibition on ribbis; not only is there absolutely nothing wrong with charging people to borrow your stuff, the Torah explicitly endorses it as one of the four forms of shemirah. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 15:29:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:29:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Li Nir'eh Message-ID: <20150916222914.GE26081@aishdas.org> In AhS YD 39:48, RYME draws a conclusion from the fact that the Rama in Darkhei Moshe says "nir'eh li" rather than "veli nir'eh". "Veli nir'eh" implies he is choleiq with the BY? Anyone hear before of a distinction between the two idioms? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 16:20:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:20:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:06:16AM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> I intend to write a post on the meaning of the word "mesorah" as developed :> in RYBS's and RHS's thought as the start of its own thread. See http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/what-does-masorah-mean : And this is where this slide from discussing one slice of the mesorah - what : to do in Yeshiva, to a much wider slice of the mesorah becomes problematic, : because of the implication you have just made which is that what is true of : the section applies to the whole... Well, that's sort of it, isn't it? You're making a distinction between learning in a semichah shiur and learning how to pasqen. I don't think RYBS would. IOW, his whole point about needing mesorah is because he denies your premise. Leshitaso, you pasqen more from lomdus than from codes; or to put it more clearly -- you need a Rashi and a Tosafos to teach you how to fill in between the data points of a Yad or SA. For that matter, this is clearly the AhS's approach to pesaq. And the entire school which runs from Gemara to Rambam vs Rosh (at al) to Tur, BY, SA, Rama, Shach, Taz (et al)... This is how pesaq comes to be. Not from deciding between codes but from using the flow of mesorah to decide between them. Otherwise, shu"t would read like surveys; and even ROY doesn't end with his survey. : RGS comments that he and his father tried to learn meseches Nedarim just : using the meforash, in the absence of Rashi, and were not able to do so : (they were then only able to do it using the Ran, a much later commentary) - : thus demonstrating the point of the post, which is, without Rashi, most of : the Talmud Bavli would be a closed book to most people of average, and even : above average, intelligence (like the Talmud Yerushalmi). Actually, RYBS said that. : This is unquestionably true. : : The Rambam was also aware of this problem (after all he learned all of : Talmud Bavli without Rashi and everybody he knew either did so or tried to : do so). His solution to RGS's problem was to tell RGS and his father, and : people like him, not to try and learn Talmud Bavli, but to learn his, the : Rambam's, Code instead... Not really. His code is mishnah, not gemara. He tells beginners to do their shelish bemiqra in his code. And then you should be able to graduate from it, and from the whole need to divide one's time into thirds. ... : Our mesorah is like Rashi in this regard and not the Rambam (except when it : comes to smicha students). We open up the Talmud Bavli even to children : using Rashi and hundreds of thousands are sitting in yeshiva following : Rashi. Huh? Rashi didn't expect kids to start with Tanakh? Where does this come into the whole discussion? : The problem is that people (it would appear including you) then generalise : from "how we learn" to "how we posken" - which is what really is involved in : the discussion regarding Open O and feminism. And they are not the same : thing at all. Indeed, the fact that smicha students (those that are being : set up to posken) are taught in a totally different way to the more general : way of learning in yeshiva, and one that owes far more to the Rambam than to : Rashi and Tosphos should alert you to that. I do not believe the closing sentence. RYBS was giving one shiur to cover both. But that's RYBS, not my own leanings. I do see lomdus, in which the goal is to justify every opinion, and pesaq, in which the goal is to decide which opinion is most justified, to be different. But again, one doesn't pasqen from codes without the tools learned from lomdus. For that matter, if it's a halakhah pesuqah, one isn't pasqening at all. : What Rashi did was to provide a clear and simple explanation of the words on : the page. : What Tosphos did ... And the Me'iri opened the gemara in a third way. That seems to be a pretty complete taxonomy of parshanim. Then there are codes. Then there is shu"t. And most recently, encyclopedias / collections. ... : On the other hand, RET is correct: :> Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against :> the concept. :> Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own :> interpretation and not rely or be bound by any text. : Although I would modify that statement not to say "and not be bound by any : text", as most at that point agreed that they should be bound by the gemora : (and the Tanach as understood by the mishna/gemora), just not beyond that. The Maharal's actual objection: To decide halakhic questions from the codes without knowing the logic of the ruling was not the intent of these authors [Rambam, Tur, SA, et al]. Had they known that their works would lead to the abandonment of Talmud, they would not have written them. It is better for one to decide on thebasis of the Talmud even though he might err, for a scholar must depend solely on his understanding. As such, he is beloved of God, and preferable tothe one who rules from a code but does not know thereason for the ruling; such a one walks like a blind person. See Nesivos Olam, Nesiv haTorah ch 15. (I invoked the above thought about shelish bemishnah only being for beginners [from Hil TT] and the MT only being a replacement for the hoi palloi to justify the Maharal's statement WRT the Rambam. See RMRabi's and my months-long discussion.) Actually, what I think won the day for the SA was that the SA stopped being a code when they started publishing everyone on the sides. That's what it seems from the Maharal. Presumably his brother, the Yam shel Shelomo, would agree. ... : And RMB replied: :> Actualy, it's only those who have an eye on common practice. After all, we :> discuss machloqesin between Rashi and the Rambam in halakhah lemasseh :> contexts all the time. And if Ashkenazim accepted Rashi's ruling, or one :> found in Tosafos, the Rama has no problem limiting his pesaq to that rather :> than that of the Rif, Rambam or Tur. And had there not been a Rama, then :> some shu"t or parshan could as well. : : But neither Rashi nor Tosphos gave us any method of limiting where psak : went, and indeed the Ri can hold one thing and Rabbanu Tam another within : the same Tosphos. The Codes are far less open... But they only cover specific cases. They don't teach how to extent beyond those cases. So in general, the codes are more open than Rashi, the Ri or Rabbeinu Tam who help you by providing a why that tells you how far to take the point. A code is way open except for the cases they covered. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 16:38:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:38:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: References: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150916233829.GA3601@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 08:01:11PM +0300, RCK via Avodah wrote: : It's a good question, in fact, the Bayis HaGadol (also known as Biur) on : Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer (end of ch. 19) asks this on HaBachur. Since you clearly saw it, and some of us are kind of busy (and about to take leave of my library), could you please summarize the discussion there? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 18:31:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:31:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55FA17E2.6020200@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 07:20 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > That's > what it seems from the Maharal. Presumably his brother, the Yam shel > Shelomo, would agree. The Maharshal was not a brother of the Maharal! AFAIK they were not related. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 19:19:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:19:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel quoted Wikipedia: > ...According to this theory, Prozbul, like > `eruv , is a rabbinic exception > to a rabbinic enactment. Prozbul cannot be used to get around the > Torah commanded shmita and yovel, just as `eruv cannot be used to get > around the fact that Torah prohibited carrying in the public domain. As few days ago, I was thinking about comparisons between Prozbul and Eruv, and it seems clear to me that while Eruv *is* an exception to an enactment, Prozbul is a whole 'nother thing. I think it makes no sense for Prozbul to be "an exception to an enactment", because "why bother?" If the agricultural Shemitta stops being d'Oraisa, then Chazal can certainly enact it on a d'rabanan level. But to do that for Shemitas Kesafim means to legislate the following three things simultaneously: 1) Enact a law requiring cancellation of loans 2) Loans are exempt from cancellation if Prozbul is done 3) For the benefit of both poor and wealthy, everyone should do a Prozbul Why enact such a set of laws? Wouldn't it be far simpler to just let Shmitas Kesafim lapse, and NOT be enacted on a d'rabanan level? Regardless of whether one holds Prozbul to work on a d'Oraisa level, I think everyone can agree that Prozbul was enacted specifically because (as the Torah feared) too many people refrained from lending money as Shmitta got near. Therefore, it seems clear to me that IF Shmitas Kesafim was enacted as a d'rabanan, THEN Prozbul was enacted LATER, and not at the same time. In sharp contrast, I understand that Eruvin was a real "exception to an enactment": Simultaneously to the new law which prohibited carrying in a karmelis, an exception was included exempting certain areas under certain condiitons, allowing the carrying there. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 20:25:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:25:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55FA328E.1080708@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 10:19 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > In sharp contrast, I understand that Eruvin was a real "exception to > an enactment": Simultaneously to the new law which prohibited > carrying in a karmelis, an exception was included exempting certain > areas under certain condiitons, allowing the carrying there. An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. I don't know who prohibited carrying in a karmelis, but there's no reason to suppose it was Shlomo. Shlomo prohibited carrying in a *reshus hayachid with multiple owners*, and instituted eruv as a way around that prohibition. (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 05:01:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:01:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and > thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. My language was not precise. I apologize. What I meant was that prior to the establishment of these d'rabanans, one was allowed to carry from an unwalled non-thoroughfare to either a walled area or to a major thoroughfare. But it was easy to get confused between the general outdoors and a main road, so the general outdoors was made into a Reshus Harabim D'rabanan, with the following exception: Whereas a Reshus Harabim d'Oraisa requires actual walls to allow carrying, for a Reshus Harabim d'Rabanan it is sufficient to surround an area with doorways (tzuras hapesach). > I don't know who prohibited carrying in a karmelis, > but there's no reason to suppose it was Shlomo. Shlomo > prohibited carrying in a *reshus hayachid with multiple > owners*, and instituted eruv as a way around that > prohibition. I'm fuzzy on the history too. The law as I described it above may or may not have been part of the same legislation that RZS described here. What we have here are two distinct - but easily and often confused - d'rabanans within the melacha of hotzaa. It doesn't really matter which came first, or if they came together. My point was that they are excellent examples of an exception being built into the law from the very beginning, as opposed to Prozbul, which (if shmitas kesafim is d'rabanan) was a separate enactment from shmitas kesafim (because if they were done at the same time, the goal of Prozbul could have been acheived even more easily by simply not enacting shmitas kesafim). > (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an > eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple > owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) I'm not sure if there is a rigorous definition of "loophole". (The wikipedia article is a great place to start.) I tend to think that it is a general pejorative to describe any leniency that one has an emotional objection to. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 05:17:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150917121734.GA8567@aishdas.org> Li nir'eh the difference is that by eruv, it was all done in one sitting of beis din -- when they assered a karmeelis, they also promulgated the idea of eruv. IOW, explicitly they only assured a karmelis that didn't have an eruv. (A conscious exemption more than a loophole, as I would use the terms.) Pruzbul was a loophole in an earlier taqanah and that was and promulgated by a later beis di GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 09:58:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:58:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55FAF148.5080904@sero.name> On 09/17/2015 08:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and >> thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. > My language was not precise. I apologize. > > What I meant was that prior to the establishment of these d'rabanans, > one was allowed to carry from an unwalled non-thoroughfare to either > a walled area or to a major thoroughfare. But it was easy to get > confused between the general outdoors and a main road, so the general > outdoors was made into a Reshus Harabim D'rabanan, with the following > exception: Whereas a Reshus Harabim d'Oraisa requires actual walls to > allow carrying, for a Reshus Harabim d'Rabanan it is sufficient to > surround an area with doorways (tzuras hapesach). Mid'oraisa a set of four tzuros hapesach works in reshus harabim too. It was the rabanan who said "ein me'arvim reshus harabim bekach", and only allowed it in a karmelis. Whether they did this at the same time that they forbade carrying in a karmelis, I don't know. My impression is that it was later, because the first we hear of it is in a braisa, and it's subject to machlokes, whereas the concept of karmelis is taken for granted by all. > My point was that they are excellent examples of an exception being > built into the law from the very beginning, as opposed to Prozbul, > which (if shmitas kesafim is d'rabanan) was a separate enactment from > shmitas kesafim Yes, this is clear. > (because if they were done at the same time, the goal of Prozbul > could have been acheived even more easily by simply not enacting > shmitas kesafim). You don't need to go there. It's obvious that shmitas kesafim midrabanan preceded Hillel, because if it hadn't then how could he have observed the problem that resulted? Clearly it long predated him, presumably all the way back to the end of shmita d'oraisa, or at least to the return from Bavel. But the *efficacy* of pruzbul is not Hillel's takana at all. It's de'oraisa (Sifri, quoted by Tosfos Gittin 36a dh Mi Ika Midi) >> (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an >> eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple >> owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) > I'm not sure if there is a rigorous definition of "loophole". > (The wikipedia article is a great place to start.) I tend to > think that it is a general pejorative to describe any leniency > that one has an emotional objection to. The WP article is seriously defective (WP:OR for one thing) and needs to extensive a rewrite for me to bother with. A loophole is built into a wall; it's *meant* to be there. There's nothing pejorative about it. An exception to a law is a case where the law doesn't apply; a loophole is where the law *does* apply, and this is how it applies. It's not that an eruv permits one to carry in a RHY with multiple owners, it's that an eruv turns it (for this purpose) into a RHY with a single owner. Similarly eruv techumin doesn't allow you to walk more than 2000 amos from your residence, it merely moves your residence. That's not an exception, it's a loophole. If you want an example of an exception, look to eruv tavshilin. The chachamim, whether because of kevod shabbos or kevod yomtov, forbade the ha'arama of cooking for guests whom you aren't really expecting, *unless* you make an eruv. The eruv is an exception built into the original takana. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 03:33:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 13:33:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "I think it makes no sense for Prozbul to be "an exception to an enactment", because "why bother?" If the agricultural Shemitta stops being d'Oraisa, then Chazal can certainly enact it on a d'rabanan level. But to do that for Shemitas Kesafim means to legislate the following three things simultaneously: 1) Enact a law requiring cancellation of loans 2) Loans are exempt from cancellation if Prozbul is done 3) For the benefit of both poor and wealthy, everyone should do a Prozbul Why enact such a set of laws? Wouldn't it be far simpler to just let Shmitas Kesafim lapse, and NOT be enacted on a d'rabanan level?" If you look at the sugya of pruzbul (Gittin 36a-b) these points are all addressed: The Gemara starts out with the fact that Hillel was mesaken pruzbul. Then the Gemara asks how could he do that if the Torah (shemitas kesafim) cancels the loan? Abaye answers that Hillel only made his takana of pruzbul when shemittas kesafim was derabbanon. The Gemara then asks how could the Chachamim be mesaken shemmitas kesafim derabbanon if min hatorah the lender has to pay back the loan? Rava answers hefker beis din hefker. We see clearly from the Gemara that the historical progression was 1. Shemmita ceased being min hatorah 2. Chachamim were mesaken shemitta miderabbonon including shemittas kesafim 3. After shemitta derabbonon was already established Hillel saw that people were not lending money and therefore was mesaken pruzbul In other words these things did not happen simultaneously, pruzbul was enacted after shemmitas kesafim was already established. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 06:03:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 09:03:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] An Important Clarification Regarding Some Relevant Halachos for Yom Kippur Message-ID: <20150921130412.485F3183A12@nexus.stevens.edu> [] Some Relevant Halachos for Yom Kippur: A Clarification The following is an excerpt from the article on selected halachos relative to Yom Kippur: "At the conclusion of Yom Kippur, one may not do melachah (labor prohibited on Shabbos/ Yom Kippur) until one recites (or hears) Havdalah over wine (or the equivalent) or recites A ttah Chonantanu in Ma'ariv, or says Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol. Although reciting any of these allows one to do melachah, one may not eat until after reciting (or hearing) Havdalah over wine (or the equivalent). Accordingly, married men should hurry home after Ma'ariv on Motza'ei Yom Kippur to recite Havdalah so that their wives will be able to eat." Clarification : Following the conclusion of Yom Kippur, after one recites Attah Chonantanu in Ma'ariv or says Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol, one may drink water even before reciting (or hearing) Havdalah. Thus (for example), a woman whose husband is delayed in coming home after Ma'ariv on Motza'ei Yom Kippur may recite Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol after nightfall and drink water before hearing Havdalah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 15:18:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 23:18:00 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> Message-ID: A summary of Pruzbul I have in front of me (written by Rabbi D Tugendhaft, London) says: "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" On 16 September 2015 at 23:07, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 09/16/2015 05:41 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > >> A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: >> >> Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking >>> around at books and online. I see no discussion whatsoever on >>> whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, >>> e.g. books I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that >>> addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an obligation to return >>> a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? >>> >> > I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? >> > > > Shemita applies only to halva'ah, not to she'elah. English uses the > same word, but they are very different transactions. It's actually > strange that English, which is usually the most precise language, does > not distinguish them. > > A book is a she'elah; the book remains her property, and she expects > the borrower to return it. Thus it is not at all affected by shemita. > It is also not subject to the prohibition on ribbis; not only is there > absolutely nothing wrong with charging people to borrow your stuff, > the Torah explicitly endorses it as one of the four forms of shemirah. > > -- > Zev Sero GChT > zev at sero.name > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 06:53:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:53:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Haqeil Message-ID: <55FC174B.6090900@zahav.net.il> Anyone here understand sound? Assuming best case scenarios (loud voices, no background noise, good hearing), how many people could possibly hear the king read at Haqeil? It would seem that there is no way the king could project his voice so that most could hear him (????). If few actually came to the tekes, OK, but if most people came how could it possibly work? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 07:57:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:57:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] From Medieval Ashkenaz Techinah Supplication to Iconic Segulah: The Chasidic Transformation of G-d of Abraham Message-ID: <20150918145828.8F30C183A9B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/pwg839c From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 10:20:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 20:20:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] vort on teshuvah Message-ID: 1) Rambam in hlichot teshuva (7:6) discusses the effect of teshuva yesterday (emesh) i was far from G-d hated ... and now I am beloved RYBS asks why the Rambam here uses such poetic language in particular using "emesh" instead of "etmol" . He asnwers that "etmol" indicates a 24 hour period while "emesh" can be a fraction of second between being hated by G-d and being loved by G-d 2) Someone who marries on a woman on condition that he is a Tzaddik the marriage is valid even if it is known that he is a rasha perhaps (shema) he did teshuva. Someone in the shiur noted that "shema" read backwards is "emesh" . Meaning that rasha who proposed marriage did teshuva a fraction of a second before the proposal -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 10:15:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 13:15:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reciting 100 Brochos Daily Message-ID: <20150918171648.24C57181A25@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/njmnbgn From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 15:12:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shmuel Weidberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:12:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? Message-ID: Hello everybody. I haven't been active on this list in a long time. I just had a look around the internet to see if there was anything new with the Kosher Switch, and I remembered an issue with it that I haven't seen discussed anywhere. The makers say that there is a certain amount of randomization involved in whether the light flashes into the detector and whether the detector detects the light. There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create random numbers. They create pseudo-random numbers which means they take a seed number and perform a complex calculation on it to get the next number, which looks like it bears no relation to the first number, but which in fact is completely determined by the first number. Computer can get real random numbers, by generating the seed by looking at actions that take place that the computer cannot predict such as when somebody presses a key on a keyboard, or when some other sensor is activated. Alternatively, they can get random numbers from a special piece of hardware that is designed to physically make random numbers. However, I believe such pieces of hardware are quite specialized and if there actually was one in the switch it would be advertised. In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. Regards, Shmuel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 10:59:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:59:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> Message-ID: <56004574.4040004@sero.name> On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour > because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in > its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to she'elah. Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 11:29:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:29:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. ------------------------------- Yes, much as a complete understanding of the physics involved would determine the roll of the dice as it left one?s hand. Yet we call this ?random? (and iirc statisticians can?t prove any set of numbers was truly random, only that they appear likely so. Gct 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 22:35:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 01:35:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <063901d0f4f8$8c2cd700$a4868500$@gmail.com> R? Shmuel Weidberg: The makers say that there is a certain amount of randomization involved in whether the light flashes into the detector and whether the detector detects the light. There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create random numbers. They create pseudo-random numbers which means they take a seed number and perform a complex calculation on it to get the next number, which looks like it bears no relation to the first number, but which in fact is completely determined by the first number. In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. --------------------------- Isn?t the lomdus of their approach that you, the person flicking the switch, doesn?t DO anything because you?re only covering a light pulse without knowing when it will come next? So it doesn?t really matter if it?s random, it matters that you don?t know when it will next illuminate. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 07:04:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:04:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56004574.4040004@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> Message-ID: <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. On 9/21/2015 8:59 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > >> "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour >> because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in >> its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" > > Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to > she'elah. > Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 11:00:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:00:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> Message-ID: <56019748.5060907@sero.name> On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 9/21/2015 8:59 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: >>> "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour >>> because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in >>> its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" >> Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to she'elah. >> Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. > But a book, you return the same one. Usually. Not usually, always. There are two utterly different kinds of transaction for which the English language uses the same words: loan, borrow, lend. This is surprising, since usually English is a more precise language than most, but it is so. She'elah: I give you my property, with permission to use it. It remains my property, and you must return it on the agreed-upon date, or when I ask for it, in reasonable shape given the time you had it and the use to which you put it. In other words, in slightly worse shape than when I gave it to you. I may do this as a favour, but there is no mitzvah for me to do so. I am entitled to charge you for it, in which case the transaction is called "sechirus", or in English, "rental". Shemitah does not apply to this transaction. Common examples: a book, a car, a tool, a pen. Halva'ah: I give you my property, and it becomes yours. I do not expect it back, ever. On the agreed-upon date, or when I ask, you must give me something exactly like what I gave you. Since you are a Jew, I have a mitzvah to do this as a favour for you, and am forbidden from charging you anything for it, and you are forbidden from paying me anything for it, in any form. Shemitah applies. Common examples: $100, a cup of sugar, a rubber band. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 12:48:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 22:48:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56019748.5060907@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> <56019748.5060907@sero.name> Message-ID: <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > >> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. > > Not usually, always. Several years ago, we borrowed a book from my brother-in-law. A while later, we wanted to return it, but we couldn't find it. So we bought another identical copy and returned that in its place. So I'm going to stick with "usually." Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 19:11:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 22:11:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> <56019748.5060907@sero.name> <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> Message-ID: <56035BCF.7000400@sero.name> On 09/23/2015 03:48 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> >>> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. >> >> Not usually, always. > > Several years ago, we borrowed a book from my brother-in-law. A while > later, we wanted to return it, but we couldn't find it. So we bought > another identical copy and returned that in its place. So I'm going > to stick with "usually." Your obligation was to return the exact same book. Once that became impossible, you became liable as a shomer; a shomer sachar and a socher are liable for geneiva va'aveida, so at that point you became liable to pay the value of the lost book, and that sum became a milveh, and thus subject to shemitah and ribbis. -- Zev Sero Gut Yomtov zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 12:09:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:09:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a > random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the > time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it > simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. Do you know whether the Star-K-certified "Sabbath mode" ovens use pseudo-random numbers or true random numbers? (Thermal noise would do fine; and many processors, even some embedded ones, have such a random number source.) --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 12:03:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 15:03:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150924190308.GA28981@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 06:12:07PM -0400, Shmuel Weidberg via Avodah wrote: : I just had a look around the internet to see if there was anything new with : the Kosher Switch... : There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't : computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create : random numbers... I don't think this particular distinction makes a halachic difference. The question is whether the person doing the action has a reasonable chance of predicting the outcome. Actual mathematical randomness might not be at issue. As long as I can't know what my flipping the switch would do, I would think it should all be the same. (Think of it as a first cousin to ignoring water bears and other zooplankton that can only be seen with a magnifying glass when drinking water.) ... : Computer can get real random numbers, by generating the seed by looking at : actions that take place that the computer cannot predict such as when : somebody presses a key on a keyboard, or when some other sensor is : activated... Actually, that's not really random, just less predictable because the seed generation is outside the machine. A specially designed can get truly random numbers by using quantum effects. Such as picking up on the brownian motion of molecules due to heat. But really, I don't think we have to worry about the difference between "random" and "not humanly predictable". Also a side note: I might point out that there are numerous hashkafos in which every event, or at least every event that impacts a human being, is subject to hashgachah peratis. And thus, nothing we ever experience is actually random. Or alternatively, that the word "random" needs a different translation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 14:20:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:20:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shemittah beyond Shemittah Message-ID: <20150924212050.B6B10182CED@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://cor.ca/view/720/shemittah_beyond_shemittah.html From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 14:37:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:37:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shemitta Sheilos: Using Arbah Minim of Sheviis - Parts I and II Message-ID: <20150924213723.28661183A0D@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://ohr.edu/6522 and http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6527 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 25 00:32:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:32:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Buying minim from a child Message-ID: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> When I was in yeshiva, we were told to refrain from buying any of the four minim from a child. If the product was stolen, a child can't take possession via shinu reshut or ma'aseh. Therefore the theft falls on the buyer and his minim are pasul. Thinking about during my jog, I had a few questions: 1) Is this a real chashash or simply are we trying to cover all halachik corners? Meaning, if I do buy from a child do I really have anything to worry about? And if it isn't a real concern, then why am I not being oveir on "chosheid b'kesheirim"? 2) If it is a real chashash (the presence of stolen minim in the market) than why buy from an adult? Buying stolen goods is also a sin. At the very least, one can only buy from a place with a heksher. 3) Or can one? Can we assume that the kashrut agencies really check were their minim come from? 4) Who determines if there is a significant presence of stolen goods in the market every year? I assume that the amount of stolen goods has to be above a certain minimum for there to be a real issue? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 21:44:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 00:44:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur Message-ID: In the case where an ill person is eating on Yom Kippur, the Magen Avraham 618:10 brings varying views on whether he needs Lechem Mishne, whether he includes Yaaleh V'yavo in bentching, and whether he must make Kiddush. Kaf Hachaim 618:60 repeats much of that, with some changes and additions, and in 618:61 he points out that the same would apply to children and women who have recently given birth. Similar things appear in the other nosei keilim on that se'if. I got the impression that the pros and cons on these questions were based mostly on practical and halachic concerns, such as whether or not these halachos were ever enacted for Yom Kippur. I'd like to know if the *historical* side is discussed anywhere. I'm focusing now specifically on Lechem Mishne, and I'm now ignoring Kiddush and Birkas Hamazon. Here are my questions of historical fact: During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the children eat? There are several possible answers I can think of: Perhaps mon fell on Yom Kippur, but only at the homes where where children or yoldos live. Perhaps mon did not fall on Yom Kippur, but those homes got a double portion on Erev Yom Kippur. Perhaps neither of the above happened, and the children and yoldos had to make do with whatever other food might have been available. (This possibility seems odd to me, as it throws a curve ball into the whole "40 years of miracles" idea: Exactly once each year, the children had no choice but to eat non-miraculous food, and the day for this chinuch was Yom Kippur.) I suppose I should also include another possibility, which is that everyone received their normal supply of mon on Yom Kippur just like on every other day, but that seems like quite a waste. Perhaps they ate it on Motzaei Yom Kippur. In which case I'd wonder if only a half-portion might have fallen that morning. I also question whether Hashem would have placed such a michshol at the doorways, leaving their mon in the reshus harabim. Does anyone know of any Midrashim or other sources that might talk about this? Akiva Miller (PS: I only asked about children and yoldos in the midbar, and I did not ask about other cholim. That's because I think that in the miraculous Midbar, no one was ever sick, and no one died except on the night of Tisha B'Av. If anyone wants to discuss this, please begin a new thread.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 20:33:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ken Bloom via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 23:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? Message-ID: Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in depth than Sefer HaToda'ah. Does anyone know of something analgous to how the Maharal's Gevurot Hashem explains Pesach, or have other recommendations about the holiday? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 22:19:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 01:19:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: : Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better : understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully : understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in : depth than Sefer HaToda'ah. Does anyone know of something analgous to how : the Maharal's Gevurot Hashem explains Pesach, or have other recommendations : about the holiday? RYHutner's Pachad Yitzchaq. (Although the volumes are arranged around Shabbos & YT, and thus would seem particular to those topics, I would consider it one of the canonical Jewish philoosphy works of the 20th cent. Not to be skipped by anyone serious about learning hashkafah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 30 12:53:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:53:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Whole Hallel on Sukkos Message-ID: <20150930195335.GA18194@aishdas.org> I just noticed something that is likely to be meaningful. We say whole Hallel every day of Sukkos because the qorban mussaf differs each day. The mussaf differs by the number of cows, which total 70 across the YT. The 70 cows are keneged the 70 nations. Among the things we would have otherwise skipped was "Lamah yomeru hagoyim..." So... Because we bring qorbanos on behalf of the 70 nations over the course of Sukkos, we pray for their abandonment of AZ on each day of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 30 13:03:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:03:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Buying minim from a child In-Reply-To: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> References: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <560C400E.6080206@sero.name> On 09/25/2015 03:32 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > When I was in yeshiva, we were told to refrain from buying any of the > four minim from a child. If the product was stolen, a child can't > take possession via shinu reshut or ma'aseh. Therefore the theft > falls on the buyer and his minim are pasul. > > Thinking about during my jog, I had a few questions: > > 1) Is this a real chashash or simply are we trying to cover all > halachik corners? Meaning, if I do buy from a child do I really have > anything to worry about? And if it isn't a real concern, then why am > I not being oveir on "chosheid b'kesheirim"? > > 2) If it is a real chashash (the presence of stolen minim in the > market) than why buy from an adult? Buying stolen goods is also a > sin. At the very least, one can only buy from a place with a heksher. > > 3) Or can one? Can we assume that the kashrut agencies really check > were their minim come from? > > 4) Who determines if there is a significant presence of stolen goods > in the market every year? I assume that the amount of stolen goods > has to be above a certain minimum for there to be a real issue? The chashash is not for actually stolen goods, but that the land on which the minim were grown was stolen hundreds or thousands of years ago, and since karka eina nigzeles it still belongs to the rightful heirs of the original owner. Thus the person who harvests the minim is technically the gazlan, ye'ush happened a long time ago, so we need a shinuy reshus, which happens when you buy from the "gazlan", but not if he's a katan. If he bought it from someone else then this problem doesn't exist, but there's another problem: it won't be shelachem, which it needs to be for the first day. This is also why one should not use minim one cut oneself, but rather sell those and buy ones that someone else cut. All of this only applies in countries where land title is uncertain; where it can be traced directly back to a valid kibush milchama, there is no problem. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 07:15:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 10:15:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <5593124A.2040905@sero.name> References: <20150630.152626.19374.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> <5593124A.2040905@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150701141526.GB24797@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 06:03:54PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/30/2015 03:26 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : >>From what I've seen, it is NOT said even if a minyan says Birkas Hamazon, : : Why would it? When a minyan says Birkhas haMazon, the zimun changes, it creates a minyan one may not break (by benching on their own or with a normal zimun), but no Qaddish. When a minyan says Pesuqei deZimra, nothing changes, there is no specific issur on leaving in the middle, and yet it is closed with Qaddish (even if you lose the minyan during PdZ). I think RAM's question why is quite fair. It would be nice to think the minhag follows some well-defined rule. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 05:35:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:35:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bio of RSRH Message-ID: <20150701123548.93E2D182CC3@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/p5h866u From this URL. When Rav Yisroel Salanter read a copy of The Nineteen Letters in 1873, he said that it should be translated into Russian and Hebrew. He also remarked, "Is there a Gan Eden big enough for Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch?" See the above URL for more. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 14:33:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:33:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakarat Hatov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 03:56:25PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Does Hakarat Hatov engender a measurable "liability" (e.g. require a : marginally greater action) between the recipient and the provider of the : "Tov", or is saying "Thank you, I appreciate it" the only requirement? Moshe isn't the trigger for the first makkos because he "owed" the Ye'or and the sand for saving him in the past. As Chazal put it (BQ 92b) WRT "velo sesaeiv Mitzri ki ger hayisa ve'artzo", it justified the common saying "bira deshasis mineih, lo tashdi beih kala" (into a well from which you once drank, don't throw clods of dirt). That said, I don't think reducing gratitude to *nothing more than* a favor-economics is healthy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness, micha at aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom. http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 14:37:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:37:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakarat Hatov In-Reply-To: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> References: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150701213753.GA24874@aishdas.org> PS: I started with the aggadic story and didn't say why I opened with a medrash rather than a gemara. The Nile and the sand wasn't actors. Moshe didn't really owe them anything. It's like "not embarassing" the challah by covering it. Apparently the notion of repaying a favor is so important, HQBH expects us to practice it for a middah exercise even when the other side isn't a real 2nd party. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 12:08:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 15:08:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish with mixed seating Message-ID: Following up upon my earlier post about the permissibility of saying the *kaddish *of a *siyyum* at a dinner with mixed seating. I spoke to RIETS RY last week and he said that we only require *mechitzah* in a *Shul*, based upon the *Gemara* in *Succos*, which requires separate seating at a *shul*. This is clear from the original textual source of mechitzah, the Gemara in the fifth perek of Succos, that the basis of *mechitzah* is the *Bais ha-Mikdash*. As our Synagogues are modeled after the Bais ha-Mikdash, we apply the principals underlying the *Gemara* in Succos to our Shuls. (Similarly, *Tosfos* justifies the practice of bringing children to Shul using the model of *Hakhel*.) As the Kaddish for a Siyyum has nothing do to with a Shul there is no need for separate seating. I also spoke to one of the Dayanim in our community he did not even think that saying *kaddish* with mixed seating was an issue as he thought that mixed seating was only an issue in a *Shul*. Others told me the same (i.e. that only a *shul* requires separation) in the name of Rav Schachter *shlit?a* . However, I saw Rav Herschel Schachter *shlit?a* at shacharis this week so I asked him my question. He responded that it would be better if they would have the *siyyum* before the dinner. I asked why and he responded ?*Davar She?bekedushah*?. I asked him so why do people recite *Kedushah* after a *siyyum* with mixed seating. And he responded, ?Nu, Nu?. (Which is a common response from Rav Schachter to questions of that sort.) Interestingly enough the Gemara in Succos brings a ?proof? for separation of men and women from a non-?*Davar She?bekedushah*? the funeral in *Zecharyah*. Of course we are not discussing whether a particular practice is good or bad or even ?best practices?, but rather whether it is required or not. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 08:32:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 11:32:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] From Succot to Moshiach Message-ID: Ma tovu ohalecha: ?Tents? are temporary and refer to olam hazeh ?.mishk?nosecha: ?Dwelling places? refers to olam haba. In other words, we are first in the antechamber, the temporary abode, which tents symbolize; then, once we leave our temporary homes, we hopefully ascend to our permanent ?dwelling place.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 14:44:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 17:44:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Historical Bil'am Message-ID: <20150703214448.GA32213@aishdas.org> H/T RYGB, see http://www.livius.org/source-content/deir-alla-inscription He asks on his blog: Why isn't this more widely known? The full article includes an image of the instription and a complete translation. This is just the opening. :-)BBii! -Micha Livius.org Articles on ancient history Deir 'Alla Inscription Deir 'Alla Inscription: inscription, found in the Iron Age town of Deir 'Alla, mentioning the Biblical prophet Balaam. Deir 'Alla is situated in western Jordan, about eight kilometers east of the river Jordan, and about a kilometer north of the Jabbok. The excavators found a very large Bronze Age sanctuary that had suffered in the period of wide-spread destruction in the thirteenth/twelfth centuries. Unlike other settlements, which were abandoned, Deir 'Alla remained in use well into the fifth century BCE. That is remarkable. Even more remarkable, however, was the discovery of a painted text that contained a prophecy by Balaam... (The site of Deir 'Alla is, technically, on the [11]Ammonite side of the river Jabbok.) The text refers to divine visions and signs of future destruction, in a language that is close to that of the Bible. For example, we read about the "Shaddai gods", an expression that is close to the Biblical El Shaddai, "God Almighty". On the other hand, the setting is not monotheistic: we read, for instance, about a gathering of a group of gods. The word elohim, which in the Bible (although plural) refers to one God, refers to more than one god in the Deir 'Alla text. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 15:16:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 18:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> In a recent blog post, R' Aryeh Klapper (Cc-ed) writes http://moderntoraleadership.wordpress.com/2015/07/03/chok-mishpat-and-obergefell Imagine pre-snake Adam and Eve walking into the Jewish camp. They would not praise the Jews for their modesty, and they would have no idea why the tents' openings did not face each other. For Bilaam to praise the Jews' virtue, even in the context of his deep and unremitting hatred, he had to be capable of understanding that modesty was a relevant evaluative category. What would it take for Bilaam to have this capacity? Unlike the prelapsarian original couple, he would have to be conscious of his own sexuality, and experientially aware that sexuality could be associated with shame. He might nonetheless choose exhibitionism for himself, and for his culture. He might decide that sexual shame is the root of neurosis and dedicate himself to its cultural eradication. But he would understand what he was eradicating. Perhaps there would even be moments when he regretted his victory. My tentative suggestion is that the Torah teaches us here that there is a value in making our moral premises intelligible even to our enemies; this is part of our mission to be the light of the nations. I want to be clear that this value is not pragmatic, and that we are not safer, or less likely to be hated, if we are understood. Like Bilaam, the world may use its understanding of our virtue to learn how best to undermine us. It is simply part of our job to enable as much as we can of humanity to make informed moral choices. I suggest further that perhaps we can understand the Seven Noachide Commandments as intended not to provide a formal code of behavior, but rather to identify a set of moral premises. Perhaps our mission is particularly to make those premises universally intelligible. Making premises intelligible is not accomplished through rational argumentation. Rational arguments depend on mutually intelligible premises. ... One core premise: let us identify it with the Noachide commandment against forbidden sexual relationships, or arayot -- that is no longer intelligible to many Americans is that sexuality can be evaluated in nonutilitarian terms, that a sexual act can be wrong even if no one gets hurt. We have replaced sexual morality with sexual ethics. Conversations on topics such as chastity, masturbation, and adultery are wholly changed from what they were even two decades ago, and tracts from back then can seem less contemporary than prehistoric cave art. There are many reasons that traditional rationales in the area of sexuality have moved rapidly from self-evident to unintelligible. Here are two: (1) Effective birth control and in vitro fertilization have broken the connection between intercourse and procreation. It is no longer self-evident to speak of intercourse as potential recreation, or as inevitably associated with the risk of pregnancy. (2) Many human beings with homosexual orientations have told compelling personal stories of pain and alienation. In the secular world, the natural reaction to a premise's social unintelligibility is the repeal of any laws that depend on it. In the Orthodox world, where immediate repeal is rarely a viable option, one reasonable reaction is what I call "chokification," or the declaration that laws that once depended on the now-unintelligible premise should be regarded as either beyond human comprehension or else as arbitrary rules intended to train us to obedience. Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. I utilized the following "Lonely Man of Faith" based idea to open "The Talk" with my sons.I wanted them to understand the sanctity of sex, so before getting into the mechanics of it, I tried to open by setting a religious context. As far as I can tell, the Torah gives two purposes for marriage: 1- In Genesis 1, the goal is to procreate and raise children. This is Adam I's drive "to fill the earth and conqure it", his place at the end of a sequence of creation -- above the animals, but more quatitatively than qualitatively. 2- In Genesis 2, the goal is to reunite the two halves, Adam and Eve, who were originally created as a single unit. Adam II seeks redemption through community. In this case, romantic love. Sex in its role of making a bond between people. And therefore a problem of premarital sex is that one thereby learns to minimize the bond thereby created. It weakens that function of sex, so it won't be as effective once you are married. Either alone -- procreation or the romantic reunification of the two halves of the original Adam (which again, I mean psychologically, not mystically) would be sufficient reason to justify sexual intimacy. But without either, it's the pursuit of our mamalian drives for insufficient reason. The objectification (or at least animalization) of the self. In order to buy into #2, one needs to believe that gender (as opposed to biological sex) is an innate set of existential and psychological differences, and not just a role imposed by convention. And therefore Adam and Eve are distinct and different halves of a whole. That this is an existential and deep-psychological truth, which will hold no matter how much society attempts to change those roles and bury gender differences. Notice that despite the social trends that brought the Supreme Court to conclude last week that traditional sexual morality (in contrast to sexual ethics) is irrational and thus prejudicial bias, the above implies that the Torah's ban on homosexuality can be explained in mishpat terms. On a different note, the shift from morality to ethics is typical for postmodernism. When all narratives are equally valid there is no way to insist there is an absolute moral code. Never mind determine what it contains. Therefore, one encourages a freedom to act as an end itself, rather than as a means to greatness. (Which is a logical progression from the American legal system, the concept of rights-based law taken to its extreme. It's notable that a society that values a "maavir al midosav" would not laud taking rights as far as all that. As a legal philosphy, though, it is the best we've come up with to avoid "ish es rei'eihu chaim bal'o", which is the central role of a secular gov't, no?) However, the lack of establishment of a common moral code is itself damaging to society. No one private violation of moral code, whatever the society holds it to be, will necessarily harm others. But living in a society that doesn't promote morality, that doesn't work toward aiming that autonomy toward some higher end, is harmful. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 15:20:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:20:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> References: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is the purpose to make things even worse? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 16:28:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 19:28:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> References: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150705232816.GA29598@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:20:08PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. : Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a : moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is : the purpose to make things even worse? As I quoted from RAK, because they classically were not considered chuqim. Until our contemporaries took the issue from sexual morality to sexual ethics, these truths were considered self-evident. It's the choqification of dinei arayos that's inauthentic. In any case, since one doesn't pasqen from taamei hamitzvos, the din is the same either way. Nothhing in such exploration can "make things even worse". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 15:57:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:57:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon Message-ID: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> In Pirkei Avot, Hillel HaZaken says: "Be among the talmidim of Aharon, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them close to the Torah." I don't get it. I honestly don't. If we see a bunch of Jews who don't know anything about Judaism, shouldn't we try and get them to keep the mitzvot? If you know that they're more likely to violate the mitzvot if they don't know, it's it our responsibility to teach them what God wants of them? The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this subject. I look at gay people and I see them overwhelmingly part of the nihilism of the left, but I don't think being gay automatically makes people like that. But what else are Jews supposed to do when they're being pushed away from the Torah? Jews have neshamas that were at Sinai. A Jew who was raised without Torah has an empty space inside that's just *begging* to be filled with Torah. But because of the wrongheaded idea that gay people have to either pretend they aren't gay, or they must be ostracized from the Torah community, they wind up filling that empty space with the even emptier slogans of the left. Because of the belief held by so many frum Jews that gay people who acknowledge themselves to be gay are simply *incapable* or unwilling to keep mitzvot, we, as a community *deliberately* withhold the Torah from them. It makes no sense to me. I mean, worst case, you tell someone gay, "There are things you aren't allowed to do according to Jewish law. Are you willing to abide by that?" But we aren't even doing that. We're assuming that the answer is going to be no, and by so assuming, we're *making that happen*. At 120, when you're standing before the Kisei HaKavod and you're asked why you pushed so many Jews away from His Torah, I wonder what you'll answer. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 17:34:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 20:34:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon In-Reply-To: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> References: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150706003423.GB14365@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:57:04PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: : In Pirkei Avot, Hillel HaZaken says: "Be among the talmidim of Aharon, : loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them close : to the Torah." : : I don't get it. I honestly don't. If we see a bunch of Jews who don't : know anything about Judaism, shouldn't we try and get them to keep the : mitzvot?... First, a minor correction. Hillel says "berios", or as in the tradition "loving people and bringing them..." IOW, not only kiruv, but bringing non-Jews to NNoachidism. : The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since : the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of : the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't : get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so : many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this : subject. I'm not so sure. The SCOTUS ruled in favor of a right that is based on the idea that believing the Torah's position about homosexuality is bigotry. But in any case, it's like any other rule of tochachah... You need to tell them what they're doing is wrong n a way that gets constructive change. The usual rule for when you should shut up is "mutav sheyihyu shogegim", but here nearly everyone involved know what we pasqen it's assur. So, you're not turning anyone into meizidim. : It makes no sense to me. I mean, worst case, you tell someone gay, : "There are things you aren't allowed to do according to Jewish law. : Are you willing to abide by that?" But we aren't even doing that. : We're assuming that the answer is going to be no, and by so assuming, : we're *making that happen*. But the US law in question is itself to permit something you aren't allowed to do in Jewish law, and in the Minchas Chinukh's opinion -- nor in Noachide law. The general problem of people hating the sinner rather than the sin isn't limited to this one. Perhaps here things are more extreme because the accusers do not attempt to separate an instinctive loathing from actual halachic concerns. Either we should be getting similar bile when discussing business cheats, or we should be getting quiet on both fronts. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 18:46:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 01:46:19 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Alternate texts for the Prayer for the Government Message-ID: <20150705.214619.1506.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> R' Mordechai Harris wrote: > Here's the one I shard last time from the De Sola Pool Siddur. > www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/deSolaPoolPrayerForGovernment.pdf R' Simon Montagu asked: > Can you also share the publication details and/or title page of > this siddur? What I know as the De Sola Pool Siddur is not the > same as in this link. I have ... RMH's link was for "The Traditional Prayer Book for Sabbath and Festivals", the official siddur of the RCA, published in 1960. A very different, longer version appears in many other siddurim, with rather minor differences: The Hirsch Siddur, published by Feldheim The Authorized Daily Prayer Book by Chief Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz The Daily Prayer Book by Philip Birnbaum The Koren Siddur by Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks and in the new Nehalel beShabbat by Michael Haruni (website and free sample at nehalel.com) I was going to remark that I have found this prayer only in siddurim that have an English translation, but is not correct. First, it would seem to appear in whichever siddur the Hirsch was adapted from. But moreover, this same tefila also appears in my copy of "Siddur Eishei Yisrael al pi daas Maran HaGra." (I know there are many siddurim with similar names; all I can tell about this is that the title page lists no publisher, only "Yerushalayim 5735".) The Nehalel siddur is worth noting for this thread. I have not seen this siddur to be too widespread or popular (yet - it's only from 2013), but I'd like to point out that it has TWO versions of this prayer. The version which is very similar to the others is on a page marked "In the United States of America:". But the following page is marked "In the United Kingdom and Commonwealth:", and is markedly different -- but not nearly as different as the De Sola Pool version. This makes me stop, and wonder, and consider the fact that although my Hertz siddur and my Sacks siddur are both of British authorship, they both used American publishers (Bloch and OU Press respectively), and were possibly designed for an American audience. Which leads me to ask those of the chevra who currently reside in the Commonwealth: What version (if any) is said in your shuls? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5599de50e59b55e504270st04vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 06:29:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:29:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VBM-SICHOT75 - 41: The Philosophical Principles of Inheritance Message-ID: <20150706132902.GB31051@aishdas.org> Just because taamei hamitzvos is supposed to be one of the core topics of this email group's host organization.... BTW, my grandfather a"h was named Pinechas after this week's sedra, his bar mitzvah parashah. When it was time to name my oldest, I checked with my uncle how his name appeared on their kesuvah, as their mesader qiddushin was a key rav in my grandfather's life. (R/Dr Mirsky zt"l met two teenage boys coming off the boat and took them under his wing. My grandfather and great-uncle then earned enough to bribe the rest of the family's way out of Litta before the Nazis came to power.) Anyway, it seems R/Dr Mirsky held my grandfather's name was Pinechas, pei-yud-nun-ches-samekh, as it is spelled in the chumash (ignoring the size of the yud as usually written in the beginning of the parashah). And thus the sheva is na, Pinechas - not Pinchas. If you want to make a derashah out of a Mitzri name, it's Pi Nachas, not Pen Chas. Reason for this tangent... I would have expected "Gushies" to get the sheva in the parashah name right. After all, they have the patach under the reish in Parashat. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov VBM-SICHOT75 - 41: Parashat Pinchas Sicha of HaRav Mosheh Lichtenstein Adapted by Motti Guttman Translated by David Strauss Yeshivat Har Etzion "In Place of Your Fathers Shall Be Your Children": The Philosophical Principles of Inheritance The concept of inheritance arises in a number of contexts in the Torah, most prominently in Parashat Pinchas. It is also the central topic of the eighth chapter of Massekhet Bava Batra, Yesh Nochalin. Naturally, the discussion of the laws of inheritance focuses largely on the financial matters at issue among the heirs, leading to the discussion and clarification of a number of fundamental questions regarding monetary law. For that reason, chapter Yesh Nochalin has an important place in the world of Choshen Mishpat. However, the issue of inheritance is not merely monetary. The yerusha (inheritance) is not simply money that we have to decide what to do with. Of course, it is preferable to award the estate of the deceased to his surviving relatives, and not to the state or the income tax authorities; the gemara itself notes, "Should the town collector be the heir?" (Bava Batra 110b). This, however, is not the essence of the laws of inheritance. Inheritance -- Breaching the Boundaries of the Present At the heart of the concept of inheritance lies a significant principle: that of permanence and continuity. When Avraham Avinu entered the Land, he was forced to pitch his tent in different places and live the life of a wanderer. In contrast, the idea of inheritance establishes that a person should not live a life of impermanence. Moshe expresses the desire for a state of permanence in his words to Israel at the plains of Moav: "For you are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance" (Devarim 12:9). This verse was also expounded as referring to the Temple. The idea of inheritance, in this context, creates existential permanence, which is reflected in Halakha. From the time that Jerusalem was selected, it became the permanent site of the Temple, and from that point on, offering sacrifices on bamot was forbidden due to the damage that this would cause to the idea of the Temple as the chosen inheritance. Inheritance constitutes permanence and it creates continuity because it allows the individual to breach the boundaries of the present. From the time of creation, reality dictates that "One generation passes away and another generation comes, but the earth abides forever" (Kohelet 1:4). Man's days are numbered, and sooner or later he will disappear from the world. By his very definition, he is temporary -- like the flower that fades, the shadow that passes, the dust that floats, and the dream that flies away. He is here today and in the grave tomorrow. In contrast, his inheritance remains and affords him continuity. From parent to child and from child to grandchild and great-grandchild, the chain continues and death does not sever it. To a certain extent, this allows one to overcome death and oblivion. Ownership of property and land in itself does not preventing transience or create continuity; it is the identification of inheritance with the family and its heritage in the past and the present that creates the permanence and continuity. A central concept in Jewish law is the concept of the "house," which denotes a family that constitutes a unit of common heritage -- "After their families, by the house of their fathers." We are familiar with this concept from various realms of Halakha. For example, a man whose brother died without children marries the widow through yibum, levirate marriage, in order to continue the family, and he is thereby able to perpetuate the name of the deceased, since they belong to a common "house." Because of the great importance that the Torah attributes to perpetuating the name of the deceased and continuing his legacy, it established the mechanism of levirate marriage despite the personal, familial and halakhic difficulties entailed in marriage to one's brother's wife. Indeed, the mitzva of yibum takes precedence over the mitzva of chalitza because of the mission of perpetuating the brother's name.[1] The language of the text itself creates a connection between yibum and inheritance, as the purpose of the mitzva is defined as "to perpetuate the name of the deceased on his inheritance." The principle of continuity and its importance in a person's life is further reflected in the statement of Chazal (Nedarim 64b) that includes one who does not have any children among those who are considered as if they were dead. While continuity expresses itself on the concrete level through the transmission of property, much more important, of course, is ensuring continuity on the level of values, goals, and existential aspirations, which constitute the true heritage that a person leaves behind. The prophet Yeshaya emphasized how a person's eternal heritage endures: For thus says the Lord to the eunuchs who keep My Sabbath, and choose the things that please Me, and take hold of My covenant. And to them will I give in My house and within My walls a memorial better that sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. (Yeshaya 56:4-5) Indeed, there is more than one plane on which a person achieves inheritance and continuity. Inheritance is part of the system that turns the transition between generations into something permanent and stable, allowing family identity to be transmitted across the generations. In this light, we can understand Chazal's critique of a person who leaves no inheritance. As we read in a mishna in Yesh Nochalin (Bava Batra 133b): If a person gives his estate in writing to strangers and leaves out his children, his arrangements are legally valid, but the spirit of the Sages finds no delight in him. The reference here is not to a person who did not leave an inheritance due to poverty or distress, but rather to a person who decided to give away his estate for other purposes, as positive as they may be,[2] or based on the perception that his children should fend for themselves. The idea behind this mishna is the need to leave a legacy for future generations. The principle of passing down to the next generation is of central importance. Know From Whence You Come! This perception of inheritance is rooted in a general and comprehensive idea that pervades all of Jewish life -- namely, that we do not live only in the present. Judaism rejects a horizontal perspective on man, according to which man is connected only to his current environment. Our relationship is not only with this generation. Rather, our sights are at all times directed at "the one who stands here with us this day before the Lord our God, and also with the one who is not here with us this day" (Devarim 29:14). The hope is to establish a relationship of shared destiny with the past, on both the national and the personal level. This is why we mourn to this day various historical events that happened to our ancestors. We do not say, "What happened, happened." The sense of pain and tragedy that Jewish law demands of a person indicates that it expects one to experience these things in unmediated fashion, as if they occurred to people he knows, and not only that he relate to them as events of the distant past for the purpose of learning a lesson from history. "In every generation one must see himself as if he went out from Egypt." Just as a Jew is expected to feel the pain of his Jewish brothers injured in terrorist attacks in Argentina, Turkey, Paris, or Afula, regardless of the geographical distance between them, because all of Israel are responsible for and close to one another, he is similarly expected to feel pain over events that took place a long time ago. The ability to draw from our heritage and know what happened to our ancestors is important in itself. The actions of our forefathers interest us, regardless of the spiritual insights that can be derived from them, because of the feeling of existential partnership between us and our ancestors. Avraham and Sara, Yitzchak and Rivka, Yaakov, Rachel and Leah, are not only the nation's patriarchs and matriarchs, but also our forefathers. They are not only lofty figures, but also Grandpa and Grandma -- and for this reason the Torah shared their lives with us. Just as a grandson is interested in hearing from his grandfather or his grandmother about life in Eastern Europe or North Africa a century ago, we want to know what happened in Mesopotamia during the time of Avraham and Sara. A person's life in the present is intertwined with the history of his forefathers in the past. One is intricately connected to his past; one does not grow up in a vacuum. Models of Inheritance The first mishna in Yesh Nochalin presents us with a number of possible models for those who inherit and those who transmit inheritance: Some [relatives] inherit [from] and transmit [to each other]; some inherit but do not transmit; some transmit but do not inherit; some neither inherit nor transmit. Clearly, the ideal is that a person should inherit and transmit inheritance, that he should be numbered among those who are "nochalin u-manchilin." As stated above, the inheritance is not simply property for the heir, but rather constitutes a familial plot filled with existential significance. He inherits -- deciding to connect himself to his past and to his heritage. And he is interested in transmitting inheritance -- adding his contribution to the heritage, the personal layer that he adds to the inheritance and passes down to the next generation. In contrast, there are those who inherit but do not transmit, "nochalin ve-lo manchilin" -- who draw from the past and connect to it, but are not capable of passing their heritage on. Perhaps this is because they do not consider this stage important, or perhaps they lack the capacity to give their heritage over to others and to connect to the next generation. Such a person does not know how to take from the past and interpret it for his children in the future. He is familiar with the world of the past, but he lacks the tools to apply the past and its heritage to the challenges of the present and the future. The reverse case also exists -- "yesh manchilin ve-einam nochalin," there are those who transmit but who do not inherit. They wish to pass on their personal legacy, but they are cut off from the past, or so they imagine. In their eyes, everything began in their generation. Previous generations erred or were weak; there is no need to receive their inheritance, laden with the outdated baggage of Diaspora life. This heir is not prepared to connect to the past or to recognize that he is dependent upon it. Blinded by his present achievements, he is alienated from the past and the weight of tradition. The most tragic group neither inherits nor transmits inheritance, "lo nochalin ve-lo manchilin." They are cut off from every bit of the past. They live only in the present and are utterly devoid of worry about the future -- "After me, the deluge." The concept of inheritance serves as a bridge between the past and the future. In this context, the individual is merely another link in a chain. If we consider the chain of tradition recorded by the Rambam in his introduction to the Mishneh Torah, more important than any particular Sage is the very chain of tradition itself. The value of each link lies in the fact that it allows the chain to continue. This is the connection and bridge between all the generations, from Avraham Avinu until the Mashiach. Spiritual Heritage through Physical Means As noted above, the transmission takes place through tangible means as well. It is obvious to us that it is values and ideas, Torah and mitzvot, that constitute the heritage that passes from one generation to the next. It is easy to understand the statement: "Moshe commanded us the Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov" (Devarim 33:4). It is more difficult to grasp that the Torah also attaches great importance to tangible inheritance, to the transmission of physical property. Chazal teach us that "monuments are not built for the righteous; their words are their memorials" (Bereishit Rabba 82). We do not set up statues or tombstones for the righteous, for it is their spiritual legacy that serves as their memorial. Nevertheless, the ability to touch the past by way of some object bestows additional meaning on that heritage. Touching the physical possession of a deceased relative gives a person the sense of an unmediated encounter with the past. One generation passes away and another generation comes, but an object that remains provides a connection to the earlier period. Man is a physical creature, and contact with material objects is meaningful to him as a reminder of and bridge to the past. Not only is it meaningful to transmit the life story of the deceased to future generations and to talk about his values, but it is also important to be able to connect with him on the most basic level. When a person comes across an object that belonged to his relative, it is important to him even if it lacks monetary value or is in no way unique. The tangible item turns the past into something immediate on a level that cannot be achieved by any other means. A number of years ago, a Torah scroll that belonged to the Ran and a seal that was reportedly that of the Ramban were displayed in an exhibition devoted to Spanish Jewry before the expulsion. It is difficult to describe the thrill that I felt when I understood that this seal was once held by the Ramban himself and that the Ran had once used this Torah scroll. I also remember the feeling of immediacy that I felt when someone showed me an etrog box that had once belonged to R. Akiva Eiger. We are physical beings who come from the dust, and physical things therefore speak to us. Paradoxically, it is precisely material objects, which are essentially transient, that maintain their permanence for centuries, creating a bridge between the past and the future. The need for connection through objects, which is natural and self-evident given that we are humans of flesh and blood, also underlies the Torah and the practical mitzvot. Judaism is not built exclusively on vague and abstract values. In response to the human need for concreteness, a system of practical commandments was created in order to express a system of ideas. The performance of mitzvot creates a channel for religious experience and opens the way for a connection between man and God. The experience associated with taking a lulav or eating matza reflects how much an object plays a role in the human religious experience. In a person's private life, intimate family connections are not based exclusively on profound conversations about noble values, but are rather manifest in shared day-to-day experiences, including the trivial problems that engage an ordinary family in everyday conduct, such as who will wash the dishes or fold the laundry. Similarly, this component of activity that is ongoing but not uplifting plays a role in our observance of the mitzvot. Just as a family lives closely together and creates connections even through banal activities, the mitzvot create a common religious experience with God among all those observing them. Thus, objects can provide existential meaning, but this depends upon the eye of the beholder. A person who relates to an inheritance merely as a set of objects and not as a means to continue the past will not see any unique significance in those objects. The Uniqueness of the Firstborn Thus far, we have discussed the idea of heirs and inheritance in general, the concept of personal and national heritage in the sense of "You are the children of the Lord your God" (Devarim 14:1). We have not discussed any unique status of any of the heirs. This indeed follows the model of the first half of Yesh Nochalin. At this point, we must move on to the second half of the chapter and to the concept of the birthright, the special privileges bestowed upon a firstborn. In addition to the passage dealing with inheritance in Sefer Bamidbar, a passage in Sefer Devarim assigns special status to a firstborn son. The concept of the bechora, primogeniture, is not merely factual but rather value-laden. This is reflected in the gemara's emphasis on the idea of "recognizing" the firstborn (based on the word "yakir" in the verse). The birthright expresses an interpersonal relationship unique to the parent and firstborn; it assumes a certain connection between them. Therefore, a firstborn only inherits a double portion if he was alive during his father's lifetime (Bava Batra 142b) and the father recognizes him as his firstborn son (127a).[3] For this reason, we also maintain that "the Torah calls it [the firstborn's double portion] a gift." In Halakha, a gift is not merely a certain type of acquisition, but rather an expression of intimacy. The firstborn inherits as one who receives a gift, directly from the father and not through the house or family. All of a person's strengths are reflected first and foremost in his firstborn. A father is supposed to feel a partnership with his sons, and the firstborn is the first child with whom this closeness is created. The Concept of Birthright in the Bible The birthright is referred to prominently in three contexts in the Bible: the struggle over the birthright between Yaakov and Esav; the story of Yaakov's two firstborn sons, Reuven and Yosef; and the description of Israel as "My son, My firstborn" (Shemot 4:22). These models point to the importance attached to the firstborn, as well as to the dangers that this status creates. Concerning the opportunity and the danger posed by the birthright, it is appropriate to cite two midrashim from Avot De-Rabbi Natan: Israel were called "sons," as it is stated: "You are the sons of the Lord your God" (Devarim 14:1), and the ministering angels are called "sons," as it is stated: "The sons of God came" (Iyov 1:6), and you do not know which are more loved. When it says: "Israel is My son, My firstborn," [it makes clear that] you are more precious to me than the ministering angels. (44a) The firstborn is perceived here as a clear expression of endearment and special closeness. Another midrash in Avot De-Rabbi Natan speaks in a different tone, recognizing that not every firstborn is dearly loved: Israel is precious, for in His time of anger they are called "sons." In His time of anger they are called sons, and even at a time when the verse says: "Not His is the corruption, but the blemish of His sons" (Devarim 32:5) -- sons in whom I have no trust, corrupt sons. Therefore, the Sages taught that they are called sons of God... But not every firstborn is precious and dear. There is a firstborn who is precious and dear, and there is also a firstborn who is not precious and dear. (8a) This midrash points to the problematic nature of the firstborn. It is simple to speak of the beauty and loftiness of the idea of Israel being "My son, My firstborn." But this does not necessarily reflect reality, as we find in the stories dealing with the birthright in the book of Bereishit. Yaakov vs. Esav -- Values vs. Money Esav views inheritance as a way to acquire property: "Behold, I am at the point of death, and what profit shall this birthright be to me?" (Bereishit 25:32). Ostensibly, the opposite is actually true! It is precisely at the point of death that the birthright acquires greater importance, for through it Esav could be counted as part of the line of the house of Avraham and as a link that transmits the heritage of the past to the coming generations. In this way, his memory would be preserved for generations, even after he dies. But Esav understands that he will derive no monetary gain from the inheritance, as he is about to die, and he is therefore prepared to sell his birthright for a pot of lentils. The commentators discuss the manner in which Yaakov took the birthright from Esav, and the Rishonim deal with the legal question of how Yaakov could acquire the birthright even though it was something that had not yet come into existence ("davar she-lo ba le-olam"). Many explanations have been offered, but it is possible to suggest one very simple answer. Esav did not sell the birthright to Yaakov; he lost it because his actions proved that he was not worthy of it. His very readiness to sell his birthright for a pot of lentils attested to his attitude toward the birthright and to his alienation from the world of Yitzchak. Anyone who scorns the birthright demonstrates that he does not understand its significance, and thus forfeits it. Sometimes, a child relates to his parents as an infinite source of rights. He wishes only to receive benefits and service from his parents; he is not prepared to accept the burden of transferring the legacy of previous generations. It is not for naught that the midrash (Bereishit Rabba 67:8; 75:9) describes Esav as ready to arrange for the murder of Yaakov and Yishmael in order to inherit the entire inheritance of Avraham. When the birthright is perceived not as a responsibility and sacred mission, but as an opportunity to profit at the expense of others, when the attitude toward inheritance is like that toward any monetary matter, it is not surprising to find that a violent man would be prepared to kill the other heirs and to employ a variety of schemes in order to inherit more assets. Yaakov, in contrast, views the birthright not only as a right, but as a mission. He wants to perpetuate Avraham's blessing in the world, and he sees the birthright as a destiny that will confer that mission upon him. It is not by chance that Chazal saw the pot of lentils as a dish denoting mourning over Avraham's passing, for it is around this event that the debate focuses. The test is whether to view this as an opportunity for profit -- on the tangible level, through the eating of the beans, and on the symbolic level, through benefit from the property of the deceased -- or as a call to assume responsibility and accept the authority of the firstborn. Reuven vs. Yosef -- Competition vs. Continuity Another pair of brothers who compete over the birthright presents us with a different model that is problematic for a different reason. On the one hand, "Reuven, you are my firstborn, my might and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity and the excellency of power" (Bereishit 49:3). It is upon Reuven that Yaakov pins his entire future and all of his hopes. On the other hand, "Unstable as water, you shall not excel; because you went up to your father's bed; then you did defile it: he went up to my couch" (ibid. 49:4), and in Divrei Ha-Yamim: "Now the sons of Reuven the firstborn of Israel -- for he was the firstborn, but since he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Yosef the son of Yisrael" (I Divrei Ha-Yamim 5:1). Because he defiled his father's bed, the birthright was taken away from Reuven. Esav was indifferent to the birthright and to the past; he sought in his inheritance only monetary gain. Reuven suffers from the opposite problem -- he sees himself as competing with his father and contending against him. No matter how we understand the specifics of Reuven's sin when he defiled his father's bed, the implication is the same -- it was an attempt to push his father aside and take his place during his lifetime. Reuven challenged his father's standing as head of the family. He rejected Yaakov's authority, and by doing so he impaired his own standing. The way of the world is that at some stage in a person's life, there is a reversal of roles. The strong parent, the firm rock, turns into a frail old man, at which point the sons must help the parent. Sometimes, they are even compelled to make decisions for the parent. Indeed, at the end of Yaakov's life, when he arrived in Egypt a broken and ill man, Yosef made various decisions for him. All this is possible and appropriate when the father is old and weak, when there is no other way, but not when the father is at the height of his strength and is fit to stand on his own two feet. The firstborn is meant to be the continuation of his father, but not his replacement who is in competition with him. The father bestows the birthright -- "The Torah calls it a gift." A son may not take the birthright by force. The similarity between Reuven and Yaakov could have prepared Reuven to be his father's successor. However, when that similarity is interpreted as competition, the firstborn's reward is cancelled out by his loss. Yosef was also similar to Yaakov, but he knew how to actualize that similarity at the proper time and not to replace him while he was still alive. The birthright was thus taken from Reuven, as from Esav, because he was unsuited for it. The transfer of property from an unfit son is the subject of a dispute between the Sages and R. Shimon ben Gamliel (133b), and we rule that property should not be transferred even from a wicked son to a good son. But in such a case, we are not dealing with an impairment in the firstborn's functioning as a firstborn, but rather with a general problem, and we therefore do not want to cancel the birthright. However, when the son sets himself in competition with his father, when he defiles his father's bed, the birthright is removed from him. The Actions of the Fathers are a Sign for the Sons The relationship between God and Israel should be examined in a similar manner. As stated to Moshe, Israel is "My son, My firstborn" (Shemot 22:4). What this means is that on a certain level, all the nations are God's children; the birthright does not negate the standing of the other brothers, but rather bestows a certain advantage on the firstborn while recognizing the others as sons.[4] But how are we to understand our relationship to God as His firstborn? Are we more precious to God than the ministering angels, as is stated in the first midrash cited above? Or are we perhaps like the firstborn who is not cherished and dear, as he appears in the second midrash? Will we be alienated from God? Will we be like a firstborn who is first among his brothers, but aware of his place? Or perhaps, God forbid, we will view ourselves in competition with God? Of course, the desired model is a permanent and meaningful relationship in which the individual feels the presence of the Shekhina, one in which he does not view the relationship between man and God as an interesting idea but nothing more. A child feels the presence of his parent and maintains a strong relationship with him, despite the differences in standing between them; this is also true of the relationship between Israel and their Father in Heaven. This is the challenge with which we are faced. A person who feels the responsibility of being a fitting firstborn to God justifies his birthright, but also assumes responsibility. The greater and deeper the responsibility and purpose, the greater the spiritual achievement. However, the spiritual danger is also greater. The same things that create obstacles in the relationship between a son and his parents are liable to ruin the relationship between man and his Maker. One can encounter a problem in the form of what we saw regarding Esav; a person recognizes the existence of God, but views the connection between him and his Father in Heaven as a means of satisfying his own pleasures and fulfilling his needs. In such a case, his heritage interests him only for the purpose of generating profits, and nothing more. He does not see his heritage as an obligation or mission, but rather as "a spade for digging," a source of personal gain. Alternatively, there is the situation of Reuven, which is reflected in the feeling that God is "strangling" him, leaving him with insufficient leeway due to the Shekhina's presence in the world. Just like a child rebels when he feels constrained by a parent or when he senses that the parent with his power and status overshadows him and his capabilities, a person's feelings about God may be similar. The proper situation, both with respect to the parent-child relationship and with respect to the relationship between man and God, is that man should find his place within a framework of existing laws and recognize that there are factors above him. Within these boundaries, he will be able to find his uniqueness and express his personal development. A firstborn like Reuven, who feels that he cannot exercise his strengths together with the strengths of God, is a firstborn who lacks the appropriate "recognition." Let us move from the People of Israel to the Land of Israel. The Land was also given to us as an inheritance and a heritage. Here, too, the aim is to see it as God's inheritance and to reach the realization of "You shall bring them in and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance" (Shemot 15:17), with the physical land serving as an expression of the spiritual connection and relationship between God and His people. Here, too, however, there is the danger of being caught up in the perspective of profitability and materialism, which views the Land exclusively as a place of leisure and profits. As opposed to "the mountain of Your inheritance," Datan and Aviram view the Land as "an inheritance of fields and vineyards" (Bamidbar 16:14), and nothing more. The children of Reuven and Gad preferred to receive their inheritance on the east bank of the Jordan, as that was advantageous for their animals and business. They did not ask themselves about the effect that their step would have on their inheritance as a sacred place or as the land of their forefathers. In opposition to "an inheritance of fields and vineyards" stands "the mountain of Your inheritance." Furthermore, since the inheritance is not land but rather a heritage, it exists, under certain condition, even without land. Not only is there the mountain of Your inheritance, but God is also the inheritance of the priests and Levites, substituting for the inheritance of land. We not only have God's intention "to give it to you for a heritage" (Shemot 6:8), but also "Moshe commanded us the Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov" (Devarim 33:4). Needless to say, the fitting situation for the ordinary person is the realization of the two inheritances, both of the Land and of the Torah. At times, however, it is one heritage that sustains us, while the other is missing. This was the case throughout the long years of exile, when the heritage of the Torah allowed Israel to survive in the lands of their dispersion. Similarly, in recent generations, the secular Zionist movement adopted for itself the heritage of the Land without a Torah heritage. Indeed, the core challenge facing secular Zionism and the State of Israel in this regard is viewing the country's heritage as an ancestral heritage and an expression of Jewish identity that is connected to the people of Israel throughout the generations, and not only as an inheritance of fields and vineyards. "A Ladder Set upon the Earth, and the Top of it Reached to Heaven" The chapter of Yesh Nochalin presents a sublime model of a system of inheritance that depends on the values that we have discussed. Very often, however, reality slaps us in the face. Inheritance disputes are a common and painful phenomenon. Unfortunately, these struggles are widespread and they destroy families. Values and ideals of great importance are shattered against the rocks of family disputes; instead of attaining achievements, they engage in conflict. Instead of the past serving as an inspiration and guide for the future, a person can destroy his future and fill it with conflicts from the past. Instead of the "house" inheriting the deceased and passing the family heritage down to the other members of the house, the house is split and destroyed in the storms of dispute. One should not make the mistake of thinking that such disputes are driven solely by profits. Often, the conflicts are grounded in what appears to be holiness. Struggles arise around the question of who will be a better successor, who will more faithfully represent the heritage and values of the deceased. Each side is convinced that he alone can express the family truth, while the other side will betray it. He therefore enters into battle against his brothers and sisters, without realizing that he is thereby destroying the family and defying the wishes of the deceased. These "holy fights" create the antithesis of the concept of inheritance. The challenge of inheritance and creating a heritage is indeed great, and it therefore often leads to tension. Nevertheless, Yesh Nochalin presents us with a meaningful model on the existential level, both with respect to the family and the past and with respect to our lives with God. May we merit to meet these challenges. (This sicha was delivered in summer 5767 [2007]. The original Hebrew adaptation was reviewed by Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein.) -- [1] This is true on the fundamental level, as is stated in the mishna in Bekhorot. In this context, we will not consider the dispute between Abba Shaul and the Sages. [2] Most authorities are uncomfortable even with one who donates all of his property to charity. [3] As a result, someone whose status is in doubt is excluded from the law of the birthright: "A son and not a tumtum [a person of undetermined gender]; a firstborn, and not a doubtful firstborn." This is also the basis for the law of "recognition," which according to many authorities is not based on credibility, but on the creation of a connection between father and son, credibility being the byproduct. [4] See the commentators ad loc., especially Ibn Ezra and Seforno. Rashi apparently understood differently and deliberately chose to deviate from the plain meaning of the birthright. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 13:31:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:31:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Defining Tzeis Message-ID: <20150706203135.GA12889@aishdas.org> I wrote the following to FB. If anyone can add or make corrections before the thread there dies, I would appreciate it. I think I summed up the highlights of the sugya as I understood it from previous conversations here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha [Someone asked what the sources in question were, so I replied:] Shabbos 34b-35a, 35b; Pesachim 94a. As Tosafos on Pesachim note, in Shabbos (34b) R' Yehudah is quoted as saying bein hashemashot (sunset to the stars coming out) is 3/4 mil (or 2/3 mil, depending on which amora's version of R' Yehudah you're using, but we hold 3/4), but in Pesachim he says a person can walk 4 mil after sunset before the stars emerge. Rabbeinu Tam notes a slight difference in language. It takes 4 mil "misheqi'as hachamah," in Pesachim, but 3/4 mil from "mishetishqeh hachamah." RT therefore resolves the two gemaros by saying sunset takes 3-1/4 mil. So, 4 mil from the beginning of sunset will take you to 3/4 mil after sunset, which is R' Yehudah's tzeis. The Vilna Gaon's resolution of the confliciting gemaros (OC 235 and 261) is not to split sunset into a beginning an end, but to split tzeis. The halachic tzeis is 3/4 mil after sunset. The gemara in Pesachim is using the term colloquially, not halachically, and simply refers to "all the stars" rather the standard 3. The Re'eim (R' Eliezer of Metz, Seifer Yerei'im, written in the 1170s) splits both -- the two gemaras are discussing different sunsets AND different tzeis. To him, the gemara in Shabbos is saying sheqi'ah (which we usually translate "sunset") is 3/4 mil BEFORE the sun hits the horizon, and tzeis is when the sun is at the horizon. Whereas the gemara in Pesachim then measures how much after the sun is below the horizon that the sky is fully dark. Note that both the Vilna Gaon and the Re'eim assume the gemara in Pesachim is using at least one of the idioms differently than the gemara in Shabbos, and therefore it has no bearing on halakhah. ... [Material in response to what someone else wrote, ellided.] BUT... The Vilna Gaon understands the defining feature to be the emergence of stars, not the fixed time R' Yehudah gives. And therefore inflates the 3/4 mil to adjust from Usha (R' Yehudah's home town) to Vilna. Which brings us to the third topic, on the other side of the page on Shabbos (35b). Again it's R' Yehudah, quoting Shemu'el's prescription of which stars to watch for: [If you see] 1 star, it is day; 2 -- bein hashemashos; 3 -- night. Rabbi Yosi said, "Not large stars that are visible in the day, nor small stars that are only visible at night, but medium stars..." 35b cannot describe 3/4 mil after sunset. Even in Usha or Nehardaa (Shemuel's home town, today's Anbar, central Iraq, on the Euphrates), you will not see 3 middle sized stars 18 min after sunset. R Michl Tukaczinsky and R' Dovid Spitzer did the observations in Jerusalem, and found it takes 31-43 min or 28-40 min, respectively. (Use the smaller end of the range for rabbinic fasts, like the OP, and the larger for Torah laws like Shabbos. Jerusalem is closer to the equator than either city, not that I think it's by enough to matter much.) Rav Moshe Feinstein similarly gave 50 min for Shabbos, 31 for rabbinic fasts -- but then, NY's days vary more in length, so a "never later than" will be more minutes after sunset. With a computer, we could translate all these numbers into degrees below the horizon, as that would tell us how dark it would be outside, and therefore how many stars could be seen, if we weren't bathed in artificial lighting. And even then you get into questions about which stars. The western horizon (the side with the glow of sunset) will show stars well after the east. Three stars seen at once (near each-other) or total when scanning the whole sky? Etc... Rather than decide whether we follow Shabbos 34a or 35a, even those who do not use Pesachim to shed light on 34a pad the 3/4 mil to plausibly allow for people to see three medium sized stars. Given the fact that it's this measure which actually gives the landmark on our clock its name, assuming it is less definitional than a fixed time delay is difficult. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 13:39:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:39:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dan leKaf Zekhus Message-ID: <20150706203931.GB12889@aishdas.org> When I got on the subway this morning, there was a pregnant woman already standing holding on to the poll nearest the door I just came in through. So, feeling all heroic, I asked her quite loudly and pointedly, "Do you need me to embarass someone into getting up for you?" She replied, "No, thank you. A number of people offered when I just got on, but I was more comfortable standing than on the train's benches." I blushed, and sheepishly muttered apologies to those around us. As I said: Dan lekaf zekhus. Not just the law, a good idea. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 14:45:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 17:45:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah and Poverty In-Reply-To: <20150706202632.A741518370D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150706202632.A741518370D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150706214552.GE12889@aishdas.org> On 7/3/2015 3:16 AM, RnTK wrote to Areivim: : But our mishna does describe this as the "way of the Torah." : True Torah scholars will live contentedly under conditions of : denial and poverty. The beraisa (Avos "6":4) says that darkah shel Torah is not to quit learning even if you have to live off bread, salt and water you have to ration, sleep on the ground and otherwise suffer. Not that this is their normal condition, or even one they should desire. There is still the take on the chatas of someone ending nezirus (Rabbeinu Bachya, in contrast to the Ramban) that it's for forgoing permissable pleasure while a nazir. And the Y-mi (Qiddushin 4:12, vilna 48b, the end of the mesechta) in which Rav is quoted as saying "A person will have to give a din vecheshbon on anything his eye saw but he didn't eat. R' Leizer [Elazar? Eliezer?] was chosheish for this, and would use Shabbos to enjoy one such pleasure. This is on the mishnah where R' Nera'i promises to only teach his son Torah, to the exclusion of a profession. But the Y-mi understands this to mean that keeping the Torah (not learning in particular) will provide wealth. Whereas a profession leaves you stuck in your old age, or if one otherwise become unable to work. But it's "vekhein atah motzei be'avinu Avraham *sheshimer* es haTorah" and was wealthy. However, the Bavli famously reports that this was tried experimentally and it generally doesn't work. Okay for a R' Shimon bar Yochai, but not R' Yishmael and the like. (Which could be a difference in kind or quantitative.) No one today would qualify as either a Rashbi or a R' Yishmael, so I don't think the Y-mi's promise should be counted on. And neither gemara lauds poverty. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 17:12:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 20:12:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon Message-ID: From: Lisa Liel via Avodah The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this subject. Lisa >>>> I have seen none of that "vitriol" or "viciousness," either in the past few days or in the last few years, or ever. On the contrary, all I see is an almost desperate attempt to be conciliatory, a desperate if hopeless wish not to be the *victims* of liberal, anti-religious vitriol. See for example "A Letter by Reb Ahron Feldman to a Gay Baal Teshuva" https://guardyoureyes.com/resources/ssa/item/a-letter-by-reb-ahron-feldman-to-a-gay-baal-teshuva Also see Agudath Israel's statement on the recent Supreme Court gay-marriage decision http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2015/06/28/agudath-israel-statement-o n-supreme-court-marriage-ruling/ It reads, in part, "we are deeply concerned that, as a result of today?s ruling, and as the dissenting Justices have pointed out, members and institutions of traditional communities like the Orthodox Jewish community we represent may incur moral opprobrium and risk tangible negative consequence if they refuse to transgress their beliefs, and even if they simply teach and express their religious views publicly." I might add that Lisa's post, being an emotional cri de coeur, really belongs on Areivim. However, since she has posted it to Avodah, I will add my own comments previously posted on Cross-Currents: Here, for the record, is what our ancient Torah heritage has to say about homosexual marriage: The nations are allowed to continue in existence only because they keep a minimum of three mitzvos. These are: not writing marriage documents for the union of two males, not selling human flesh in the market place, and giving honor to the Torah?which in practice means, not persecuting the people of the Torah, the Jewish people. In one of his prophetic visions, the Navi (prophet) Zechariah took thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the Temple treasury in Jerusalem (Zechariah 11:13). The Rabbis of the Talmud had varying interpretations of what this vision symbolized. According to Rabbi Ulla (Talmud Chullin 92B), the thirty pieces of silver symbolized the thirty mitzvos that the Bnei Noach accepted upon themselves. These thirty mitzvos include not worshipping idols, not consulting witchcraft and sorcery, refraining from illicit sexual relationships, and so on. (Bnei Noach are the Sons of Noah, also called Noahides? i.e., the nations of the world.) Rabbi Ulla says that the world continues to exist because the nations accepted these thirty mitzvos. However, he adds, the nations do not keep all the mitzvos they accepted. They keep only three, and one of the three is: ? They do not write a marriage contract for males.? Rashi comments that the nations do engage in forbidden homosexual relations, but they at least acknowledge that such relations are illicit by not formalizing those relations in legal documents. The other two commandments that they keep are that they do not sell human flesh in the market place, and that they give honor to the Torah (Talmud Chullin 92B). Elsewhere the Rabbis of old stated that the final decree of destruction, the Great Flood, was sealed against the generation of Noach because they wrote marriage documents for males. ?Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Yosef, ?The generation of the Flood was not wiped out until they wrote marriage documents for the union of a man to a male or to an animal ? ? (Genesis Rabbah 26:5; Leviticus Rabbah 23:9). Implicit is the assumption that if the nations do not abide by at least the aforementioned three mitzvos, they may forfeit the very right to exist. Hence, these three?not writing marriage documents for males, not selling human flesh in the marketplace, and honoring the Torah?may be considered the Three Conditions for the continued existence of mankind. So you see, the idea of gay marriage is not new, not a fresh idea that represents the ultimate development, enlightenment and evolution of mankind. No, the formal marriage of two men is a very ancient idea that represents the degradation of mankind. http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2011/07/28/4524/ I will add a further point to what I wrote in 2011: The reason the gay pride movement adopted rainbow colors as their symbol is that the rainbow is the sign of Hashem?s promise not to wipe out the entire world again in one big flood. They wave the rainbow flag in defiance of Him, as if to say, ?Ha ha, You can?t touch us!? The message of the rainbow flag is, ?We are major sinners, like the generation of the Flood.? But they are whistling in the dark if they think there won?t be consequences. May Hashem protect His people, those who are chassidei umos ha?olam as well as us, Klal Yisrael. Read more: http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2015/06/29/scotus-on-same-gender-what-it-means-what-it-doesnt/#ixzz3f9x0mazM --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 18:14:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 01:14:59 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> I noted about Kaddish Yasom > From what I've seen, it is NOT said even if a minyan says Birkas > Hamazon, R' Zev Sero asked: > Why would it? Well, I guess my original post should have had a longer introduction. I know that Kaddish Tiskabel has a very clear rule, namely that it follows every Amidah, and the only exception is that it also follows Selichos. Kaddish D'rabanan always follows group learning (though I've never figured out exactly what learning counts and what doesn't). And now I'm trying to figure out the rule for Kaddish Yasom. It SEEMS to be a sort of "congregational prayer", where "prayer" is something *other* than the Amidah, but I can't define it any more precisely than that. For a long time I thought it was connected to Tehillim, but when I noticed it after the megilos on Yom Tov, someone suggested that it's not specifically Sefer Tehillim, but *any* part of Kesuvim, not that we had any idea why Kesuvim would get this distinction over Neviim or Torah. I wrote: > but it IS said when a minyan says Kiddush Levana. RZS suggested: > Probably because people are used to saying it after Alenu. Maybe, and maybe not. I have a suspicion that Alenu was added *because of* the Kaddish, and not the other way around. Here are some data points: The Hirsch siddur has Tehillim 67 as the last paragraph of Kiddush Levana, with nothing at all after it. My Minchas Yerushalayim, and Birnbaum too, end with Tehillim 67 which is then followed by Kaddish Yasom, without Alenu. Is it possible that Alenu is a recent addition to the Kiddush Levana? I wrote: > It is NOT said when a minyan says Tehillim even as an organized > group, RZS asked: > Where have you seen it not being said then? I'm surprised that > this is your experience. In my current community, and also from my memories of yeshiva. When there was some sort of tzara that we said Tehillim for -- whether for a choleh, or some military or political problem -- we would say the Tehillim deemed appropriate by the leaders, and this would be followed by tefillos such as Acheinu and/or Mi Sheberach(s). I don't recall Kaddish ever being part of this. I have to admit that a big part of my asking this question is a pet peeve that I've been nursing, regarding Kiddush Levana in particular. It seems to me that Kiddush Levana -- the way it is done in just about every situation I've ever seen -- cannot be called a Tefilas Tzibur in any sense. It is a group of yechidim who happen to be saying the same thing, but in a totally disorganized fashion. The first one out of shul begins as soon as he finds a good location, and the last one out of shul also begins when he finds a good location. No attempt whatsoever is made to get this group to be on the same page, let alone in the same paragraph. There is no leader (like we have in Hallel and Pesukei Dzimra and everywhere else) who lets everyone know what the group is up to, so that they might end in unison. Rather, one person ends Alenu out loud, and that's when the yesomim say kaddish, regardless of whether they are only halfway though, or already finished before. So that's one of the reasons why I'm wondering why Kiddush Levana gets a kaddish. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/559b2834173228336fdfst03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 23:16:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 02:16:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kiddush levana In-Reply-To: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <559B6EB4.3010400@sero.name> On 07/06/2015 09:14 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: > So that's one of the reasons why I'm wondering why Kiddush Levana gets a kaddish. Well, I found what may be the source for this kaddish. The Shelah says "There is a nice minhag in the kingdom of EY and its surroundings, to say various pesukim and maamarim after kiddush levana, and then say kaddish derabanan [...] and the meaning of this kaddish is that [the Name] should be magnified and sanctified, a Great Name, a full Name, and then the moon's light will be as the sun's light". http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=45685&pgnum=287 > I have a suspicion that Alenu was added > *because of* the Kaddish, and not the other way around. Here are > some data points: The Hirsch siddur has Tehillim 67 as the last > paragraph of Kiddush Levana, with nothing at all after it. My Minchas > Yerushalayim, and Birnbaum too, end with Tehillim 67 which is then > followed by Kaddish Yasom, without Alenu. Is it possible that Alenu > is a recent addition to the Kiddush Levana? Taamei Haminhagim gives a reason for saying Alenu, because it was written by Yehoshua, whose face is compared to the moon (Bava Basra 75a). According to this reason there would seem to be no reason to say it after birkas hachama. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=216 But the footnote to Kuntres Acharon on the next page gives a different reason: Because kiddush levana looks like a pagan ritual, we say Alenu to declare that we worship only Hashem, and this is the same reason that after Hoshanos, which also seems a bit pagan, we declare "Lema'an daas kol amei ha'aretz ki Hashem hu haElokim, ein od". This reason applies equally to birkas hachama. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=217 I remember hearing that the same reason is why we say Alenu after a bris, but I can't find a source for this. Taamei Haminhagim cites Yaavetz that the reason is to include the baby among the "us" who are declaring our loyalty to Hashem. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=404 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 03:41:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 13:41:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Pinechas vs Pinchas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> R' Micha points out that his grandfather's name was Pinechas. He proves it first by the yud after the pei which, by the rules of dikduk, makes the following sheva a na'. In addition, the name is an Egyptian one, Pi-nechas, pi being a common prefix in Egyptian names. In case you haven't been convinced yet, there is a meteg in the pei which, by the rules, makes the chirik malei and the sheva na' There is, however, one small point that makes me wonder. R' Aharon ben Asher who, for the last thousand years, has been called the accepted decision maker on correct spelling in Tana"kh seems to disagree. In perek 11 of his book Dikdukei Hat'amim he describes the sh'vaim before the otyot g'roniot inside a word, when they are na' and when nach. Included in his list of words where they are nach are laqkhu, barchu, Pinchas, zar'u, etc. IIRC, not all manuscripts have all the words and Pinchas might be omitted in some. It is possible that copiers of the words lists added or omitted. On the Mesorah sub-list it is known that I am anti-dikduk because it opens the way to change the fine points on Torah pronunciation to match its rules. Among these "improvements" was the changing of many internal sh'vaim in words from nach to na'. What enabled this to happen was the brilliant invention by R' Yosef Kimchi of the ten vowel, five pairs of malei and chaseir. This led to the rule that after malei the sh'va is na' and after chaseir it is nach. Ben Asher, in perek 10 notes that there are seven vowels in Hebrew. All of the masoretes also state this. If there aren't pairs of malei and chaseir, we've just lost the rule about the following sh'vaim. All this is not something new. Heidenheim in his comments on the Ein Hakorei of RYHB"Y (Shemini, just before sh'lishi) states that in the times of the kadmonim many sh'vaim that are now na'im were then nachim. He quotes (from Ibn Ezra?) that kol sh'va b'ot rafah shekadam lo echad mishiv'at ham'lakhim hu nach ki halashon ha-ivrit kasha la r'difat shalosh t'nu'ot...except for double letters and some words with groniot. So how should I lein on Shabbos? Oh, no problem, I'm not the bal-koire. bivrakha, David From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 05:21:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:21:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kesher Message-ID: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little farfetched 1) knot 2) connection 3) conspiracy -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 06:18:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 09:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> In various places in dovening, kaddish etc we find the loshon - ..v'imru amen. Simply understood this is something only said by a sh'ztibur, as an announcement by the sh'ztibur that the congregation sh answer amen. In some cases, a yachid says it (ie Kiddush hachodesh, etc) probably bc we are saying something that originally was said by the sh'ztibur. What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? Who are we saying v'imru amen to? And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). Because the silent SE is not a carbon copy of the sh'ztibur version (for instance - no elokai netzor, SE of fast days are diff, etc) Mordechai Cohen mcohen at touchlogic.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:09:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 10:09:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper : connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little : farfetched : 1) knot : 2) connection : 3) conspiracy Interestingly, the noun doesn't show in chumash. As an adjective, we have hamuqsharos/im, to describe which of the tzon Yaaqov received (30:41-42). Rashi quotes the Targum, "habechiros" and cites two pesuqim in Shemuel II pereq 15. To round out the list: About Yaaqov (again) and Yoseif, "venafsho qesurah benafsho." Also the string tied on Zarach's hand, and tefillin (x2). Those are all the occurances of the shoresh. BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. Conspiracy comes up in #2, "league together, conspire". It would seem they conjecture the word comes from the collaboration, and less so what they're connecting to eachother to plan against something. They also cite "vatiqasheir kol-hachimah" in Nechemiah 3:35, where one would not readily picture "tying together" parts as a metaphor. I understand why Rashi thought the translation in Bereishis 30 is unique enough to require comment, but not how it fits altogether. (Rashi says it does, not how.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:08:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 14:08:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Pinechas vs Pinchas In-Reply-To: <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> References: , <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1436278092269.69769@ou.org> It should be noted that how Pinechas was read according to the Masorah is not really relevant to the way it was pronounced as a name. Pinchas is a Yiddish name (to be sure, with its roots in Hebrew), and is pronounced without a het and without a sh'wa. Its pronunciation in Hebrew is no more relevant than is the proper pronunciation of the word gannav (theif) in the T'NaKh to the pronunciation of the Yiddish word ganef. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union 11 Broadway, New York, NY 10004 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:22:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 17:22:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> References: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper >: connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little >: farfetched >: 1) knot >: 2) connection >: 3) conspiracy ... > BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary > meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. and what is the connection to a knot (the origin of the question was a dvar torah on the knots of tsizit) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 09:03:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:03:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: References: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150707160302.GA10745@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 05:22:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :>: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings... : ... :> BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary :> meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. : and what is the connection to a knot : (the origin of the question was a dvar torah on the knots of tsizit) Well, tzitzis knots less so, but knots generally bind two strings or two ends of a string together, no? Tzitzis knots are somewhat more like the example from Nechemiah. If qesher includes "batiqashar kol-hachomah", perhaps it also it includes binding pesilim into a gedil. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 14:44:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 17:44:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam, Moreh Nevuchim (2:29), A Strange Passage about Miracles Message-ID: <559C4830.9030705@gmail.com> In Moreh Nevuchim, 2:29, the Rambam seems to disparage a talmudical position about miracles that he had endorsed in his prior works (Commentary on Avos 5:6 and Shmoneh Perakim chapter 8). This, despite the fact that in the Moreh, he refers the reader to these former works to understand his position about miracles. And to further confuse matters, in the Moreh itself, within just a few sentences, he goes on to laud the proponent of that very positionfor maintaining it! The position is that already during the Creation week, G-d instilled, in objects and forces of nature, the potential for the aberrant behaviors that He would unleash when appropriate. (I.e. the aberrant behaviors were not changes G-d first decided upon, created and imposed upon things at the time the miracles were witnessed.) The Moreh Nevuchim introduces the concept with the words: "Our Sages said things zarrim m'od as regards miracles." "zarrim m'od" is Ibn Tibbon's Hebrew translation. Narboni and Schwartz use the similar "muzarrim, and likewise, Friedlander and Pines, in their English translations, translate, "very strange." KPCH translates, "temuhim" (astonishing). They all seem to indicate that the Rambam shunned the idea. Yet, as I noted, just a few sentences later, the Rambam lauds the Tanna who expressed the thought: [T]his text...demonstrates the [high] level of the speaker, and its being very difficult in his eyes that Nature could change after Creation, or that G-d's Will would change after it had been established. He therefore reasons, for example, that G-d instilled, in the nature of Water, the [property of] sticking together and always flowing in a downward direction, except for that time in which the Egyptians would drown in them; those specific waters would split. I have already enlightened you as to the main idea of the [talmudic] statement [KPCH in a footnote sees this as a reference to the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah and Shemoneh Perakim], and that it is all meant to flee from [the idea that, after Creation, G-d would bring about] the new creation of anything. It says there: R. Yonathan said, G-d placed stipulations on the sea, that it should divide before the Israelites. Thus it says, "And the sea returned, when the morning appeared, l'ay-sa-no [to its strength, or to its stipulated nature]"(Sh'mos 14:27). R. Yiremiyah ben Elazar said: Not only with the sea did the Holy One, blessed be He, place stipulations, but with all that has been created in the six days of Creation. "My hands stretched out the heavens, and all their hosts I commanded" (Yishayahu 45:12): I commanded the sea that it will divide, the fire that it should not harm Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, and the lions that they should not harm Daniel, and the fish that it should spit out Jonah." The same is to be applied to all the other miracles. The surprising solution to this problem is really quite simple. I noticed that in Moreh 1:70 (p. 106 in the classic version, line 2), Pines translates a certain phrase as "strange but true."But both Ibn Tibbon and Schwartz translate it, "ha-inyanim ha-mufla-os ha-n'chonos, ("matters wondrous but true/correct"). Hmmm. One Arabic scholar translates a word as "strange," while others translate it as "wondrous." I began to sense how the same word could be used both ways, and I suspected it might also be the same word as in our passage in 2:29. Without mentioning my problem about the Rambam's self-contradiction (to keep the issue unbiased), I asked R. Yakov Wincelberg, translator of Avraham ben HaRambam's Sefer HaMaspik from Arabic to English, what the actual Arabic word there is, and if it's the same word in our passage in 2:29. Here is his reply: In both cases, the word griva is used. It doesn't mean specifically "weird," but something that stands out. It could be: extraordinary, wondrous, amazing, rare, peculiar, uncommon, obscure, etc. It even is used for emigrating from one's country, as one is separating from the people. In other words, the word means "outstanding." So, true, one tends to understand the translation "zar" or "strange" to be meant in the sense of "weird," or "foreign," indicating that in the Moreh the Rambam considered the "front-loaded" miracle an idea to be shunned--contra the Gemora, his Avos commentary, and his Shemoneh Perakim. But the simpler truth is that the Rambam consistently endorsed this view, and considered it to be an outstanding one. One need only realize that Ibn Tibbon titles his dictionary of unfamiliar philosophical terms,appended to his Moreh Nevuchim translation, "Payrush Me'Hamillot Zarot," The word Zar indicates something unfamiliar, but not necessarily "strange" in the sense of "weird." And it can also mean something that is wondrous and true. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 17:01:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 20:01:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher Message-ID: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little farfetched 1) knot 2) connection 3) conspiracy -- Eli Turkel >>>> The deeper connection is -- connection! All the words formed from this shoresh are words that have "connecting" as their basic meaning. In Edward Horowitz's fascinating and entertaining book, "How the Hebrew Language Grew," he has a chapter on how sounds made in the same part of the mouth sometimes interchange to form words with similar or closely related meanings. One example he gives is the word kesher, and the related word gesher -- a bridge, which connects two places, two sides of a river, two sides of a road and so on. Keshes, a rainbow, is something like a bridge connecting two parts of the sky. Another example of these interconnected words (this one I've also seen in the Hirsch commentary on Chumash) is the word "tsachak" to laugh, to which a number of other words are related in a phonetic way: Change the ches to an ayin and you get "tsa'ak." Both tsachak and tsa'ak involve emitting loud sounds -- sounds of mirth or of alarm or distress. (Ches and ayin are both formed in the back of the throat.) Change the tsadi to a sin and instead of "tsachak" to laugh you get "sachak" to be happy, to rejoice. (Tsadi and sin are both sibilants.) Going back to the word tsa'ak, if you now change the tsadi to a zayin you again get a closely related word, "za'ak." And if you take the word "tsa'ir" (young) and change the tsadi to a zayin you get "za'ir" small. Change the sin of saraf to a tsadi and instead of burning (saraf) you get refining (tsaraf) gold or silver -- which is done through heat. Change the zayin of "zahav" to a tsadi and instead of gold you get "tzahov," the color yellow. Horowitz points out that these kinds of phonetic relationships can also be found in English, Latin and other languages, but nevertheless I find it especially fascinating to trace these connections in Lashon Hakodesh. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 02:42:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 09:42:27 GMT Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen Message-ID: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. > Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? > Who are we saying v'imru amen to? > > And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the > same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end of Birkas Hamazon. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett???s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren???t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/559cf0b42988970b45addst03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 02:09:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 02:09:57 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:18 AM, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: > In various places in dovening, kaddish etc we find the loshon - ..v'imru > amen. .. > What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. > Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? > Who are we saying v'imru amen to? I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish. SE took on the whole paragraph "Oseh Shalom ... ve'imru amen" from the end of Kaddish, and Kaddish took on the three steps backwards from the end of SE (which makes sense for the STz's Kaddish Titkabbal at the end of the repetition, but not so much in all other kaddishim) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 06:30:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 09:30:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <559D2610.8060803@sero.name> On 07/08/2015 05:42 AM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > >> What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. >> Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? >> Who are we saying v'imru amen to? >> >> And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the >> same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). > > The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end of Birkas Hamazon. Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even when there's a zimun. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 08:04:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:04:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> References: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150708150424.GA8908@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 08:01:24PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : In Edward Horowitz's fascinating and entertaining book, "How the Hebrew : Language Grew," he has a chapter on how sounds made in the same part of the : mouth sometimes interchange to form words with similar or closely related : meanings... Also in RSRH's fascinating and entertaining commentary on the Pentateuch and a couple of places in CW and elsewhere. : Another example of these interconnected words (this one I've also seen in : the Hirsch commentary on Chumash)... See https://books.google.com/books?id=eVAAfn6Itb4C (The real one; the google preview skips all of your examples.) Etymological Dictionary of Biblcal Hebrew: Based on the Commentaries of Samson Raphael Hirsch by Matityahu Clark This is a central part of RSRH's exegesis. I once went through much of Bereishis and Shemos documenting which letters RSRH considers related enough to qualify as likely to be part of the same phonetic meta-root. I ended up with the following chart (readable only in fixed-width-font, eg Courier): geroniot velar dental dento-lingual labial h,ch q | s,sh tes | alef k | tz tav | b ayin g | z d | p n ------------- m r --------------------------------- l y ------------------------------------- v Letters in the same column are phonetically related (eg hei and aleg) Vertical lines separate into pairs (eg zayin and dalet, but not dalet and pei nor tzadi and dalet [paired coumns, different rows]). The pairs are lingual/velar (use tongue) vs not. Horizontal lines connect the nasals (mem and nun), the approximants (lamd and reish) and the semivowels (yud and vav). The unvoiced letters are all in the top two rows. Notice how hei-ches and shin/sin-samech fall into parallel positions, and bege"d kefe"t into the same two rows. I stopped my analysis when I had gone dozens of peraqim without needing to change the chart any. Lost interest. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 08:12:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:12:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> Message-ID: <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:09:57AM -0700, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, : but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence : between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish... You might have seen it on-list in Apr or Dec 2006, offered by RPMinden. RSBA offered a different explanation: > Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, Likutei Maharich, RS Schwab, Boruch She'omar all > say that we are whispering to the Malochim - that accompany a person all > the time. [Maybe 'oseh sholom BIMEROMOV' indicates this?] The earliest > source seems to be Mateh Moshe - which some cite. > The OH also brings a nusach - IIRC - Machzor [or Siddur] Roma - that > indeed does not include the 'Ve'imru Omein' at the end of SE. RPM believes it was a post-facto explanation, giving meaning to a pratice that really originated in error. See the subject line at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=T#TO%20WHOM%20ARE%20WE%20WHISPERING%20 and the 3 starting with http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=V#VIMRU%20AMEN in the archive index. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 11:33:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 14:33:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: In Avodah V33n96, RAM referred repeatedly to "Kaddish Yasom" -- I think at least some of his questions might be answered once we understand that (a) what he called "Kaddish Yasom" is actually the Qaddish (Shaleim, but without the "tisqaba[i]l" phrase) said by the SHaTZ at the end of davening, at some point in our history given over to children (eventually/or to *y'somim*) who could not be SHaTZ (see http://www.beureihatefila.com/files/Introduction_to_Mourners_Kaddish.pdf); and that (b) Qaddish is said after the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim or other K'suvim. As for Kiddush L'vana (KL), indeed Minhag Ashk'naz did not include "Aleinu" -- as was noted, the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim at the end of KL (similar to doing so after Shacharis and after [Mincha/]Ma'ariv, and similar to when a *seifer* from K'suvim was read) was followed by Qaddish (in the Roedelheim, those chapters are 121, 150, and 67, not just 67) -- and KL not being a *t'filas tzibbur* does not impact upon the saying of Qaddish (although obviously, a *minyan* is required for any *davar shebiq'dusha*). HTH :). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 02:40:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 02:40:50 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:09:57AM -0700, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > : I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, > : but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence > : between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish... > > You might have seen it on-list in Apr or Dec 2006, offered by RPMinden. > My memory was correct as to the attribution, though I garbled the content a bit. It's on page 48 of the Birnbaum siddur, in the notes to the Kaddish deRabbanan after Korbanot: "/Oseh Shalom/, which repeats in Hebrew the thought expressed in the preceding Aramaic paragraph, seems to have been added from the meditation recited at the end of the /Shemoneh Esreh/. The same sentence is also added at the end of the grace recited after meals. The three steps backwards, which formed the respectful manner of retiring from a superior, were likewise transferred from the concluding sentence of the /Shemoneh Esreh/. On the other hand, the phrase "and say Amen", added at the end of the silent meditation after the /Shemoneh Esreh/, must have been borrowed from the Kaddish which is always recited in the hearing of no fewer than ten men." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 08:53:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:53:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reciting a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time Message-ID: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> http://tinyurl.com/o6rxcdf according to those that say you do NOT recite a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time (ie bar mitzvah), why is it different than all the places where we DO recite a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah not done in a long time? (ie lulav, shofar, megila, etc) Thanks, mc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 13:27:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 20:27:55 GMT Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen Message-ID: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> I wrote: > The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end > of Birkas Hamazon. R' Zev Sero responded: > Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, > with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively > recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even > when there's a zimun. But we've *always* benched as individuals when there *isn't* a zimun. But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that originally, Oseh Shalom was part of benching only when a zimun was present, and then for some reason came to be said even by individuals. If that is indeed what happened, I can't help but speculate that there was an even earlier time, when benching with a zimun would include Oseh Shalom at that point, but benching with a *minyan* would include Kaddish at that point! Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55a02add2581a2add0f3dst01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 16:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <55A05668.1080404@sero.name> On 07/10/2015 04:27 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: >> >Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, >> >with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively >> >recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even >> >when there's a zimun. > But we've*always* benched as individuals when there*isn't* a zimun. Benching is designed for a zimun. It's normal to eat in a group. But even when there were only two eating, or when a family ate together, I think the usual thing was for one person to bench and the other person (or the wife and children) to listen and say amen. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 08:42:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush L'vana (was "Kaddish Yasom") Message-ID: In Avodah v33n97, I wrote: > As for Kiddush L'vana (KL), indeed Minhag Ashk'naz did not include "Aleinu" -- as was noted, the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim at the end of KL...was followed by Qaddish...-- and KL not being a *t'filas tzibbur* does not impact upon the saying of Qaddish.... < Just wanted to add that (a) For the record, I don't recall Qaddish being said at the end of KL at KAJ/"Breuer's" (and the MMA Siddur Tefilas Yeshurun instructs not to say either "Aleinu" or Qaddish at the end of Bircas haL'vana), even when there was evidently more than a quorum of men (gathered to be *m'qabeil p'nei haShchina b'rov-am*) on the front steps or sidewalk of the Shul -- whether or not Qaddish should be said (and what the precise parameters are) in that circumstance (not a *t'filas tzibbur*; not in a *maqom t'fila*) was not central to the overall points I was trying to make; and (b) for consistency, it's QL, not KL :). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 11:30:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:30:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pinchas Message-ID: > > > BTW, my grandfather a"h was named Pinechas after this week's sedra, > his bar mitzvah parashah. When it was time to name my oldest, I checked > with my uncle how his name appeared on their kesuvah, as their mesader > qiddushin was a key rav in my grandfather's life. (R/Dr Mirsky zt"l met > two teenage boys coming off the boat and took them under his wing. My > grandfather and great-uncle then earned enough to bribe the rest of the > family's way out of Litta before the Nazis came to power.) > > Anyway, it seems R/Dr Mirsky held my grandfather's name was Pinechas, > pei-yud-nun-ches-samekh, as it is spelled in the chumash (ignoring the > size of the yud as usually written in the beginning of the parashah). > And thus the sheva is na, Pinechas - not Pinchas. > > If you want to make a derashah out of a Mitzri name, it's Pi Nachas, > not Pen Chas. > > Reason for this tangent... I would have expected "Gushies" to get the > sheva in the parashah name right. After all, they have the patach under > the reish in Parashat. > > Way behind in reading. However, Aharon Ben Asher, in Dikduke Hate'amim, specifically lists the sheva in Pinchas (with a yud) as being a sheva nach, so the "Gushies" have on whom to rely.. Meir Shinnar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 11:39:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:39:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: > On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:20:08PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: > : On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. > > : Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a > : moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is > : the purpose to make things even worse? > > As I quoted from RAK, because they classically were not considered > chuqim. Until our contemporaries took the issue from sexual morality > to sexual ethics, these truths were considered self-evident. It's the > choqification of dinei arayos that's inauthentic. > > In any case, since one doesn't pasqen from taamei hamitzvos, the din > is the same either way. Nothhing in such exploration can "make things > even worse". > > In Shmona prakim, the rambam seems to take the opposite view - trying to reconcile the view that having a desire to sin is a sign of moral failing, and that the overcoming of desire is a sign o f greatness - he argues that to desire to sin is problematic in hamefursamot - but NOT in those forbidden only for religious reasons - and he specifically applies that to arayot - and needs to apply it to arayot, because the sugyot that deal with kol hagadol mechavero yitzro gadol mimenu - specifically apply to arayot. One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT self evident or even mefursamot Meir Shinnar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 11:10:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 20:10:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out Message-ID: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> In SA OH 272:1 the Mechabeir writes that one shouldn't use wine left out for kiddush (or any type of mitzvah adds the Aruch HaShulchan). The problem isn't gi'loi'im but the pasuk in Malachi 1:8 which teaches us not to use Grade B products for mitzvot. The assumption is that wine left out goes bad (or gets worse) and therefore it can't be used for qiddush. My question is what does one do if you thinking allowing wine to breath for hours improves the taste? That's been my experience for years. If I open a bottle Friday evening, the wine definitely tastes better Saturday morning. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 12:14:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 15:14:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> On 07/13/2015 02:10 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > In SA OH 272:1 the Mechabeir writes that one shouldn't use wine left out for kiddush (or any type of mitzvah adds the Aruch HaShulchan). The problem isn't gi'loi'im but the pasuk in Malachi 1:8 which teaches us not to use Grade B products for mitzvot. The assumption is that wine left out goes bad (or gets worse) and therefore it can't be used for qiddush. > > My question is what does one do if you thinking allowing wine to breath for hours improves the taste? That's been my experience for years. If I open a bottle Friday evening, the wine definitely tastes better Saturday morning. It depends what kind of wine. Some wines definitely improve with a few hours' breathing. The criterion is "hakriveihu no lefechasecho"; *would* you serve this to an honoured guest who is used to drinking quality wine? If it's a wine that needs the time to aerate then you certainly would, and in fact you wouldn't think of serving it to him *without* that time. OTOH this would preclude making kiddush at all on Manishewitz, no matter how "fresh" it is. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 20:18:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 05:18:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> Message-ID: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? Did they not know that allowing wine to breath improves the taste, at least for a decent red wine (which is the type of wine they think we should be drinking)? Ben On 7/13/2015 9:14 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > It depends what kind of wine. Some wines definitely improve with a > few hours' breathing. The criterion is "hakriveihu no lefechasecho"; > *would* you serve this to an honoured guest who is used to drinking > quality wine? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 19:34:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 22:34:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20150714023419.GA18963@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 05:18:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and : others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? Because Shapiro's wine is "So thick you could cut it with a knife" as that billboard we'd pass driving to Boro Park used to advertise. Whereas you're talkng about a finer wine as vitners and frenchmen measure. Different products with totally different definitions of what is "good". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 21:48:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:48:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55A4949B.8090308@sero.name> On 07/13/2015 11:18 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and > others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? > Did they not know that allowing wine to breath improves the taste, at > least for a decent red wine (which is the type of wine they think we > should be drinking)? First of all, most good wines shouldn't breathe for very long. Second, their wine was generally pretty awful by our standards; bad enough that it needed watering to make it palatable. They used wild yeast, they had no pasteurization, and it was all they could do to stop it all turning into vinegar. I wonder how much damage could exposure possibly do to wine that bad, but I seriously doubt it could improve it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 14:11:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 17:11:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Timely Notes for the Summer Message-ID: <20150714211025.9203118356A@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from an article by Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer, ZT"L, that appeared in the Mitteilungen, Vol. 2, June 1941 Timely Notes for the Summer Can the heat of summer be termed ?oppressive?? That is surely something that is individual. If we think of the terribly oppressive times a large number of our brethren are going through, we will gladly tolerate the discomforts of summer and rather bless our good fortune to be spared such pain. Many of our newly immigrated brothers and sisters are struggling with heavy economic burdens, and only the few can afford the much desired relaxing rest. We are pleased for those who can afford a vacation and expect that they will carefully select, as far as the trustworthiness of its kashrus, the place where they plan to spend their vacation. Obviously, they will not want to take a vacation from the ?yoke of the Law.? They want to return home, hale and hearty, and not with a feeling of unease for having risked their moral values in exchange for physical wellbeing. The heat of summer calls for changes in clothing and appearance. The conscientious Jew will carefully keep to certain limits, which he will not overstep. Our Divine Law cautions us to have a sense of shame, and that applies to summer as well. The Jewish custom ?according to the Talmud ?requires men and boys to cover their heads outdoors. God gave the first garment to man when he forfeited his special standing by disregarding the Will of God.Modest covering of his body is to be a steady reminder of the higher calling of man. Jewish men were given the adornment of tzitzis to admonish them to wear their clothes as proper Jews. Even in the summer heat, our requirements for covering can easily be heeded with lighter clothing. Comfort will not cause us to shirk our duty. A soldier?s helmet is uncomfortably heavy, but he wears it because it is required; God?s requirement should not be heeded? As for the Jewish woman, Jewish law requires her to cover her hair. The true Jewish woman will proudly do so, for it is a sign of her willingness to adhere to God?s Will as the guide in her life. A woman unworthy of this sign will have it removed forcibly by the priest (Bemidbar 5:18). Covering one?s hair is merely a sign if a woman does not conduct herself otherwise in the properly Jewish manner. Similarly, there are Jewish men who bear the Milah-sign on their bodies but sully their bodies in other ways. Not covering one?s hair is probably ? we are sorry to say ? a matter of ignorance, and perhaps such a Jewish woman was not brought up to understand the importance of covering her hair. Many women may carefully observe their Jewish duties in other areas, and we would so much like to adorn them with this special crown also. For the fact remains: covering of the hair for the Jewish woman is a must. The proud Jewish woman will conduct herself Jewishly in her clothing and in covering her hair. The word Tznius is a Jewish concept that is hard to translate exactly. It does not only denote a ?quietly humble way of living? (Michah 6:8), but everything else that our people has so valued and esteemed in their Jewish women at all times. ?quietly humble way of living? (Michah 6:8), but everything else that our people has so valued and esteemed in their Jewish women at all times. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 02:01:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 05:01:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Star-K on the Heter Mechira Message-ID: <20150715090047.2F7EB1824C9@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-shmitta-5775.htm Who Owns The Land? There is a difference of opinion among the poskim as to whether produce grown on land owned by a non-Jew living in the Land of Israel is considered produce of sheviis. The custom in Yerushalayim is not to consider it produce of sheviis, while the custom in Bnei Brak is to consider it produce of sheviis. Selling The Land: The Heter Mechira was formulated and instituted by many very prominent rabbanim (including the Gadol Hador, Harav Yitzchok Elchanan Spector) in the year 1887. There was a great deal of controversy among other prominent rabbanim surrounding the heter, the foremost of whom was the Netziv (Harav Naftoli Zvi Yehuda Berlin) of Volozin. Most of the controversy centered around the problem regarding the Torah prohibition of selling any part of the Land of Israel to non-Jews. Those who proposed the heter claimed that the situation in the Land of Israel was so precarious that not working the land for an entire year would put the entire Jewish settlement in danger, thus warranting this drastic measure. Others claimed that the prohibition of selling the land was worse than the prohibition of working the land. Since then, every Shmitta there have been rabbanim who have sold the land. Harav Avraham Yitzchok Kook institutionalized the sale (although he, too, agreed it was to be done only under grave duress). Since it's inception, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel has sold the land every Shmitta. However, there are presently many rabbanim who question whether the current situation in Israel warrants this type of sale. Furthermore, there is another more serious problem the consumer faces. The produce that is sold in the regular stores during the year of Shmitta predominantly comes from non-religious kibbutzim and moshavim, who would never agree to sell their land. This is compounded by the fact that the non-religious kibbutzim do not observe those prohibitions which Harav Kook instituted, and Harav Kook never permitted their current practices. Certainly, a tourist who is not knowledgeable concerning the dinim of Shmitta should buy produce only from stores that do not rely upon the heter mechira. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 03:18:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 06:18:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. Whether MZ is well known or not aside, even "kemaaseh Eretz Mitzrayim" (at least the male half of it) is described in the gemara as pretty well known -- it's on Ulla's list of 3 dinim of the 30 mitzvos Benei Noach (which rishonim map to subcategories of the usual 7) that Benei Noach generally observe -- "she'in kosevin kesuvah lezekharim". In any case, I will leave the Rambam as a tzarikh iyun that only affects the lives of those who agree with him that understanding theology and/or metaphysics is the perfection we strive for in life, above perfection of virtue. (Moreh, conclusion, worthy of its own thread.) For that matter, most of us also diagree with the Rambam on whether a person is judged by the level reached or by the distance covered. Without agreeing on either of those two points, it's likely one wouldn't agree with the Rambam's pesaq here. His view of the role of of bringing one's desire in line with a mitzvah will necessarily come from a different place. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 03:32:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 06:32:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Herzl In-Reply-To: <17e71f.7a1031b7.42d6e65d@aol.com> References: <17e71f.7a1031b7.42d6e65d@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150715103208.GD4654@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 06:25:33PM -0400, RnTK wrote on Areivim: : My comment was facetious -- a little dig at those MO who apparently do : believe that Herzl, Golda Meir and Ben Gurion were gedolim. R' AE Kaplan wrote very highly of Theodore Herzl. RAEK predeceased the accompilshments of the other two. To quote RYGB's translation (from BeIqvos haYir'ah pg 85): He [Herzl] did not teach us Torah... because he was never taught Torah... He taught us, rather, to say two words [four words in English] on occasions that until he came we had neither dared nor been able to utter: "I am a Jew [Ivri]!" We were always able to recite these words in the Beis Medrash next to our shtenders, we were even capable of reading and writing them... We could declare ourselves a nation in any place we wanted, except in that one place where the nations of the world were... to be found - in the international political arena. There we were seen as wandering sheep, like one Telzer (Yehuda Leib Gordon [22]) once put it: "Not a nation, not a congregation, rather a flock." Not like sheep that are petted and fed, but like those that are shorn or slaughtered. When a European ruler asked a Jew: "Who are you?" Would he respond simply: "I am a Jew" - without any qualifications or explanations? He would answer: I am a Jew - but also German, also French, also English, etc. Along came Herzl, the first from among us to reach that international political arena that serves as a world court, and responded, openly, freely, effortlessly and guilelessly: "I am a Jew." Moreover: "I was stolen from the land of the Jews [Eretz HaIvrim], and here I have done nothing, for they placed me in the pit" [Bereishis 40:15]. The Jewish nation is a nation unto itself, like all other nations, indeed, it is special, and it possesses a unique life force that sustains it... Do you not sense the hidden workings of divine providence? I know that just as the rejuvenation of Jewish national spirit had to come, so will finally come, in the unseen future, the rejuvenation of our Torah spirit... We do not see the paths, we do not see the footsteps, but I know... that I must strive toward this. And G-d who returns to Tziyon [Zion] will return us also to Torah MiTziyon... [23] [22] The most prominent Hebrew poet of the nineteenth century and a notorious Maskil, Gordon was generally known by his acronym, YaLaG, that, in a play on words, would be pronounced by Orthodox Jews as "yil'ag," the Hebrew word for "scoffer." [23] Besides his essays on Hashkafa, Reb Avraham Elya also left many "Reshimos," short notes on topics in Mussar, Machashava, and Avodas Hashem, some of which are beautiful vignettes of life lived in a Torah true and Mussar suffused way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 02:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 05:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Secular Studies: Are They for Everyone? Message-ID: <20150715092755.A05BB1824E7@nexus.stevens.edu> From the article by Rabbi Mordechai Willig at http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/%2FTU1_Willig.pdf Are secular studies permissible for everyone when they are necessary to provide for a livelihood? The answer is: for almost everyone. To summarize, then, for purpose of parnasah, secular studies are allowed for almost everyone. If it is not for parnasah, it is permissible, and sometimes even a mitzvah to learn various disciplines, providing that such study is considered of secondary importance, both in terms of time and value for, above all, Torah must always be the Ekir. Please see the above URL for the entire article. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 07:56:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:56:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Confronting sexual abuse in the Jewish community Message-ID: <> Can you give a place in shas or SA where the punishment of a crime accounts for the pain to the family If someone deserves the death penalty (there is no jail in halacha) as far as I know the bet din does not take into account that the family who are innocent will also be punished. If someone is sent to "ir miklat" the yeshiva goes with him, we don't remove the punishment because it affects the whole community -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:33:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian Message-ID: During a recent discussion with a friend the following two questions came up and I am curious what the fellows of Avodah think. 1) Can one count someone who denies the historicity of *matan torah* and *yetzias mitzrayim* but is other completely *shomer torah u-mitzvos* for a *minyan*? There is an halakhic category of *mumar l?hachis* who cannot count for a *minyan* according to many *poskim*. But that is on the assumption that they are violating *halakhah*. If they are not violating halakhah, can they be counted in a *minyan*? 2) Does one fulfill their shofer blowing from hearing the shofar be blown by someone denies the historicity of *matan torah* and *yetzias mitzrayim*? We assume that *mitzvos tzerichos kavvanah*. So this individual intends to fulfill the mitzvah of blowing the shofar on Rosh ha-Shanah. However, his conception of the nature of *mitzvos* and commandedness is extremely untraditional. Personally, I am inclined to include this individual in a minyan and assume that one fulfills the mitzvah of shofar with his blowing. But my conception of halakha flows from R. Dr. Walter Wurzburger?s *zy?a* belief that halakhah is a floor and not a ceiling. In other words, we do not make the bar for basic fulfillment of halakhah obligations higher if one could avoid it. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:32:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:32:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> References: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 6:18 AM Micha Berger wrote: > Lo zakhisi lehavin: > It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss > aren't mefursamot. > > Whether MZ is well known or not aside, even "kemaaseh Eretz Mitzrayim"... > In any case, I will leave the Rambam as a tzarikh iyun that only affects > the lives of those who agree with him that understanding theology and/or > metaphysics is the perfection we strive for in life, above perfection > of virtue. (Moreh, conclusion, worthy of its own thread.) ... You are assuming the shmona prakim see relevant only to those who fully accept Rambam's philosophy -- and that is a very unique position. I think shmona prakim is studied by those who would never open the moreh Rambam argues that a lust to steal or murder is a character flaw -- the should be overcome -- but a lust for hazir or arayot is not a character flaw -- although it too should be overcome. Why that is dependent on his notions of the ultimate good, effort versus achievement, or mitzvot bne noach I don't see -- nor do I think most others me that connection.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:55:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:55:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150715155517.GC31352@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 03:32:08PM +0000, Meir Shinnar wrote: : You are assuming the shmona prakim see relevant only to those who fully : accept Rambam's philosophy -- and that is a very unique position... Nah, I'm just surmising that the two may be linked. If your notion of redemption revolves around ideas and the thirst for knowledge, then developing something like like-vs-dislike is a different topic than if your notion of personal redemption is "sheyehei adir cheftzeinu leheitiv im zulaseinu... bedemus haBorei, keveyakhol." (Bonus points for the first person to identify the reference. ) So not that 8 Peraqim are only relevent to followers of the Rambam's point, just that this particular point, and perhaps a couple to a few others, may be of limited utility to the rest of us. (8 Peraqim, BTW, is one of my more heavily used resources when teaching for The Mussar Institute.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 12:49:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:49:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55A6B95E.6090302@starways.net> On 7/15/2015 10:33 AM, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: > 1)Can one count someone who denies the historicity of /matan > torah/ and /yetzias mitzrayim/ but is other completely /shomer > torah u-mitzvos/ for a /minyan/? I think there's a difference between someone who denies Matan Torah and someone who expresses doubts. The former, I'd treat no differently than someone who denies God, because for the purposes of Judaism, they're not separable. We asked our mesader kiddushin (years ago) what we should do about those family members who didn't believe in God. He said that if they'd openly denied God's existence, we could not give them sheva brachot, because we couldn't be yotzei on a bracha by someone who doesn't believe in God. He didn't say anything at all about observance. A lot of people focus on Rambam's ikkarim, and whether or not we're bound by them, but the concept of being kofer ba-ikkar predates Rambam by centuries. The existence of God and the historical fact of Matan Torah are, by any reasonable assessment, the most basic ikkarim of Judaism. Absent either of these, what's left isn't Judaism. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 19:47:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:47:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150716024705.GE13610@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:33:13AM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : 1) Can one count someone who denies the historicity of *matan torah* : and *yetzias mitzrayim* but is other completely *shomer torah u-mitzvos* : for a *minyan*? : : There is an halakhic category of *mumar l'hachis* who cannot count for a : *minyan* according to many *poskim*. But that is on the assumption that : they are violating *halakhah*. If they are not violating halakhah, can they : be counted in a *minyan*? I don't know if we hold like the Rambam, but Hil' Teshuvah ch. 3 is the only discussion of the categories of heresy I know of. A min is an atheist or polytheist, a trinitarian, etc... (3:7) An apiqoreis, the category in the title, is defined with a list of theological errors. It's someone who, like Epicurus, denies that Hashem runs the world. A Deist, someone who denies prophecy, or that He doesn't know man's actions. (3:8) Leshitaso, someone who doesn't believe in the historicity of Torah miSinai would be a kofer baTorah. (ibid) A mumar is a consistent sinner (ledavar achas, lekhol haTorah kulah), not a heretic. {3.9) Then the machti'ei rabbim (10), poreish midarkei hatzibur (11), moserim (12), and one who terrorizes the community -- not lehsim shamayim (13). That list -- 3 kinds of heretic and 5 kinds of sinners -- lose their olam haba, if they die without teshuvah (3:14). And then he says there are also smaller ones that still carry a similar price. Anyway, R' Aharon Soloveitchik held that "nebich an apiqoreis" (not using the term in the Rambam's technical sense) can be counted for a minyan. As long as his beliefs include those ideas that make tefillah meaningful. So a min couldn't, nor an apiqoreis who believes G-d doesn't know every little thing going on down here. (This was a common idea among Artistotilian, although obviosuly not among ours. Since facts change with time, and the Creator does not, how could the Creator know such facts? Would that mean His knowledge changes?) But a tinoq shenishba (by which RAL intentionally includes Jews not raised O) who doesn't believe in Sinai, but does believe that there is One G-d Who Listens to prayer and is Mashgiach, should be countable. Not because their heresy makes them heretics and thus michutz lamachaneh. But because they are incapable of prayer. RAS didn't discuss the person who isn't a tinoq shenishba, but also not a rebal. Someone who grew up in a Torah setting, but in his studies reached the wrong conclusion. The Tashbetz and the Radbaz (eearly 16th cent CE, not the Ridbaz who wrote on the Y-mi) famously hold that such people are not heetics even if they believe heresy. (As least on the list list it's famous, anyeay.) I just can't assume RAS agrees without proof. RAL also doesn't discuss a Deist who believes G-d Hears prayers, but won't act any differently. Can he make a brikhas hoda'ah, but not a baqashah? Since prayer is not al menas leqabel peras, do we even make baqashos for the sake of gettin a "yes", or just to have a moment with Him talking about what is bothering you? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 16 07:01:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:01:37 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Confronting sexual abuse in the Jewish community Message-ID: <20150716.100137.31633.0@webmail13.vgs.untd.com> I wrote on Areivim: > Of course it is important to protect future victims, but that is > not the only consideration here. What about the fallout to the > family of the victim, to the family of the perpetrator, and to > the community as a whole? (For those who have not been following on Areivim: Personally, I am all in favor of protecting the victims, but I know that my opinions might be heavily influenced by the society in which I live. My suggestion is that our chachamim are the only ones qualified to decide on any particular case, whether it might be better to whitewash an incident, so that the family and/or community are not hurt by the publicity.) R' Eli Turkel responded here on Avodah: > Can you give a place in shas or SA where the punishment of a > crime accounts for the pain to the family > If someone deserves the death penalty (there is no jail in > halacha) as far as I know the bet din does not take into > account that the family who are innocent will also be > punished. > If someone is sent to "ir miklat" the yeshiva goes with him, > we don't remove the punishment because it affects the whole > community These are excellent points. But then I must ask: Haven't there been times and situations when legitimate gedolim have paskened to hush things up because of other considerations? Would someone say that all such cases come from gedolim whose outlook is NOT Torah-based? I wish I could cite specific examples for discussion. Unfortunately, my knowledge of such things is far too limited. But surely this attitude must have come from somewhere, and did not materialize from nothingness. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett???s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren???t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55a7b984d1f883984538est04vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 18 13:49:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 22:49:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on Exercise Message-ID: <55AABBF3.2070100@zahav.net.il> Rav Kook's opinion about exercise and sport had been brought up here before. I quoted him as saying that physical activity helps the tzaddikim in their avodah. In the class I go to on Orot, we discussed the following piece by R Kook, which goes way further than that. Keep in mind that this was written before there was an IDF, so he isn't talking about any sort of physical protection. Orot, Orot Hatechiya, 34: Exercise, (which young Israel is getting involved in, in Eretz Yisrael, to strengthen their bodies in order to be vigorous for the nation), improves the spiritual strength of the greatest tzaddikim, those who involve themselves in "the unification of God's names" (my translation of a phrase which I admit I don't get), and increases the transmission of God's light in the world, because there is no revelation at all of light without all components being present. Turns out that (according to Rav Kook) not only does Talmud Torah increase the merits to the army/state/people, but just having people trying to be healthy, active, in shape, improves Talmud Torah, as long as both sides are doing this for the nation. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 18 17:09:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 03:09:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tefach Thick Soft Spongy Matza Message-ID: Many mistakenly think that we now have an accepted Halachic tradition, recorded in the Shulchan Aruch [460:5] to no longer bake Tefach thick Matza [10 - 12 cm] as in Talmudic times. This is untrue. The ShAruch records that Tefach thick Matza must not be Pesach. There is no problem whatsoever to produce such Matza Pesach and eat them during Pesach. The reason for this is quite simple; if one makes Chamets during Pesach, no matter that it was unintentional, one has transgressed the very serious violation of having Chamets - Bal YeRaEh and Bal YeMaTzeh. When making Tefach thick Matza the risk of inadvertently making Chamets because some dough in the Matza will remain unbaked, is [became] intolerable. However, baking the same thickness Matza before Pesach poses no concern. If it is Chamets, as can be discerned by tearing the Matza and checking for doughy stringy threads, then either eat it before Pesach or get rid of it. Whatever is fully baked however, is fine for Pesach. Compare the Mechabers expression, Seif 4 and 5, not to make images on the Matza; and not to make thick Matza - it is not done - ??? ?????; to his expression Seif 6, not to make dough filled with meat and veg - one ought not be lenient - ??? ????. One ought not be lenient - ??? ???? sounds more strict, as is supported by the MBerurah [18] suggesting that it is prohibited even after the fact, - whereas it is not done - ??? ????? implies it should not be done but after the fact, if it not Chamets it is Kosher and may be eaten during Pesach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 17 07:19:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 10:19:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Guten Chodesh (Though sad, still hope...) Message-ID: <0F8B8D71-82A7-4DB7-AFF4-740FDDA46D37@cox.net> The gematria for ?Rosh Chodesh" is 813. (reish:200, aleph:1, shin:300; ches:8, dalet:4, shin:300 ? Total=813) In the whole of tanach there is only one verse with the gematria of 813 which occurs in B?reishis, Chapter 1, verse 3: ?Vayomer Elohim ohr; vay?hi ohr? ?And God said: Let there be light and there was light.? May our mourning be turned into dancing (Ps.30:12) and may we live to see the light. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 00:55:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 10:55:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: heter mechira In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <> There are many inaccuracies in their statement and much is outdated. "The produce that is sold in the regular stores during the year of Shmitta predominantly comes from non-religious kibbutzim and moshavim, who would never agree to sell their land. " I have no idea what this statement means. They in fact do sell their land. The current situation in Israel is that the chief rabbinate sends people to each of these kibbutzim etc to explain to them what the heter mechira means and what are the other options. No one is forced to participate. "However, there are presently many rabbanim who question whether the current situation in Israel warrants this type of sale" The figures I have heard is that 85% of Israeli produce is exported (mainly to Europe). Without the heter mechira one would have to close down almost the entire agricultural development in Israel. In addition one is forbidden to sell produce with kedushat sheviit to nonJews. That would mean having guards at supermarkets checking that only Jews buy the produce "This is compounded by the fact that the non-religious kibbutzim do not observe those prohibitions which Harav Kook instituted, and Harav Kook never permitted their current practices." The current chief rabbinate tries to enforce whatever Rav Kook instituted. In fact most agricultural workers in Israel regardless of shemita are Arabs. -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 18:33:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:33:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish with mixed seating In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720013343.GC4548@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 03:08:58PM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : Interestingly enough the Gemara in Succos brings a "proof" for separation : of men and women from a non-"Davar She'bekedushah" the funeral in : Zecharyah. The other example is Simchas Beis haSho'eivah. Notice that one is extreme joy, and the other extreme sadness. Neither was tefillah betzibbur. Should the fact that chazal thought it was natural to apply these precedents to tefillah be taken to mean that -- "thanks to my knees for bowing at modim" aside -- Chazal found such extremes of emotion common during davening? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 18:57:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:57:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150720015718.GD4548@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 01:14:59AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : Well, I guess my original post should have had a longer introduction. I : know that Kaddish Tiskabel has a very clear rule, namely that it : follows every Amidah, and the only exception is that it also follows : Selichos. Kaddish D'rabanan always follows group learning (though I've : never figured out exactly what learning counts and what doesn't). Qaddish Tisqabel is said after zelosehon (the Amidah) uVa'us-hon (tachanun or selichos. That the request that they be accepted. : And now I'm trying to figure out the rule for Kaddish Yasom. It SEEMS : to be a sort of "congregational prayer", where "prayer" is something : *other* than the Amidah, but I can't define it any more precisely than : that. For a long time I thought it was connected to Tehillim, but when : I noticed it after the megilos on Yom Tov, someone suggested that it's : not specifically Sefer Tehillim, but *any* part of Kesuvim, not that we : had any idea why Kesuvim would get this distinction over Neviim or Torah. Accordng to R' de Sola Pool's monograph "Kaddish", Qaddish originated as being post-derashah -- the role Qaddish deRabbanan still serves. So perhaps non-concidentally, the format for sermons through the geonic era was to start with a pasuq from one of the sidrei EMa"S (Iyov, Mishlei, Tefillim) and wrap up by applying the resulting an idea to a pasuq from he sedra. ... : I have to admit that a big part of my asking this question is a pet : peeve that I've been nursing, regarding Kiddush Levana in particular. It : seems to me that Kiddush Levana -- the way it is done in just about : every situation I've ever seen -- cannot be called a Tefilas Tzibur in : any sense. It is a group of yechidim who happen to be saying the same : thing, but in a totally disorganized fashion... Perhaps that's it exactly. Like "Shalom Aleikhem", we make a cpoint of socially unifying those yechidim as part of qiddush levanah. Perhaps not in the sense of tefillah betzibbur or tefillas hatzibur, but then, neither is a shiur. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 09:45:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:45:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reciting a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time In-Reply-To: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> References: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> Message-ID: <20150720164528.GA10632@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:53:34AM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : http://tinyurl.com/o6rxcdf : according to those that say you do NOT recite a shehechiyanu when performing : a mitzvah for the first time (ie bar mitzvah), Who are they? All I know of is the Chasam Sofer (OC 55) -- well I guess I also know of the Peri To'ar, his maqor -- who says that the berakhah when putting on tefillin on one's bar mitzvah is supposed to be made with all the rest of the mitzvos in mind. The Radvaz says a ger says shehechiyanu when they emerge from the miqvah. I am less clear when a girl becoming a bas mitzvah would make her shechiyanu. The Ben Ish Chai says the girl should have in mind ol mitzvos when making shehechiyanu on her celebratory dress. Paralleling what we do by eating a new fruit on the 2nd evening of RH. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 09:51:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefach Thick Soft Spongy Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720165119.GB10632@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 03:09:13AM +0300, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Many mistakenly think that we now have an accepted Halachic tradition, : recorded in the Shulchan Aruch [460:5] to no longer bake Tefach thick Matza : [10 - 12 cm] as in Talmudic times. This is untrue... Unless we are holding like the "veyeish la'asos" in the Rama se'if 4. Neither the se'if nor the explanation "ki ein hareqiqin memaharin lehachmitz" make a distinction about when the matzah was made. -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:19:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on Exercise In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720211930.2A235182421@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:53 PM 7/20/2015, R. Ben Waxman wrote: >Orot, Orot Hatechiya, 34: > >Exercise, (which young Israel is getting involved in, in Eretz Yisrael, >to strengthen their bodies in order to be vigorous for the nation), >improves the spiritual strength of the greatest tzaddikim, those who >involve themselves in "the unification of God's names" (my translation >of a phrase which I admit I don't get), and increases the transmission >of God's light in the world, because there is no revelation at all of >light without all components being present. > >Turns out that (according to Rav Kook) not only does Talmud Torah >increase the merits to the army/state/people, but just having people >trying to be healthy, active, in shape, improves Talmud Torah, as long >as both sides are doing this for the nation. See "Exercise, Torah Learning and the Chofetz Chaim" http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/exercise_torah_cc_v2.pdf Reb Yaakov Kamenetsky was an avid swimmer all of his life. I recall when he came to Monroe to spend a Shabbos with his son Avraham. He was in his 80s I believe. Well, he put on his bathing suit, a robe and went to the pool. He then proceeded to jump into the pool and swim laps. This spread like wildfire in the 3 colonies in Monroe. People could not stop talking about it. It eventually got back to Reb Yaakov who quipped, "I wish they are as excited about my learning as they are about my swimming!" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 15:03:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> Re: Micha's questioning kadish yasom(KY) after kidush levana, the Vilna Gaon has a shortened version(doesn't he always?) that starts with the bracha and ends with siman tov. There is no Aleinu, hence no KY. He also holds that "sh'ain l'harbos b'k'dashim shelo l'tzorech, hence,there is only once KY per tefila. After the Yom by shachris and after Aleinu by mincha & maariv. Minhag Ashkenaz is not to say kadish d'rabonan during/after tefila but only after limud agada. The chasidim adopted the custom of saying it from the Seforadim and that's how it entered their ritual. I remember davening once at the Boro Park nusach HaGra k'vosikin minyan way back and was struck by the number of KYs that were said. The gabbai's answer was that it was too difficult to stop the "kadish zogers" from having their way. B"H, at our Flatbush Nusach HaGra k'vosikin minyan (Young Israel of Ave K, East 29th and K) under Rav Aryeh Ralbag guidance, we are have not had to compromise the Nusach HaGra way of davening. Shachris is 45 minutes before HaNetz every shabos and YT. -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com http://www.schnurassociates.com/joels-corner/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 15:46:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:46:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> References: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> Message-ID: <20150720224608.GB21161@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 06:03:46PM -0400, Joel Schnur via Avodah wrote: : I remember davening once at the Boro Park nusach HaGra k'vosikin : minyan way back and was struck by the number of KYs that were said. : The gabbai's answer was that it was too difficult to stop the : "kadish zogers" from having their way... REMT said something that makes me wonder... He suggested that our (non-Yekke) current practice of every avel saying qaddish is to make it condusive for aveilim to feel they're discharging their duty. Many men first started attending minyan regularly during aveileus and kept on doing so for the rest of their lives. Do you really want to discourage that with "Ah, why bother, I probably wouldn't get a turn this time anyway!"? A similar argument would change the priorities the Gra assumes about making extraneous opportunities for Qaddish. The AhS OC 55:4 gives this explanation for the creation of a 2nd opportunity for Qaddish Yasom at the end of Shacharis. He also writes that the Qadmonim only said 7 qaddeisim a day: Shacharis, after each of Yishtabach, Tachanun and UVa leTzion Minchah, after Ashrei and Tachanuun, and Arvis -- before and after Shemoneh Esrei. He quotes the Roqeiach invoking the pasuq "sheva bayom haleltikha" to explain that 7 was an intentional, significant, number. The AhS continues that three more were added when Aleinu was appended to the end of each tefillah. For the sake of yesomim who didn't get the amud. And significance was found for that, by reading Tzadi"q as an acronym, and each letter a gematria. Each day a tzadiq would say 90 times amein, (tzadi) 4 qedushos, (dalet) 10 qadeihim, and (yud) 100 berakhos (quf). (Citing the NMA.) Then he discusses leining adding one. "Veyoseir ein maqom laqadeishim", and still we added after Shir shel Yom because there were more yesomim, but more than that -- the AhS does not permit. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot RMB responded: Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. ============= My two cents: Adultery (eishis ish) is technically taking from another man that which belongs exclusively to him. So that itself puts it within the category of issurim that are mefursamos. The Rambam (MN 2:49) describes all sexuality as something that even when natural, should be limited. Homosexuality and bestiality, however, he describes as obvious deviations from the natural order that should be abhorred. I think that would place these two activities, as well, in the mefursamos category. The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely forbidden. Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: MN 3:49 As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure alone be eschewed. All illicit unions with females have one thing in common: namely, that in the majority of cases these females are constantly in the company of the male in his house, and that they are easy of access for him, and can be easily controlled by him - there being no difficulty in making them come into his presence; and no judge could blame the male I for their being with him. Consequently if the status of the women with whom union is illicit were that of any unmarried woman, I mean to say that if it were possible to marry them and that the prohibition with regard to them were only due to their not being the man's wives, most people would have constantly succumbed and fornicated with them. However, as it is absolutely forbidden to have intercourse with them, the strongest deterrents making us avoid this - I mean by this a sentence of death by order of a court of law and the threat of being cut off--so that there is no way to have intercourse with these women, men are safe from seeking to approach them and their thoughts are turned away from them. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot RMB responded: > Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate > family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. My two cents: Adultery (eishis ish) should be categorized under issurim mefursomos simply on the basis that it involves taking lves taking liberties with another man's wife, an intimacy that belongs to the husband. A form of theft! So that itself puts it within the category of issurim that are mefursamos. The Rambam (MN 2:49) describes all sexuality as something that even when natural, should be limited. Homosexuality and bestiality, however, he describes as obvious deviations from the natural order that should be abhorred. I think that would place these two activities, as well, in the mefursamos category. The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely forbidden. Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: MN 3:49 As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure alone be eschewed. All illicit unions with females have one thing in common: namely, that in the majority of cases these females are constantly in the company of the male in his house, and that they are easy of access for him, and can be easily controlled by him - there being no difficulty in making them come into his presence; and no judge could blame the male I for their being with him. Consequently if the status of the women with whom union is illicit were that of any unmarried woman, I mean to say that if it were possible to marry them and that the prohibition with regard to them were only due to their not being the man's wives, most people would have constantly succumbed and fornicated with them. However, as it is absolutely forbidden to have intercourse with them, the strongest deterrents making us avoid this - I mean by this a sentence of death by order of a court of law and the threat of being cut off--so that there is no way to have intercourse with these women, men are safe from seeking to approach them and their thoughts are turned away from them. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 16:02:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:02:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: (Sorry for approving both versions of that post! It was a quick typo in what was until-then going so smoothly! -micha) On 2015-07-20 5:34 pm, RZ Lampel wrote: > RMB responded: "Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest > within > the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot." > Adultery (eishis ish) is technically taking from another man that > which > belongs exclusively to him. So that itself puts it within the > category of > issurim that are mefursamos. > The Rambam (MN 2:49) ... Yes. But our problem is with Shemoneh Peraqim, where the Rambam distinguishes between mitzvos mefusamot, for which a person should develop a desire that is in line with the mitzvah (or a distaste in line with the issur), and other mitzvos where one should simply refrain out of submission to ol mitzvos. And among his mitzvos which are NOT mefursamos are arayos. R/Dr Meir Shinnar writes: > he specifically applies that > to > arayot - and needs to apply it to arayot, because the sugyot that > deal with > kol hagadol mechavero yitzro gadol mimenu - specifically apply to > arayot. > One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all > dine > arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not > sure > on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are > NOT > self evident or even mefursamot So regardless of how he categorizes them in the Moreh, the chiluq the Rambam makes in 8P requires our considering these issurim to not be self-evident. (Which I still don't get.) -micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 20:09:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 23:09:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah REMT said something that makes me wonder... He suggested that our (non-Yekke) current practice of every avel saying qaddish is to make it condusive for aveilim to feel they're discharging their duty. Micha Berger >>>> You are mainly talking about adults saying kaddish, but I remember one tragic year when there were seven yesomim under bar mitzva age saying kaddish, from three different families. Two families had lost their mothers, one family their father. Who was going to tell these children, who came to shul faithfully every day, sometimes getting to school late or skipping outings with their friends, "You can't say kaddish for your Ima or your Abba today, someone else has kadima"? Correct me if I am mistaken but my impression is that kaddish yasom is really mainly for genuine yesomim, i.e., those who lose their parents while they are still children. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 23:56:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:56:00 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Dr Shapiro's book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I found the most disturbing part of Dr Shapiro's book the last chapter. This is a halachid discussion of lying. My conclusion from this is that lying is perfectly permissible if there is a good reason. Basically the ends justifies the means. We are not talking about white lies as praising the bride for her beauty. In particular it is permissible to quote a psak from a gadol even though he never said it as long as you are sure that it is correct and he probably would have said it. There is no problem with making up stories about a gadol as long as the intention is to either glorify the gadol or else show why some idea is important. He claims that there are groups that actively make up stories about CI. The Chatam Sofer says that in order to prevent sins one can make the problem appear to be more serious than it really is such as turning a rabbinic prohibition into a biblical one. The problem with false attribution (besides the seemingly moral one) is that the result one cannot believe anything that is not written by the gadol himself. One never knows if the citation of the gadol was deliberately changed, However as seen in the rest of the book even the written words of the author are not always authoritative as in many cases they are tampered with to protect some "higher interest". Even the SA has been tampered with for this purpose. One can lie in order to avoid embarrassment to oneself. R Papa seems to have issued an incorrect halacha to avoid shame. A poor man can make believe he is blind or crippled in order to get more charity. One can claim that the monet is going for a poor bride when in fact it will be used for some other charity. Finally there is the heter of mental reservation or reinterpreting ones words made famous by the story of Yaakov "lying" To Isaac that he is Esav. Shapiro gives the example of Clinton making all sorts of "false" statements about Lewinsky and later justified it by saying that his words had another meaning than what people thought. Note this is sometimes permitted even in monetary cases. As stated about one can lie for educational purposes "Noble Lie" of Plato. Rav Dessler defines "truth" as the value that gives a positive result and is independent of observation and evidence. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 19:10:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 21:10:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: > Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: > MN 3:49 > As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are > directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling > disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The > reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against > intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is > natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more > should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure > alone be eschewed. So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 21:55:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:55:23 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9105E0A4-E59B-4E23-ADAA-7FCACD74F424@gmail.com> This is tangentially related only, but may be of interest in the context. I asked Rav Hershel Schachter, Shlita, what to do if someone who acts as a functionary at a Shira Chadasha (partnership) style service wants to do likewise in a mainstream Orthodox Congregation. His answer was, that such a person can be counted towards a Minyan, but no Kibbudim should be afforded to them. We have one here in Melbourne, which isn't like the one in Israel, but the strong word is that one of Rabbi Avi Weiss's Maharatos (Rabba/Rabbis) will be hired to lead that congregation. She was recently interviewed and claimed she was non denominational because she wanted to break down boundaries. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 03:08:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:08:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] thick matza Message-ID: For those interested a thorough discussion on thick matazot see the article of Ari Zivotofsky in Hakirah www.hakirah.org/Vol17Zivotofsky.pdf -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 06:54:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 06:54:49 -- 0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> Message-ID: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> On 7/20/2015 7:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > ... our problem is with Shemoneh Peraqim, where the Rambam distinguishes > between mitzvos mefusamot, for which a person should develop a desire > that is in line with the mitzvah (or a distaste in line with the issur), > and other mitzvos where one should simply refrain out of submission to > ol mitzvos. > And among his mitzvos which are NOT mefursamos are arayos....the chiluq > the Rambam makes in 8P requires our considering these issurim to not > be self-evident. And that's precisely what I addressed in my 3rd paragraph. After citing the Moreh Nevuchim's description of homosexuality and bestiality as obviously deviant practices (i.e. mefursamos), I cited its description of arayos (outside of eishis ish) as being not mefursomos, but issurim Hashem instituted as a preventative, a gedder, against unrestrained licentiousness in a situation (viz. family) where the temptation for it would otherwise be too hard to control. To repeat what I wrote: >> The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and >> commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because >> allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than >> his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would >> lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest >> intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, >> it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound >> to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely >> forbidden." Perhaps the mention of "commanded that it, too, be considered >> abhorrent" causes confusion. This would seem to put incest back into >> the category of mefursomos, along with murder and stealing, etc., about >> which a normal person is expected to harbor revulsion. So Rambam would be >> self-contradicting. But the elephant in the room is that the Torah itself >> commands us to treat eating non-kosher creatures with disgust. So how >> can Chazal tell us the right attitude is "efshi"? Evidently, Chazal and, >> naturally, Rambam, do not consider "efshi" to be at odds with "shekketz >> yih'yu lachem/teshak'tsu."My surmise is that they understand the Torah's >> command to treat with disgust the eating of non-kosher creatures and >> other acts that are not intrinsically objectionable (such as, per Rambam, >> incest, vs. murder, stealing, homosexuality and bestiality), as an imposed >> artificial behavior/attitude for these non-mefusamos issurim. Regarding >> your definition of issurim mefursamim, the Shemoneh Perakim does not >> say a tsaddik should /develop/ a revulsion, but that such revulsion is >> natural in born in all people. The tsaddik retains these feelings and >> does not allow them to be tainted. [Email #2.] On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: >> MN 3:49 >> As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are >> directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling >> disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom... On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and > should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of > Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what > possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 07:36:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:36:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Dr Shapiro's book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AE5907.7010503@optimum.net> RET: << A poor man can make believe he is blind or crippled in order to get more charity. >> How does this fit with Peah 8:9? Which book are we talking about? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 17:48:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 20:48:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> Message-ID: <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> I think one has to be careful, as I find it difficult to reconcile the position of the MN and that of the SP, and think they represent two distinct aspects (?stages) in the rambam Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions I) in hazal -- that continued desire for some forbidden actions is compatible with a high spiritual state -- issue is control of the desire -- NOT its presence II) Aristotelian ethics -- a high spiritual state does not desire for forbidden -- the desire is a sign of a flaw. SP resolves by differentiating between mefursamot -- whose desire is problematic and a flaw -- and religious law -- where desire is not a flaw -- and applies this specifically to arayot -- as examples in Talmud of Rabbanit with desire are of arayot, It is difficult for me to reconcile this position with the MN -- if our proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is " to instil disgust" -- how can desire still remaining not be a flaw???? In the MN, there is a conceptual framework to distinguish homosexuality and bestiality from regular sexuality -- but they are ALL viewed as things that should repulse us -- just some more than others. It is by no means clear that this framework and distinction can be read into the SP, and would think that One would need good evidence .hat it does not include ALL arayot... Meir Shinnar > It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah > attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress > during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan > Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a > marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. > Zvi Lampel > On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and >> should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of >> Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what >> possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? >> On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: >>> Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: >>> MN 3:49 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 08:06:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:06:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Message-ID: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why ? What changed in the afternoon? (especially since some pple fast both the 9th and 10th( Mordechai cohen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 06:18:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:18:26 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150722.091826.10442.1@webmail10.vgs.untd.com> The Moreh Nevuchim was quoted: > As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are > directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling > disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. R"n Lisa Liel wrote what I had wanted to write: > So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty > and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something > out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, > but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? R' Zvi Lampel answered: > It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah > attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt > duress during the marital process (you can find this in the > Kitzur Shulchan Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the > Rambam when it comes to a marital setting. I was taught we hold > like the Ramban. My guess is that you're referring to R' Eliezer from Nedarim 20b, referenced at the end of Kitzur 150:1. But from what I have seen, not for nothing is it called "Kitzur Shulchan Aruch", because this seems to be the attitude of all the standard poskim. The Kitzur is not a standalone machmir here; from what I can tell, he's merely quoting the Mechaber in Orach Chayim 240:8. Mishneh Brurah 240:35 (who refers us to Magen Avraham 240:21), Aruch Hashulchan 240:14, and Kaf Hachaim 240:59 all seem to advocate a strong reluctance towards intercourse, which is not quite as extreme as the Rambam's "disgust", but that might merely reflect their choice of words. For purposes of Talmud Torah, where is this Ramban who "strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting"? And for purposes of Halacha, which Acharonim hold like the Ramban, over the Mechaber, KSA, MB, and KH? (I recall hearing that the Siddur HaYaavetz might be the answer here, but there seem to be several different versions. If anyone can post a link to a specific version on SeforimOnline or HebrewBooks.org, and a page citation, I'd appreciate that very much.) Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett?s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren?t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55af9846b9a261846362est02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 07:13:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:13:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel asked: "The idea that sex is something dirty and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude?" See the Gemara in Nedarim (20a) about kafuhu shed. Also see RAL's article OF MARRIAGE: RELATIONSHIP AND RELATIONS ( http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf ) where he discusses this question and brings many of the sources. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:25:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:25:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 06:54:49AM +0000, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: :> So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and :> should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of :> Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what :> possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? : It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah : attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress : during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan : Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to : a marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. But the most famous Ramban does speak of perushim tihyu and how perishus is the key to holiness. (R' Shimon Shkop explains the Ramban as saying it is a primary means to hoiness, because "qedoshim tihyu qi Qadosh Ani" would be absurd if referring to Hashem practicing perishus. What temptations would He need to avoid?) And his first example is yema'eit bemishgal, like (Berakhos 22) "that TC not be found by their wives like roosters" and that tashmish should be limited to "kefi hatzeikh beqiyum hamitzvah mimenu". I presume, in an unXian sense, the Rambam refers to onah, not "only" piryah verivyah. Perishus and neqi'us come up a lot in lower-case-m mussar literature, even among anti-Maimonidians like Rabbeinu Yonah. To quote Mesilas Yesharim ch 13 (tr. from http://www.shechem.org/torah/mesyesh/13.htm I think it's the old Feldheim ed, by R' Shraga Simmons): There is no question as to the permissibility of cohabitation with one's wife, but still, ablutions were instituted for those who had had seminal emissions, so that Scholars should not be steadily with their wives, like roosters. Even though the act itself is permissible it implants in a person a lust for it which might draw him on to what is forbidden; as our Sages of blessed memory have said (Sukkah 526), "There is a small organ in a man which, when it is satiated, hungers and which, when it is made to hunger, is sated." And they said about R. Eleazar (Nedarim 20b) that even in the proper hour and the correct time he would expose a handbreadth and conceal two hand-breadths and imagine that a demon was compelling him, in order to cancel out the feeling of pleasure. And ch. 14: THERE ARE THREE principal divisions of Separation, involving pleasures, laws, and conduct respectively. Separation in relation to pleasures, which we spoke of in the previous chapter, consists in one's taking from the world only what is essential to him. This type of Separation encompasses anything which provides pleasure to any one of the senses, whether the pleasure be gained through food, cohabitation, clothing, strolls, conversation or similar means, exceptions obtaining only at such times when deriving pleasure through these means is a mitzvah. Separation in relation to laws ... Separation in relation to conduct ... Which also limits marital intimacy to what is necessary to fulfill piryah verivyah and onah. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:36:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:36:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55AFD49B.4070904@gmail.com> On 7/21/2015 8:48 PM, Meir Shinnar wrote: > Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions > I) in hazal - that continued desire for some forbidden actions is > compatible with a high spiritual state - issue is control of the > desire - NOT its presence > I) Aristotelian ethics - a high spiritual state does not desire for > forbidden - the desire is a sign of a flaw. > SP resolves by differentiating between mefursamot - whose desire is > problematic and a flaw - and religious law - where desire is not a > flaw - and applies this specifically to arayot - as examples in Talmud > of Rabbanit with desire are of arayot, > It is difficult for me to reconcile this position with the MN - if our > proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is " to instil > disgust" - how can desire still remaining not be a flaw???? > In the MN, there is a conceptual framework to distinguish > homosexuality and bestiality from regular sexuality - but they are ALL > viewed as things that should repulse us - just some more than others. > It is by no means clear that this framework and distinction can be > read into the SP, and would think that One would need good evidence > that it does not include ALL arayot... The Moreh Nevuchim III:35 explicitly states that his view about this matter is the same as his view in Shemoneh Perakim: The fourteenth class comprises the commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain sexual unions. They are those that we have enumerated in the Book of Women [/Sepher Nashim/] and in Laws concerning Prohibited Sexual Relations [/Hilkhoth Issurei Bi'ah/. The interbreeding of beasts belongs to this class. The purpose of this ... is to bring about a decrease of sexual intercourse and to diminish the desire for mating as far as possible, so that it should not be taken as an end, as is done by the ignorant, *according to what we have explained in the Commentary on the Tractate Aboth.* (All commentators agree this is a reference to the introduction to the commentary, the Shemoneh Perakim, just as the Moreh stated regarding the thirteenth class.) Your kushya is good: if [as per MN] our proper relationship to even permitted sexualityis "to instill disgust" - how can desire still remaining not be a flaw [as per ShP]???? But I think the solution I offered is reasonable. To wit: What do you do with the elephant in the room I mentioned? The Torah commands /t'shaktsu/ concerning the eating of non-kosher creatures (which is certainly as much in the category of non-mefursomos as bassar b'chalav and arayos); yet Chazal (and naturally, then, Rambam) say that when it comes to basar b'chalav, etc., one should have the attitude of "I have the desire to do it, but Hashem prohibited me.'' I offered one answer to both questions: When Rambam says that Hashem wants to instill in us disgust for the act, and the Torah (as per Chazal) says "t'shakstu,'' they mean that despite the fact that we should not deny or seek to eradicate the physical inclination for such pleasures, we must maintain an aversion to succumbing to it except for limited situations. (And the purpose of that is to keep us from doing it in excess, which is the real flaw.) *So although as per MN,] our proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is to instill a reluctance except for limited occasions (such as in a marriage setting), the desire still remaining is not a flaw [as per ShP] to be eradicated.* "I have the desire to do it [even outside of marriage, and I will not eradicate the sexual desire from myself,] but [live with it and constrain it outside of marriage,] because Hashem commanded me so [and this will bring me to perfection]. So, a word about the Moreh's wording. Pines translates: "As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. ... the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity." Friedlander translates: " we ought to limit sexual intercourse altogether, hold it in *contempt,* and only desire it very rarely." Ibn Tibbon translates "ha-arayos, ha-inyan b'kulam shahv l'ma-eit ha-mishgal *v'lim'os* bo, v'shello yirtseh mimennu ki im m'aht mi-za-ir...sheh-inyan ha-tiv'i *nim-ahs* l'hay-a-sos rak l'tsorech." I suspect from the context (lim'os/disgust/contempt, *except for limited occasions*) that the Rambam's original Arabic, not to mention his intention, is closer on the scale to the idea of avoidance for the sake of gaining perfection, than to disgust and contempt. Basically, it translates to what I believe is in fact our common attitude regarding these things. To put things in perspective, note that immediately before this section, the Rambam, following the same attitude of engaging in unrestrained physical pleasures being an obstacle to personal perfection, writes similarly about the activity of eating, again equating what he writes in the Moreh to what he wrote in Shemoneh Perakim: The thirteenth class comprises the commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain foods and what is connected therewith. These are the commandments that we have enumerated in the Laws concerning Forbidden Foods [/Hilkhoth Ma-akholoth Asuroth/]. The [commandments concerning] vows and the state of the Nazarites belong to this class. The purpose of all this is, *as we have explained in the Commentary on the Mishnah in the introduction to Aboth,* to put an end to the lusts and licentiousness manifested in seeking what is most pleasurable and to taking the desire for food and drink as an end. [Email #2. -micha] On 7/22/2015 1:25 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > But the most famous Ramban does speak of perushim tihyu and how perishus > is the key to holiness. ...And his first example is yema'eit > bemishgal... > I presume, in an unXian sense, the Rambam refers to onah, not "only" > piryah verivyah. > Perishus and neqi'us come up a lot in lower-case-m mussar literature, even > among anti-Maimonidians like Rabbeinu Yonah. To quote Mesilas Yesharim ch 13 > ..." And they said about > R. Eleazar (Nedarim 20b) that even in the proper hour and the correct > time he would expose a handbreadth and conceal two hand-breadths and > imagine that a demon was compelling him, in order to cancel out the > feeling of pleasure. > And ch. 14: ... > Separation in relation to pleasures, which we spoke of in the > previous chapter, consists in one's taking from the world only what > is essential to him. > Which also limits marital intimacy to what is necessary to fulfill piryah > verivyah and onah. Which, as I was contemplating to write, shows that the Ramban and Rambam (and as you have pointed out, mainstream Jewish thought) all share the same basic nuanced attitude--despite the Ramban's opposition to the Rambam's presentation. Thanks for the sources. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:00:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:00:43 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> References: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:06 AM, M Cohen via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after > chatzos on Tbav > > Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc > > Why ? > > What changed in the afternoon? (especially since some pple fast both the 9 > th and 10th( > There are two answers in the Birkhei Yosef quoting Sefer Hakavvanot of R. Haim Vital (OH 559 s"k 7) for why we say verses of consolation at minha, both based on Midrash Eicha Rabba, and perhaps the reason is the same. Firstly, that this was when the BHMK began to burn, and it was davka a time of consolation because the people realized that HKBH was pouring his anger on stone and wood, not on flesh and blood. Secondly, that this is the time when the Messiah whose name is Menahem is born. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 22:23:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 01:23:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55B07A69.5020203@gmail.com> On 7/22/2015 1:26 PM, H Lampel wrote: > When Rambam says that Hashem wants to instill in us disgust for the > act, and the Torah (as per Chazal) says ''t'shakstu,'' they mean that > despite the fact that we should not deny or seek to eradicate the > physical inclination for such pleasures, we must maintain an aversion > to succumbing to it except for limited situations. (And the purpose of > that is to keep us from doing it in excess, which is the real flaw.) I should also note that the Rambam teaches that hand-in-hand with the flaw of excessive involvement in physical pleasures, and the ultimate problem with that, is the attitude behind it, of making physical pleasure an end in itself, rather than a side benefit of a means. The Rambam applies this objection to both sexual pleasure for its own sake and eating pleasure for its own sake: The prohibition of certain foods and what is connected therewith.... The purpose of all this is, as we have explained in the Commentary on the Mishnah in the introduction to Aboth, to put an end to the lusts and licentiousness manifested in seeking what is most pleasurable and to taking the desire for food and drink /as an end/. ...The commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain sexual unions... The purpose of this ... is to bring about a decrease of sexual intercourse and to diminish the desire for mating as far as possible, so that it should not be taken /as an end/, as is done by the ignorant, according to what we have explained in the Commentary on the Tractate Aboth. Zvi Lampel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 01:16:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:16:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R' Aharon Lichtenstein was bothered by the difference in opinion regarding marital intimacy between Chazal who seem to have a very positive attitude and the Rishonim (especially the Rambam) who have a very negative attitude and the attitude of contemporary authorities who seem to have swung back to the positive side: "We, for our part, are confronted by a quandary of our own; and it is dual. At one plane, we ask ourselves, within the context of our learn- ing?it is Torah, and we must learn?a simple and straightforward ques- tion. In light of the predominant evidence we have noted from Hazal and, particularly, its halakhic component, how and why did Rambam, Ramban, and some other rishonim, deviate so markedly from their prevalent attitude? With reference to yetser (the inclination)?generic in connotation but defined by Rashi as shel tashmish (sexual desire)?Hazal identify it as one of a triad which, optimally, one should ?let the left hand deflect and the right hand bring close? (Sota 47a). One sometimes gets the impression that the proportion was subsequently inverted. ... To the extent that we do succeed in harmonizing the positions of Hazal and of rishonim, we ameliorate the pressure of one issue but exacerbate that of another. For we are brought, in turn, to a second quandary: our own. While I have conducted no empirical survey, I believe there is little question regarding the sensibility of the contempo- rary Torah world, irrespective of camp and orientation. We stand, fun- damentally, with R. Bar-Shaul. We assert the value of romantic love, its physical manifestation included, without flinching from the prospect of concomitant sensual pleasure; and we do so without harboring guilt or reservations. " Source: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 06:35:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:35:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shimon haTzaddik and Alexander the Macedonian Message-ID: <20150723133509.GA14333@aishdas.org> The story of Shim'on haTzaddiq, in the office of kohein gadol, meeting Alexander the Great, as told in Yuma 69a, is pretty well known. Josephus told the story earlier, in Antiquities 11:8. The Daily Mail recently covered what appears to be another retelling : Mosaic of Alexander the Great meeting a Jewish priest is the first ever non-biblical scene to be discovered inside a synagogue - Artwork was uncovered in a fifth-century synagogue in Huqoq, Israel - May depict Alexander the Great, based on the presence of elephants - Scene is the first non-biblical story to be found in an ancient synagogue - Depictions of Biblical hero Samson are also part of the decorative floor By Sarah Griffiths for MailOnline Published: 03:43 EST, 15 July 2015 | Updated: 07:21 EST, 15 July 2015 ... The artwork was uncovered in the east aisle of a fifth-century synagogue in the ancient Jewish village of Huqoq. ... The largest top strip contains the scene showing a meeting between two men, who perhaps represent the legendary warrior and a Jewish high priest. In the scene, a bearded soldier wearing battle dress and a purple cloak leads a bull by the horns, followed by other soldiers and elephants with shields tied to their sides. He is meeting with a grey-haired, bearded elderly man wearing a ceremonial white tunic and mantle, accompanied by young men with sheathed swords, also in ceremonial clothes. Southern Galil, 5th cent CE. Within a generation of the compilation of Mes Yuma. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 06:14:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:14:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B0E8A7.7050202@gmail.com> I agree with all those who reacted to my remark about Ramban vs Rambam, and I am especially grateful to Marty Bluke for the link to Rav Lichtenstein ztl's comprehensive article that provides the sources and notes the challenges they present. (I think that link was recently posted on R. Gil Student's blog.) As R. Akiva Miller has pointed out, it was Rebbi Eliezer of Nedarim 20b, referenced at the end of Kitzur 150:1 (and, as RAM pointed out, the Mechaber OC 240:8) who is understood to have expressed duress during the marital process. (And who is a Tanna, not an Amora, as I incorrectly stated.) Also, RAM asked, > For purposes of Talmud Torah, where is this Ramban who "strongly disagreed > with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting"? And again, I stand corrected. The Rav who gave me my "chassan shmuess" was probably referring to the /Iggeress ha-Kodesh,/ which, as Rav Lichtenstein pointed out in his article, is often erroneously attributed to Ramban. But apparently, had Rav Lichtenstein been giving me the "chassan shmuez," I would have come away with the same halacha l'ma'aseh regarding attitude. He writes: We cannot, as the author of the /Iggeret ha-Kodesh/ could not, abandon the conviction that so central a component of human nature is not part of the /tov me'od/ of primordial creation. Consequently, impelled by our spiritual instincts and animated by the faith instilled in us by our Torah mentors, we opt for consecration rather than abstinence. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 07:12:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:12:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> Message-ID: <26C8383E-E3E8-4443-8BAD-62AB922C5681@gmail.com> Again, one has to be very careful. There are four different sources here. 1)Shmona Prakim -- chapter 4 -- where reason for laws on arayot is to limit Sexuality -- in the sense of a golden mean. 2)Shmona Prakim -- chapter 6 -- where desire for things forbidden only by halakhah is endorsed as not a spiritual flaw 3) MN 3:35, where he describes category 14 of mitzvot -- relating to arayot -- in terms similar to source 1, as the rambam notes and meforshim point out. 4) MN 3:49 -- where purpose of hilchot arayot is to instill disgust -- not merely control and limit Therefore, RZL is correct that MN 3:35 refers to Spm but chapter 4. One can reconcile sources 1,2 and 3, or 1,3 and 4 -- but difficult to recocile all 4. I would ad that source 2 is problematic, in that it's view of halakhah as an almost arbitrary set of limitations, seems quite different than the rambam's normal presentation of the purpose of Halacha. Meir Shinnar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 10:15:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:15:16 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150723.131516.32484.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> Many posters - and their quoted sources - have compared the desire for intercourse with the desire for food. What I have not seen is any comparison between the *enjoyment* of intercourse and the enjoyment of food. Halacha restricts our eating in many ways, and we are taught that this is to curb our desires. But there are seem to be many exceptions to this, and I don't see parallels to intercourse. We have mitzvos where eating is merely a physical act used as a means to some other end. Achilas Matza might be the best example of this. We need to internalize the matzah and its lessons, but any enjoyment that we might get from this eating is utterly irrelevant. This seems quite comparable to the intercourse, where it is merely a means towards having children. The enjoyment that one gets from the intercourse (like from the matza) is irrelevant - or perhaps even lower, to be eschewed. One might cite Rama Even Haezer 25:2, which lists various permitted forms of intercourse, but to me, that is like saying "You can eat your meat broiled or cooked or fried, as long as you don't put milk in it, and don't eat it too often either." This is NOT what we are told about meat. Rather we are told that eating meat is the only way to enjoy Yom Tov. We are taught that eating is proper and good. When a simcha arises, we must make a meal so as to properly celebrate it. And if there are overlapping simchas, we should add an extra course so that each simcha gets its due. Red wine is more appropriate than white, but if you personally enjoy white, then go for it. Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. - Is the difference really that subtle? To me, it is as subtle as a brick. R' Marty Bluke posted: > Also see RAL's article OF MARRIAGE: RELATIONSHIP AND RELATIONS > ( http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf ) where > he discusses this question and brings many of the sources. Indeed he does bring many sources. And I was particularly intrigued by his conclusion, that the general thrust of recent authorities seems to be very different from before that: > To the extent that we do succeed in harmonizing the positions of > Hazal and of rishonim, we ameliorate the pressure of one issue but > exacerbate that of another. For we are brought, in turn, to a > second quandary: our own. While I have conducted no empirical > survey, I believe there is little question regarding the > sensibility of the contemporary Torah world, irrespective of camp > and orientation. ... We assert the value of romantic love, its > physical manifestation included, without flinching from the > prospect of concomitant sensual pleasure; and we do so without > harboring guilt or reservations. We insist, of course, upon its > sanctification?this, within the context of suffusive kedusha of > carnal experience, generally. and yet, a page later, > Assuming these facts to be correct ? as regards my own spiritual > environs, I can attest directly ? we ask ourselves: How and why > do we depart from positions articulated by some of our greatest > ? "from whose mouths we live and from whose waters we drink" - > and, is this departure legitimate? Are we victims of the Zeitgeist, > swept along by general socio-historical currents? Do we tailor our > attitude on this issue to conform to appetitive convenience and > erotic desire? Have we, in this case, adopted a self-satisfying > posture of facile world-acceptance clothed in culturally correct > garb? I did not find his answers to these questions very satisfying. But I do find his *asking* them to be extremely comforting. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 11:43:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:43:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Relative Priorities Message-ID: <1440012f20ae4d989f0b2c5fdc8b1c1e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> A yahrtzeit shiur is "being sponsored" at the same time as your regular learning seder. Evaluate the various score cards in shamayim (yours, the niftar's, your chavrutah's) depending on whether you attended the shiur or seder (all other things being equal). She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 24 07:09:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 17:09:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: artificial meat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Technological advances are bringing us to ask a pressing question: Does Judaism consider meat created in a laboratory to be kosher? Does Jewish law even consider it to be meat?The question takes on particular significance now, during the nine days, the traditional period of mourning that precedes Tisha B'Av when observant Jews abstain from meat. (Well, theoretical significance, at least ? the world's first lab-grown hamburger, created in 2013, cost a cool $325,000 and it's not exactly available at your neighborhood grocery store yet.)Some kashrut experts are ready to rule the burger kosher, and not only that, parve, reported Ynet reporter Koby Nachshoni ? meaning observant Jews, who won't eat milk and meat together, can eat their test-tube burger topped with cheese. Furthermore, the halachic authorities with whom Nachshon consulted even said this would apply to test-tube pork ? so make that a bacon cheeseburger.But, no surprise here, not everyone agrees about that.Chabad addressed the issue , too, noting that there are precedents for test-tube meat in the ancient Jewish sources. see http://www.haaretz.com/life/food-wine/1.667580 -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:30:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh Message-ID: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> Last night in the shul that I davened B'Leil Zeh was said with great fervor. However, I am wondering if it should have been said at all. B'Leil Zeh is referring to the night of the 9th of Av and the many things that occurred then. Last night was, of course, the night of the 10th of Av. Does it really make sense to have said B'Leil Zeh on the 10th of Av? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:50:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:50:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh In-Reply-To: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 10:30:37AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : B'Leil Zeh is referring to the night of the 9th of Av and the many : things that occurred then. Last night was, of course, the night of : the 10th of Av. Does it really make sense to have said B'Leil Zeh : on the 10th of Av? Now that you made me think about the question, I would ask the reverse one. Bayis sheini was set aflame shortly before sheqi'ah on the 9th and burned through the 10th. So wouldn't beleil zeh only fit a postponed ta'anis? As for bayis rishon... I'm still sorting my way through understandings of Yechezqeil and the Yerushalmi. RMT, kedarko (see ) touches on a nice subset of sources at http://download.yutorah.org/2012/1053/Tisha_Bav_To-Go_-_5771_Rabbi_Torczyner.pdf Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: R' Mordechai Torczyner -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:58:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:58:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh In-Reply-To: <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> References: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150726145900.0654D1831F2@nexus.stevens.edu> At 10:50 AM 7/26/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >Now that you made me think about the question, I would ask the reverse >one. Bayis sheini was set aflame shortly before sheqi'ah on the 9th and >burned through the 10th. > >So wouldn't beleil zeh only fit a postponed ta'anis? > >As for bayis rishon... I'm still sorting my way through understandings >of Yechezqeil and the Yerushalmi. Perhaps two separate tefillos are needed, one for the night of the 9th of Av and one for the night of the 10th of Av. However, given the vast amount of kinos and other tefillos for Tisha B'Av, I am loath to suggest adding any more. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 16:32:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 19:32:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Message-ID: From: M Cohen via Avodah There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why? What changed in the afternoon? Mordechai Cohen >>>> The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 22:02:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:02:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus Message-ID: Thew gemara in Gittin tells the story of the rich lady miryam bat batus who sent her sevant to buy food in the market, before the churban, each time the food is already sold and she finally dies from dung on her foot. OTOH the gemara in ketuvot says that miryam bat batus paid King Yanai a lot of money to appoint her son yehoshua ben gamla as high priest First the two stories are about 150 years apart. In addition Alexander Jannai was himself high priest and unlikely to sell that position -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 20:18:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:18:25 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150726.231825.30515.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> R' Zvi Lampel wrote: > But apparently, had Rav Lichtenstein been giving me the > "chassan shmuez," I would have come away with the same halacha > l'ma'aseh regarding attitude. He writes: > > We cannot, as the author of the /Iggeret ha-Kodesh/ could > not, abandon the conviction that so central a component of > human nature is not part of the /tov me'od/ of primordial > creation. Consequently, impelled by our spiritual instincts > and animated by the faith instilled in us by our Torah > mentors, we opt for consecration rather than abstinence. I am very bothered by this attitude. I will explain why. We have discussed the idea that a posek may sometimes choose a psak based on what "seems right" to him, and then he will find sources to support that conclusion. But if I remember correctly, this is usually done in the case of *new* questions, where there is little precedent to draw upon. But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed. And it changed so recently that Rav Lichtenstein couldn't name any seforim that might have explained it to him. Namely, that for some reason, various people (such as RZL's teacher) started paskening - "halacha l'ma'aseh" in RZL's words - that the halacha follows the Iggeret ha-Kodesh (whose author we aren't sure of) rather than the Shulchan Aruch and Rav Yosef Karo. Why aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? Can we really overturn the Shulchan Aruch simply because "We cannot ... abandon the conviction" that sex is "tov me'od"? When we justify a psak and say we were "impelled by our spiritual instincts", how are we different from Conservative and Reform? I would not speak this way if the topic was a machlokes rishonim. Can someone please point to another major Rishon besides the Iggeret ha-Kodesh who holds that way? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b5a34e339ce234e4610st01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 01:31:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:31:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why? What changed in the afternoon? Mordechai Cohen >>>> The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= R'YBS explained that once the mikdash started burning (PM of TB) we knew hkb"h was taking out his wrath on stones and wood, not us. 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 00:49:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:49:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> On 07/27/2015 01:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Thew gemara in Gittin tells the story of the rich lady miryam bat > batus Martha bat Baytus. > who sent her sevant to buy food in the market, before the > churban, each time the food is already sold and she finally dies from > dung on her foot. > > OTOH the gemara in ketuvot Yoma. 18a. And Yavamos 61a. I could not find any reference to this in Kesubos. > says that miryam bat batus Martha bat Baytus. > paid King Yanai a lot of money to appoint her son Husband > yehoshua ben gamla as high priest. First the two stories are about > 150 years apart. No, they're not. Yehoshua ben Gamla was the Cohen Gadol at the time of the revolt against Rome, and was murdered by the Biryonim. > In addition Alexander Jannai was himself high priest > and unlikely to sell that position Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos in both places points out, for precisely that reason. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 03:22:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:22:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> References: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150727102247.GA8241@aishdas.org> RnTK wrote: : The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting : the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people : (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house : on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. R' Yirmiyohu Kaganoff provided sources at : In some places there is a custom to wash the floors and clean the house on the afternoon of Tisha B'Av. This custom is based on a mesorah that Moshiach will be born on Tisha B'Av afternoon and that it is therefore appropriate to commemorate the redemption and strengthen people's hopes and prayers (based on Beis Yosef 554 and Kolbo). Although this seems like unnecessary work on Tisha B'Av that should be postponed, the poskim rule that one should not discourage those who follow this custom (Birkei Yosef 559:7). On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:31am +0000, R Joel Rich replied: : R'YBS explained that once the mikdash started burning (PM of TB) : we knew [HKB"H] was taking out his wrath on stones and wood, not us. I bet RYBS cited the Gra (OC 555:1). Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: Actually, Google gets most of the credit for filling in vague memories with mar'eh meqomos. -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 05:00:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:00:41 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150727.080041.13995.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> I asked: > I would not speak this way if the topic was a machlokes > rishonim. Can someone please point to another major Rishon > besides the Iggeret ha-Kodesh who holds that way? Alternatively, can anyone cite other halachos, where for centuries the acharonim followed the Shulchan Aruch, and then in recent decades, the poskim decided to follow a minority rishon? My first instinct is to say that the shitos of the Gra are in this category, but there were those who followed the Gra ever since his day, and the only real change is that his views became more and more widespread. Was there ever a community that was known for following the Iggeret ha-Kodesh in this inyan until recently? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b61d8f130a61d8b4299st01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 07:10:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:10:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 11:15:51AM -1000, R/ Dr Noam Stadlan wrote on Areivim: : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded : as ignorance... To do that woud be to disagree with her husband. See "Thinking Aloud", pg 113: DH: What is the heter for a married woman in her house not to cover her hair when there are outsiders present? RYBS: She has to cover her hair. Another exchange: DH: Someone was asking about a woman wearing a kisui rosh in the house. RYBS: We pasken you should. DH: Someone showed me a gemara in Kesubos that b'toch chatzeira it should be mutar, since otherwise there is no way any woman could remain tachas ba'alah (72b). Offhand it occurred to me that if it was lo shechichei inshei - just for going around the house when no one's around, and someone just may drop in - then it would be mutar. But if you have people coming over b'kevius, then why would it be any different than going aroung in the street? Is there a special din in the bayis that there's no din of covering your head anymore? DH: Is this kisui ervah like most kisui ervah? RYBS: Of course. DH: What should I do for myself, for my wife? RYBS: You will find out. There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 08:15:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & the Tosafists. http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ Our *Torah shebe?al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the *Torah shebe?al peh* would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe?al peh* today. I just heard a piece yesterday by Rabbi Weill, from a few years back on Kinnot and the destruction of Ashkenaz and burning of the gemorahs in Paris. It was very devastating for the area. Jews lived in other areas as well, thank God. So the Mesora continued with them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 11:42:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:42:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? Message-ID: From: Micha Berger via Avodah : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded : as ignorance...[--Dr. Noam Stadlan] To do that would be to disagree with her husband. ....There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. -- Micha Berger >>>> A similar quote (third hand): Someone told me he once asked RYBS if a married woman is obligated to cover her hair, and RYBS replied in a somewhat sideways fashion, "You are not obligated to divorce her if she does not do so." You have to understand that it was an era in which most American Jews were throwing away the Torah with both hands. It was hard enough to find a wife who was frum; demanding that she cover her hair was almost impossible in many cases. RYBS was not the only Torah scholar whose wife failed to cover her hair. I have to assume that this was simply one nisayon that was too difficult, given those times. After the post-war influx of chassidim arrived in America, kisui rosh, like so many other neglected mitzvos, became much more acceptable and common. R' Michael Brody in his article on the subject says that the Chofetz Chaim railed against the practice of women in Vilna, even those married to big talmidei chachamim, to go about with their hair uncovered. Although the CC is completely, vehemently, opposed to this practice, R' Brody deduces (I am paraphrasing) that "This proves that many talmidei chachamim did not demand that their wives cover their hair, from which we may deduce that they held kisui rosh was not required, and we may rely on them." This line of reasoning is reminiscent of the joke, "How do we know that Yakov wore a yarmulka? Answer: It says 'Vayetzei Yakov' -- would Yakov have gone out without a yarmulka?!" But at any rate it does indicate that this was a largely neglected mitzva even in Vilna, in the early 20th century -- though neglect of a mitzva does not make the obligation go away. I for one do not hold it against RYBS. What he would have preferred and what was actually obtainable, in that time and place, were not the same. For that time and place, for a woman to be Torah observant was already a madreiga. To have been the wife of such a man -- his rebetzen must have had extraordinary zechuyos. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 11:43:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:43:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> The below (and, btw, R Nachum Lamm makes an interesting point in the comments there) leads me to a different, but related, question: We trace Rashi's mesorah pretty easily back to Rabbeinu Gershom -- but where did _he_ get _his_ mesorah from? How did it get from Bavel and the Gaonim to northern Europe? > RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & the Tosafists. > http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ [1] > Our *Torah shebe?al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the *Torah shebe?al peh* would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe?al peh* today. Links: ------ [1] http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 12:41:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:41:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: From: Kenneth Miller via Avodah >> We have discussed the idea that a posek may sometimes choose a psak based on what "seems right" to him, and then he will find sources to support that conclusion. But if I remember correctly, this is usually done in the case of *new* questions, where there is little precedent to draw upon. But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? --Akiva Miller >>>> It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan Aruch. What frequency is optimum? Surely that is at least partly subjective, and any of the various sources that apparently disagree with each other can be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up what your gut tells you is right. I can easily see a modern day rav or Torah mentor varying his answers depending on the circumstances of the wife and husband who are asking him for advice, as well as accepted societal norms. Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least some obligation to fulfill. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 14:59:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gil Student via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 17:59:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume 2 of his Collected Essays. Gil Student From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 19:55:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 22:55:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Re:Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> References: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:10:59 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah > : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the > : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded > : as ignorance... > > To do that woud be to disagree with her husband. > > See "Thinking Aloud", pg 113: ... > There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with > his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. WADR, Micha misunderstands the issue. The issue is not whether RYBS agreed with his wife's practice -- there are sources (albeit most of them from long after her passing) which would suggest that he may ave disagreed, and paskened otherwise) -- but that is a different issue of whether he viewed it as ignorance -- and for sure not out of the pale of halacha. That is the crux of the issue -- not whether we wish to pasken that this is muttar for ourselves (or for those who listen to us..) -- but how we view those who follow a different shitta -- and anyone who suggests that RYBS viewed his wife as nonobservant or not fully halachically committed is motsi la'az and needs to go to her kever( you can ask R Seth Mandel his opinion how the rav would have viewed such a person) Several related stories: 1) The rav was the posek for a community, who knew that his wife did not cover her hair. The vast majority of that community, even those close to the rav, who followed his every word, did not think that he viewed this as being problematic -- and he had plenty of opportunity to let it be known.... 2) I knew a talmid who was close to the rav in the 70s (shiur many years, rav was measured kiddushin -- unfortunately niftar early. when getting married, he told me that he asked the rav all his shailos -- except about head covering for his wife (she did) -- he said that it was thought problematic to ask him because of the rav's wife 3) Another talmid was once invited, late 70s, to Rav Schwab's shabbes table. Topic got around to data's torah, and rav schwab said that many have it wrong -- there is not one da'as torah -- but da'as torah is the opinion of someone who is wholly torah -- rav kotler is da'as torah, rav feinstein is da'as torah,the satmar is da'as torah. My friend jumped in and asked what about RYBS? Rav Schwab was no fan of RYBS, and he hemmed and hawed and then said that as his wife did not cover her hair, he was not da'as torah. At that point Mrs. Schwab interjected, but you know that none of the litvische rebbitzens covered their hair. At which point R Schwab agreed to that, and then agreed that RYBS was da'as torah..... That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. Meir Shinnar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 06:52:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:52:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> Message-ID: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> On 7/27/2015 2:49 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos > in both places points out, for precisely that reason. > Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any permutation thereof. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 07:31:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:31:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> Message-ID: <55B79226.4030906@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 09:52 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 7/27/2015 2:49 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos >> in both places points out, for precisely that reason. > Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of > there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any > permutation thereof. Except this memra of Rav Assi, which is quoted twice in the gemara with the same language, so it's unlikely to be a mistranscription. Either Rav Assi was mistaken about the king's name, or there was a short-reigned later king of that name whom Josephus didn't bother mentioning, or one of the later kings had Yannai as one of his names, and Josephus didn't bother mentioning it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 07:21:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:21:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> References: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55B78FCC.2020104@sero.name> On 07/27/2015 10:55 PM, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: > At that point Mrs. Schwab interjected, but you know > that none of the litvische rebbitzens covered their hair. At which point > R Schwab agreed to that, and then agreed that RYBS was da'as torah..... > > That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it > was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, > it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. No, it was *not* a shita in Litte, it was a makas medinah. It was an aveira that was prevalent among women, and the best the rabbonim could do was not talk about it to the women, in the hope that they were shogegin. Even in an earlier generation, no less a person than R Akiva Eger had no control over his wife and daughters' mode of dress: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31632&pgnum=300 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 08:57:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:57:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 08:52:45AM -0500, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of : there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any : permutation thereof. Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and Hebrew? 400 years prior, having two names was common and the civil names we know of (Mordechai, Esther, Shadrach, Meshach, Aved-Nego, etc...) bore no relation to their Jewish names. Alternatively: Chazal could have thrown in the timing problem to flag to the historian that they were not speaking historically. After all, we know from the other narratives quoted that they knew the dates for Alexander Yannai wouldn't work. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:21:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 12:21:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> References: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150728162126.GC24227@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 11:09pm EDT, RnTK wrote: : with their friends, "You can't say kaddish for your Ima or your Abba : today, someone else has kadima"? Correct me if I am mistaken but my impression : is that kaddish yasom is really mainly for genuine yesomim, i.e., those who : lose their parents while they are still children. Rather than correct you, let me provide a mar'eh maqom: Rama YD 376:4, quoting the Mahariq. Both of us probably remembering R Michael Poppers posting this. The Rama says that Qadish Yasom was established for Qetanim, because they cannot be Chazan. BUT... the Rama is clear that this ended before the custom of multiple people saying Qaddish at once began. When writing the above, I started wondering about areas like Vilna, where a daughter would say Qaddish for parents who had no sons. Did this minhag begin back when only one person said Qaddish at a time? If so, she would get the same priority for Qaddish Yasom as a qatan, no? But cold you picture such a scene in early 19th cent Litta, a woman saying Qaddish by herself on one side of the mechitzah or by the doorway, and all the men of the minyan answering? So my instinct is that this minhag post-dates group Qaddish. But my instinct might be based on revisionist history, for all I know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:38:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:38:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:153am EDT, R Saul Guberman wrote: : RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & : the Tosafists. : http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ : Our *Torah shebe'al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish : history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a : great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, : but the *Torah shebe'al peh* would have survived without him. However, : without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, : any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe'al peh* today. Which is a different statement than the subject line. I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue understanding the gemara. But one thing RGS loses is RYBS's context. RYBS was saying this in shiur, in a room where talmidim bring a compact edition of the Rambam with them for reference. It's a different thing to make this statement while sitting in Brisk, when you may intentionally state a perspective re-setting idea more strongly than in other settings. On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 2:43pm EDT, R Sholom Simon wrote: : We trace Rashi's mesorah pretty easily back to Rabbeinu Gershom -- but : where did _he_ get _his_ mesorah from? How did it get from Bavel and the : Gaonim to northern Europe? In a teshuvah, Rabbeinu Gershom says he was taught most of his Torah by "R' Leon". He means Rabbi Yehudah (Leontin) ben Rabbi Meir haKohein. R' Leontin was from Iraly, but he was in France before reaching Mainz. In France he picked up talmidim who then followed him to Ashkenaz, including Rabbinu Gershom and R' Yosef Tuv Elem (Tuv Elem = Bonfils, you will see him the the Mordechai alot, Tosafos, and [if you ever have occasion to look] Machzor Vitri). Rabbeinu Gershom took over the yeshiva upon RYBRM's petirah, which is probably why he is "Rabbeinu" rather than "Rav". The thing is, the tradition in Provence is that they came from EY. For example, in Luneil it was (is?) believed that the city was founded by refugees from Yericho, who commemorated their city of origin by using a translation of the same name: yareiach = luna. Which brings me to RGS's reply to R Sholom, written yesterday, Jul 27, 2015, at 5:59pm EDT: : Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German : mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger : disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. : However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments : against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from : Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume : 2 of his Collected Essays. If there is any truth to the Israeli Provencial tradition, we have a link in terms of rabbinic leadership to EY. However, not only do nusach hatefillah, piyut, and a number of pesaqim (which RRW educated me on repeatedly on these "pages" in the past) point toward an EY origin of Ashkenaz, so does something I didn't see R/Dr Soloveitchik address -- genetics. A map of the Jewish genetic tree http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072 shows the closes affinity for the Ashkenazi gene pool were the Italian, Greek, Turkish and Syrian communities. Notably all under the Roman Empire. Whereas the Jews of the geonic lands -- from Bavel through Qairouan, Tunisia -- form a second grouping. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:45:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:45:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728174552.GE24227@aishdas.org> I just posted: : However, the loss of a codifier who : stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of : mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But : Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue : understanding the gemara. I meant to add a different (and to my mind very important) way of looking at this idea: In terms of mesorah, a flow of TSBP as a "dialog down the ages" (to use RYBS's terminlogy), the parshan keeps the chain connected down the ages in a way that a Yad, designed to be stand-alone, does not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:24:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:24:20 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go > by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and > Hebrew? > I don't follow: the Hasmonean and post-Hasmonean kings did all have both Hebrew and Greek or Latin names, but Yannai is a *Hebrew* name, from the same root as Yona. I know someone who Hebraized his surname from Taubmann to Yannai ("Taub" is German for "dove"). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:50:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:50:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 09:24:20AM -0700, Simon Montagu wrote: : > Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go : > by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and : > Hebrew? : I don't follow: the Hasmonean and post-Hasmonean kings did all have both : Hebrew and Greek or Latin names, but Yannai is a *Hebrew* name, from the : same root as Yona. I know someone who Hebraized his surname from Taubmann : to Yannai ("Taub" is German for "dove"). I believe this is a folk etymology. Where would the alef (yud, nun, alef, yud) have come from? But more tellingly, Alexander Janneus's Hebrew name was Yehonasan, like his uncle. See the Latin and Hebrew on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Jannaeus#/media/File:JanaeusCoinPhoto.jpg If he could be "Alexander Yannai" in one language and "Yonasan" in another, who knows it there weren't another king whose Latin name "Janneus" was simply not preserved? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:17:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:17:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: There are those who argued that Tosfos (in particular Rabbeinu Tam) essentially created Ashkenazi mesorah by radically changing how we study and relate to Gemara and how we relate to popular practice. One might suggest without exaggeration that Tosfos created our Mesora. In which case Rashi's mesora is less relevant. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> There certainly is a lot of evidence that Ashkenzi minhagim com more from E"Y than Bavel. But do we know of any chochomim that went from anywhere in the Middle East to Germany? I.e., ok, even if we accept that either there was a third school, or it came from E"Y -- do we yet know *how* it got to Northern Europe? (Or perhaps the answers are in articles that Haym Soloveitchik or David Berger wrote? (And, if so, does anyone have any citations?) -- Sholom On 2015-07-27 17:59, Gil Student wrote: > Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. > > However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume 2 of his Collected Essays. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:18:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:18:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Sources_for_Not_Covering_Hair=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > 2) I knew a talmid who was close to the rav in the 70s ... when getting married, he told me that he asked the rav all his shailos -- except about head covering for his wife (she did) -- he said that it was thought problematic to ask him because of the rav's wife I have a related story. A talmid who was also close to him. When getting married he _did_ ask about a head covering for his wife (after apologizing for asking it). If I remember the story correctly, the Rav smiled and said that he wasn't the right person to ask. -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:41:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:41:08 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Molad Message-ID: Calendars in my home town print the latest times of saying Kiddush Levana, which equate to exactly fifteen days after the announced Molad time. This might be an entire night, or an exact time, e.g. Sunday night 22.45. But since the astronomical Molad can be some distance from the calculated Molad times, by sometimes as much as twelve hours, does this not mean that these sof zeman kiddush levana times can be faulty by that same margin? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:00:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:00:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728180043.GG24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 01:28:42PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : There certainly is a lot of evidence that Ashkenzi minhagim com more : from E"Y than Bavel. Although experts, O Rabbi-PhDs, debate the issue. So what seems obvious to you or me apparently isn't. : But do we know of any chochomim that went from anywhere in the Middle : East to Germany? I already posted the mesorah from EY to Provence to Rabbeinu Gershom. Jews really started reaching the Rhineland area at the invitation of Charlemagne in the 9th cent CE, when he started the Holy Roman Empire. They came from Provence (again) and Italy. Recall that most of the captives from EY ended up in Rome, and you can understand how an Israeli presence in Italy would have already been established. Far more so than the Jews of the geonate -- who, as I mentioned, were living outside the Roman Empire. In mythic form, we have a story of a King Charles invited R' Moshe ben Klonimus from Lucca to Mainz. In documentation form, Louis "the Pious", C's son, left charters showing that he too invited Jewish merchants to provide an economic backbone to his country, and mentions that he was continuing his father's invitation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person must be very patient micha at aishdas.org even with himself. http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:10:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:10:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: AIUI the MN "was all that you needed to study". Are you/RGS saying that this is only as a codifier? RAMBAM did not feel that he was passing on the mesorah? In the end, it does not matter what he wrote, RASHI vs RAMBAM, you must have RASHI, RAMBAM is nice but without RASHI you come to a dead end? On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > > I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah > through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who > stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of > mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But > Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue > understanding the gemara. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:32:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:32:24 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are forgotten after 12 months (memory of the bet hamikdash is different) I have a personal problem with this statement. To my sorry I know of several people who have lost children especially in the age of 18-25. One thing I have learned from these people is that one never forgets a child, It is part of their lives every day. The secretary of my department lost a son in a flash flood in the negev. She changed her last name to incorporate the name of that son. Every time she signs her name she remembers her son, Others who have lost sons in military actions say kaddish every day for the son many years later. I would just imagine that Yaakov having lost his "favorite" son would not forget him after 12 months but indeed would mourn for him forever -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:09:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:09:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 12:41 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > Calendars in my home town print the latest times of saying Kiddush > Levana, which equate to exactly fifteen days after the announced > Molad time. This might be an entire night, or an exact time, e.g. > Sunday night 22.45. That should be halfway between moldos, i.e. 14d 18h 22m after the molad, not a full 15 days. It should also be adjusted for the time difference between your standard time and Y'm's real time, which for NY is 7h 20m in the winter and 6h 20m in the summer. Using a full 15 days is only bediavad. > But since the astronomical Molad can be some distance from the > calculated Molad times, by sometimes as much as twelve hours, does > this not mean that these sof zeman kiddush levana times can be faulty > by that same margin? Yes, but since we have no easy way (other than consulting readily- available secular resources, of course) of determining when the real full moon occurs, we use the calculated moldos, *unless* there is a lunar eclipse, since that by definition happens at the true full moon. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:28:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:28:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B7C9D0.5030709@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 01:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If he could be "Alexander Yannai" in one language and "Yonasan" in > another, who knows it there weren't another king whose Latin name > "Janneus" was simply not preserved? Here's a thought: AFAIK there is no mention in the gemara of a second, bad, King Agrippas. The only Agrippas mentioned is the first one, the good one. Also, as far as I know, there is no record of the second Agrippas's Hebrew name. What if the first Agrippas gave his oldest son Yannai as his Jewish name, after the first Yannai, and that is how he was known among Jews, and therefore by the Amoraim, while Josephus called him by his Roman name, Herod Agrippa? -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:23:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:23:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus Message-ID: <> Any Jewish king would have been over 100 before the churban besides there is the known problem with Yehoshua ben Gamla having his position bought for him OTOH he seems to have done good deeds Interestingly wikipedia writes "*Yehoshua ben Gamla* (or Joshua son of Gamla) was a Jewish high priest who officiated in about 64 CE. He married the rich widow Martha of the high-priestly family Boethos (Yeb. vi. 4), and she by bribing Jannai secured for him the office of high priest (Yeb. 61a; Yoma 18a; comp. "Ant." xx. 9, ? 4). Although Yehoshua himself was not a scholar, he was solicitous for the instruction of the young, and provided schools in every town for children over five years of age, earning thereby the praises of posterity (B. B. 21a). The two lots used on the Day of Atonement , hitherto of boxwood, he made of gold (Yoma iii. 9). Yehoshua did not remain long in office, being forced, after a year, to give way to Matthias ben Theophil ("Ant." xx. 9, ? 7)." i.e. Martha bribed someone named Jannai in 64CE. Not clear who this Jannai is but definitely not a king -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:44:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:44:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B7DB8C.8030404@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 03:23 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Interestingly wikipedia writes I.e. somebody, perhaps with no more information than you or me, wrote > i.e. Martha bribed someone named Jannai in 64CE. Not clear who this > Jannai is but definitely not a king Says who? Why do you say that, especially when not only does the gemara say he was a king, but we know that at the time the kehuna gedola was in the gift of king? -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 13:37:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:37:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? Message-ID: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> From: Meir Shinnar via Avodah >> That is the crux of the issue -- not whether we wish to pasken that this is muttar for ourselves (or for those who listen to us..) -- but how we view those who follow a different shitta -- and anyone who suggests that RYBS viewed his wife as nonobservant or not fully halachically committed is motsi la'az and needs to go to her kever [snip] That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. << Meir Shinnar >>>> [1] No one has ever suggested that RYBS viewed his wife as "nonobservant" so nobody has to go to her kever, although anyone who wants to may do so. I assume her children and grandchildren go on her yahrzeit. The line between observant and nonobservant is pretty clear, even though all of us sometimes sin. I have yet to hear of anyone saying that if a woman keeps Shabbos, kashrus and taharas hamishpacha, but does not cover her hair, she is "nonobservant." However if you know of a person who does say that, please cite the source, thank you. Maybe he is the same person who says that if you talk loshon hara you are nonobservant -- and therefore there are only about 500 observant Jews in the whole world, if that. [2] There is no "different shita." There was no "shitta in Lita" allowing married women to go out with their hair uncovered. What there was in Lita was the winds of Haskala, Reform and sliding, sliding, sliding away from Torah, more marked among the women even than among the men. Sarah Schnirer noted that there were chassidishe homes in Poland where, after the Friday night Shabbos meal, the teenage girls and even the mother would go out to see a play at the local theater. If there was slippage in Poland, where chassidus was strong, you can just imagine what was going on in Lita, where there was nothing to capture the hearts and minds of people who were not themselves talmidei chachamim -- viz, the unlearned masses, and the women. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 14:30:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:30:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> References: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150728213052.GA12259@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:37pm EDT, RnTK wrote: : [2] There is no "different shita." There was no "shitta in Lita" : allowing married women to go out with their hair uncovered... The AhS, whose theory of pesaq gives a lot of weight to seeing which ruling was accepted as general practice, famously permits saying Shema while seeing a married woman with her hair uncovered. But this is what he says in OC 75:7 , where that heter is given: And now, we will cry about the breached of our generation in its many since, for many years Benos Yisrael violate this sin and go with a revealed head. And whateve we yell about this, it doesn't help and it doesn't have an effect. And now this mispachas [oe of the nega'im] has spread, that married [women] go with their hyair like the besulos do. Woe to us that this arose in our generation! Still, al kol panim, according to the din is appears permitted to us to daven and make berakhos opposite their revealed heads, since now that most of them go this way... memeilah there won't be hirhur. So, RYME is pretty clear: It was common, it was viewed has a sin -- not "a different shittah", and the rabbinate did complain but no one listened. And again, that's the AhS, not the textual theoretician "what ought the ideal halakhah be from a clean slate" approach of the MB. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 14:46:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:46:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728214605.GB12259@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 02:10:52PM -0400, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: : AIUI the [MT] "was all that you needed to study". Are you/RGS saying that : this is only as a codifier? RAMBAM did not feel that he was passing on the : mesorah? In the end, it does not matter what he wrote, RASHI vs RAMBAM, you : must have RASHI, RAMBAM is nice but without RASHI you come to a dead end? As the Rambam says in the haqdamah (par 40 ), the goal was to put the "TSBP kulah sedurah befi hakol" -- his primary audience was the masses. And we know how much he thought of the masses. Similarly he continues (41) by telling you he his work "Mishneh Torah" because it fulfills the shelish bemishnah -- the studying of halakhah pesuqah. (He calls it sheliesh BTSBP, but as you just saw in the haqdamah, the Rambam both identifies the two and also says they're contained in his MT.) However, in Hil' Talmud Torah 1:12 tells you that that's only "betechilas tazlmudo shel adam, aval kesheyagdil bechokhmah" he should set time for TSBK and divrei hashemu'ah so as not to forget, "veyifneh kol yamav ligemara". So it is not impossible that even the Rambam himself might agree that those who explain how to do the shaqlara vetarya like gemara, or lomdus, or "veyotzi davar midavar veyidmeh dava ledavar" etc... are more central to the mesorah than his own Mishneh Torah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 13:54:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: <9ea4b.71e33b03.42e9460c@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) >>The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are forgotten after 12 months (memory of the bet hamikdash is different) I have a personal problem with this statement. To my sorry I know of several people who have lost children especially in the age of 18-25. One thing I have learned from these people is that one never forgets a child << --Eli Turkel >>>>> My grandmother had a baby daughter who died at the age of five months, and fifty years or more after that, I once asked her about the baby she had lost. She started to cry as if it had just happened, and described the baby in detail -- what she looked like, what she could do at five months and so on. So I learned the lesson that a parent never forgets a lost child. However, she only cried for a little while and then returned to her cheerful self. I'm sure that in the year after her baby died, she was not cheerful. I don't think "gezeira al hameis" means the person is literally forgotten, but that the degree of mourning becomes less intense. Initially the bereaved person, especially a bereaved parent, simply cannot believe the child is gone, and constantly thinks and even dreams about the child. With the passage of months and years, the knowledge that the child is truly gone is assimilated and the parent goes on with life, even if a heaviness always remains somewhere in the background. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 15:38:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 18:38:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150728223810.GD12259@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:12am EDT, R/Dr Meir Shinnar wrote: : Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions : I) in hazal - that continued desire for some forbidden actions : is compatible with a high spiritual state - issue is control of : the desire - NOT its presence : II) Aristotelian ethics - a high spiritual state does not desire : for forbidden - the desire is a sign of a flaw. But chazal too talk in terms of virtue ethics, not just in terms of kibush hayeitzer (overcoming the desire) but also tiqun hayeitzer (adjusting those desires). Most famously, "mah Hu Chanun, af atah chanun". Or, as the Rambam paraphrased, "mah hu *niqra* 'Chanun'..." It doesn't speak of giving to others without cause despite desire, it asks us to develop the middos of chanun, rachum, etc... Now, on to a totally different topic... On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 05:15:16PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote: : Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. Sex : is proper as long as you minimize it. - Is the difference really that : subtle? To me, it is as subtle as a brick. I think the difference is just about that, but because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: 1- It involves a second party. There is no threat of objectifying good. 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... Therefore, the attitude toward perishus for each comes from opposite directions. For food, which is necessary for survival, we talk about how much is too much. For sex, we talk about the right balance between keeping the other happy (chiyuv onah) and turning them into a tool for your own happiness. The bottom line is still the same: perishus from challenges I cannot handle while be maqdish olam hazeh the rest of the time. The details differ due to the differences above. On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:18am GMT, Kenneth Miller wrote: : .... This is a case where the Shulchan : Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went : uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed... On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:41pm EDT, Rn Toby Katz replied: : It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too loosely. If : it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim and acharonim, agree : that marital intercourse is always mutar (assuming the usual, the wife is not : a nidah, it's not forced, it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really : talking about here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan : Aruch. What frequency is optimum? Surely that is at least partly subjective, ... While what I said before about "minimize it" not meaning all that different from "don't overdue" addresses this question of RAM's as well, I think RnTK's response is really the essence of the answer. But to quibble with the language... I'm not sure it's "hashkafah" as much as Hilkhos Dei'os / Chovos haLvavos. After all "Qedoshim tihyu" is a chiyuv, not a nicety, and that's a source for "perushim tihyu". What a mitzvah to be or to become something (such as "qadosh") is in practice, though, is inherently situational and subjective. If we were talking about something reducible to black-letter halakhah and objective rules, it would have been. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 15:58:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:58:41 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <20150728.185841.2133.0@webmail10.vgs.untd.com> R"n Toby Katz wrote: > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar > (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, > it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might also be RTK's point). But if that is how we are to understand the vocabulary, then we have a whole new way of reading the Shulchan Aruch. Here are some examples: It's not assur to shmooze between Geulah and Tefillah of Maariv. (236:2) It's not assur to say Shehecheyanu on the Lulav on the second day. (662:2) Surely that is at least > partly subjective, and any of the various sources that apparently disagree with each other can be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up what your gut tells you is right. I can easily see a modern day rav or Torah mentor varying his answers depending on the circumstances of the wife and husband who are asking him for advice, as well as accepted societal norms. Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least some obligation to fulfill. ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b8096a62fe9695575st03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 20:51:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:51:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 02:09:11PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : That should be halfway between moldos, i.e. 14d 18h 22m after the : molad, not a full 15 days. It should also be adjusted for the time : difference between your standard time and Y'm's real time, which : for NY is 7h 20m in the winter and 6h 20m in the summer. Using : a full 15 days is only bediavad. Y-m time to EST is 7h 21m, not 20. But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we call it. It's hard to know exactly where the molad is being announced for, since the average lunation has changed over time and the accumulated difference between estimation and reality over millenia has grown large. Right now, the average molad matches the average moment of new moon for Qandahar, Afghanistan. If we go back in time to when the molad was closest to one lunar month, we get to 4th cent CE, the days of Hillel Nesi;ah. The av beis din to whom R Hai Gaon attributes our current calendar. If we assume the molad then was most accurate in start time as well when it was most accurate in durection, then the molad is being announeced for something like Ur Kasdim, which is also around the middle of Jewish settlement at the time, between the Nile and the Euphrates. In which case, the molad is being announced for a place 44 min after IST (not 21m). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 23:45:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 02:45:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 11:51 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Y-m time to EST is 7h 21m, not 20. True. I was approximating, much as the Rambam did with Y'm latitude. > But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we > call it. http://mechon-mamre.org/i/3811.htm#17 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:33:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 02:45:03AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we :> call it. : http://mechon-mamre.org/i/3811.htm#17 The Rambam there (Qiddush haChodesh 11:17) discusses the calculation of the calendar. The rules are set up based on RC in Y-m. Announcing the molad doesn't reflect the calculated calendar, but the whole Qiddush haChodesh is set up to invoke Sanhedrin being meqadesh al pi re'iyah. So perhaps they chose a clock for announcing the molad that wasn't the one they used to translate to the meridian used for translating mollad into rosh chodesh. Why would we do so? Isn't the meridian of Y-m the obvious time to use even if it weren't the one used to compute the calendar? As I quickly mentioned (I gave more details more than once in the past), I am suggesting a different meridian because if Hillel Nesi'ah ubeis dino had assumed a molad that was 23 min earlier than the one we announce, the molad would be more accurate. 23 min later than Yerushalayim does correspond to a meaningful place at the time, a point exactly midway between the Jews of EY and those of Bavel. Aside from including Ur Kasdim. Not the most obvious choice (Yerushalayim) but still not a random meridian either. So why not assume they picked the meridian for announcing the molad on that basis, and credit the Sanhedrin with knowing the molad to greater accuracy? The question is what that does to molad zaqein, and how we would explain the clean result of before noon vs posponing RH if the molad is after noon. The idea behind molad zaqein is that the furthest east Jewish community would still be able to see (weather permitting) the new moon before the end of RC. This is obviously only a loose idea, since we're talking about timing based on the molad, an approximate average. (So that on average Jews in the east would see the new moon...?) RYGB and/or RAZZ theorize http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n038.shtml#08 that the Calendar Controversy was over the issue of how far east do we worry about. R' Aharon ben Meir wanted to move the cutoff for molad zaqein by 64 chalaqim. (More than 23 min, ie 414 chalaqim.) He doesn't say why. Their article suggests that RABM was setting the rule for molad zaqein based on the furthest known Jewish settlement at that time. Which would be Kaifun, and the numbers work. Whereas RSG objected saying that the location is theoretical, not experimental. The Kuzari (following RSG -- since it's his version of the calendar that we all use) uses this to argue that the international date line is 90 deg east of Y-m ih"q. And thus any Jewish settlement that would be further east would be on the other side of the date line WRT Rosh Chodesh, and there is no problem of the molad being on their day 2. If so, changing the molad by 23 min would change the calendar, halakhah would prove my claim wrong. But few if any of us hold that the date line is 90 deg east of Y-m, east down 125.2 deg E, down Dongeng St in Changchun, China. To quote R Dovid Heber at : Families on the eastern strip of Dongfeng Street would recite kiddush while families a block to the west would recite havdala. It may be possible for those who want two days of Shabbos to walk one block eastbound, down Dongfeng Street, after Seuda Shlishis and start Shabbos again. Those who want to skip almost all of Shabbos could take a short stroll westbound, and go from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. (This post needed something light to leaven it.) >From where I sit, between those who say 180deg and the CI's adjudgment of including the entire land mass if part of it is west of 90deg, the dominant shitah is inconsistent with the Kuzari's explanation. If the date line is not involved, it would mean the machloqes would be about what we mean by the far enough end of Jewish settlement who would still experience the molad before the end of RC. RSG is saying that 90 deg is the Sanhderin mandated estimate, and RABM holds it's the actual furthest settlement. And that stands whether or not RYGB and RAZZ are correct about RAML's sevara, as we're only looking at RSG lehalakhah. I just took the Kuzari's lomdus and asked what it would mean to those who don't agree with his date line. If that line of reasoning is correct, then saying the approximate eastmost community is to be measured from the center of the core Jewish settlement -- between Bavel and EY -- ends up more intuitive than saying it's measured from Y-m. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 05:11:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:11:28 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Ooops! Yesterday I accidentally pressed "send" when I meant to "save draft". The result was a post that was far from finished. Here is what I had intended to publish: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar > (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, > it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might also be RTK's point). But IF that is how we are to understand the vocabulary, then we have a whole new way of reading the Shulchan Aruch. Here are some examples of this new way of understanding: It's not assur to shmooze between Geulah and Tefillah of Maariv (236:2) or to say Shehecheyanu on the Lulav on the second day (662:2) or to say Hallel on RH and YK (584:1) or to get a haircut before Mincha (232:2). It's not assur to daven only in your heart, but it's better if you pronounce the words with your lips. (101:2) I will concede that these examples are indeed less severe than cases where the Shulchan Aruch DOES use the word "assur". But nevertheless, we do not take these halachos as mere suggestions. Despite the lack of the word "asur", we DO accept it as normative psak halacha, and not as "hashkafa", to use RTK's word. So why should Siman 240 be different? Why would we suddenly take the words of Siman 240 to be hashkafa, and wave off the Shulchan Aruch, saying that his derech is different than our derech? Shouldn't we accept it as normative halacha? Even if I feel these halachos to be strange or difficult, shouldn't I at least accept them as a goal to strive for? And if I *don't* strive for them, doesn't that require teshuva? > Surely that is at least partly subjective, and any of the > various sources that apparently disagree with each other can > be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up > what your gut tells you is right. Maybe, but one had better be VERY sure that those sources actually exist, and that they have ample support in the poskim. Otherwise - as I asked a couple of posts ago - how is this any different than what the conservative and reform do? "It's a big machlokes - there's gotta be someone who paskens the way I want, so that's what I'm gonna do." I shudder when I hear otherwise-observant people saying such things. There are indeed some cases where there is such a *lack* of consensus among the poskim that one can do as he wants (one of my teachers paskened this way and for this reason regarding brachos on dessert), but I do not see Siman 240 in this category. We seem to be abandoning the consensus of the Shulchan Aruch and Nosei Keilim, and running to minority rishonim. > Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing > this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing > to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation > of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional > closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly > pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least > some obligation to fulfill. Are we really sure that (for the wife) physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness from the Torah's perspective? Or perhaps that is only an invention of minds which have been clouded by the outside culture? Could it be that Onah requires physical closeness, but not emotional closeness? I get mixed messages on this. On the one hand, an awful lot of Siman 240 is devoted to husband and wife both being of the proper frame of mind, and this is extremely strong evidence to the real importance of emotional closeness. But when I see halachos about keeping conversation to a minimum, and keeping the time involved to a minimum, then I wonder how much closeness can be achieved. I had posted: : Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. : Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. R' Micha Berger responded: > ... because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: > ... 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... Really? Can we really survive without it? You and me, I suppose, but that's because we are male. RTK referenced mitzvas onah. In the Torah's view, sex is as essential as food and shelter are. But only for women. Regardless of whether we're talking about physical closeness or emotional closeness, it seems that the Torah is concerned about closeness only for the woman, and not for the man. For women, closeness is a need which must be met; for men, closeness is a taavah which must be controlled. Let's not allow ourselves to get confused between needs and taavos. A person may desire something so much that he thinks it to be a need, but he is deluding himself. Nowhere do I see any responsibilities of the wife which are comparable to Mitzvas Onah. Yes, she'll be a "moredet" if she refuses, but (as I understand it) that is due to the social contract implicit in the concept of marriage, which is a very cry from a Chiyuv D'Oraisa. ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b8c3465e5f543465c9est02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:01:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:01:07 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla Message-ID: according to the Hebrew wikipedia Matyha bat Baytus bought the high priesthood for her husband Yehoshua ben Gamla towards the end of the second Temple. As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai and they guess that it was from Agripas II. Furthermore Yehoshua Ben Gamla was killed during the revolt against Rome. (Where the high priest Yishmael ben Elisha fits in we have discussed in the past) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:07:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:07:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150729160759.GF12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 06:01:07PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> according to the Hebrew wikipedia Matyha bat Baytus bought the high :> priesthood for her husband Yehoshua ben Gamla towards the end of the second :> Temple. As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai and they guess :> that it was from Agripas II. : Furthermore Yehoshua Ben Gamla was killed during the revolt against Rome. : (Where the high priest Yishmael ben Elisha fits in we have discussed in the : past) The gemara is Yuma 18a and Yevamos 61a. The mishnah in Yevemos says that Yehoshua ben Gamla married Marta bas Baisus, an almana, but before consummating the marriage "umanahu melekh" to be kohein gadol, The point of the mishnah is that they can stay married, as actually happened in this event. The gemara comments on the language of "manahu" rather than the expected "nisnamneh" to denote that the appointment wasn't the usual approval of a candidate selected by the kohanim and vetted by Sanhedrin. Then the gemara says she spent two qavin ("tarqav" = trei + qav) of dinarim to buy it. The gemara in Yuma makes this last point as well. Josephus (Antiquities XX 9:4 ) wrote that he became KG during the reign of Herod Agrippa II. Nothing about how. The translation reads weird, calls him "Jesus the son of Gamaliel". I went to the Soncino, since I don't know who else would comment on a gemara - Josephus interaction. Fn 16 on Yuma, 20 on Yevamos make the identity. They first opine that "Jannai is often employed in the Talmud as a general patronymic for Hasmonean and Herodian rulers." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:30:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:30:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?HILCHOS_KIBUD_AV_V=92EIM?= Message-ID: <20150729153144.1CF3218089B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://halachafortodaycom.blogspot.com/2013/02/archives-hilchos-kibud-av-veim.html Some selections from this site. The Aseres HaDibros, the Ten Commandments given to us by Hashem on Har Sinai are divided into two parts, the first five are commandments between man and Hashem (Bein Adam L?Makom) and the last five are commandments between man and fellow man (Bein Adam L?Chaveiro) Kibud Av V?Eim ,the fifth of the Aseres HaDibros, is listed amongst the commandments that are between man and Hashem even though it is seemingly a commandment that is only between man and man. The reason for this is that honoring one?s parents is akin to honoring Hashem. There are 3 partners in every human being, the father, the mother and Hashem. If one honors any of the three it is as if all three have been honored, and if one dishonors any of the three it?s as if all three have been dishonored. 1)It is prohibited to contradict a parent. (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah Siman 240:2) If a parent has a verbal disagreement with another person, and the child tells the other person ?I concur with your view?, it is considered contradicting the parent and is prohibited. (Shach Yoreh Deah 240:2) 2) According to some Poskim this prohibition is only in the presence of the parent. Other Poskim, however, maintain that even not in the presence of the parent it is prohibited. 1)It is forbidden to call a parent or refer to them by their name; rather they need to be referred to as ?My father [my teacher]? or ?My mother?. 1) What constitutes ?Kibud, respecting? parents? One must speak to their parents softly, with respect the way one would speak to a king. 1) Children are obligated to stand up for their parents when they enter a room. 1) If a parent does something that is against the Torah and a child sees, the child should not say ?You transgressed a Torah prohibition?, as bluntly saying so will cause the parent embarrassment. Rather, the child should say something to the effect of: ?Father Does it say in the Torah that one should not .?? in a way that sounds like a question and not like a chastisement or rebuke, and the parent will realize on their own that they have committed the sin. 1) If one?s father asks for a glass of water or any other task, and at the same time his/her mother asked for a glass of water or another task, tending to the father?s needs takes precedence, as the son/daughter and the mother are both obligated to respect the father/husband. 2) If a parent is sleeping it is forbidden to wake them up. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:51:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:51:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B8F66D.2000701@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 11:33 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > > But few if any of us hold that the date line is 90 deg east of Y-m, > east down 125.2 deg E, down Dongeng St in Changchun, China. To quote > R Dovid Heber at: > Families on the eastern strip of Dongfeng Street would recite > kiddush while families a block to the west would recite havdala. > It may be possible for those who want two days of Shabbos to walk > one block eastbound, down Dongfeng Street, after Seuda Shlishis and > start Shabbos again. Those who want to skip almost all of Shabbos > could take a short stroll westbound, and go from sunset Friday to > sunset Saturday. > (This post needed something light to leaven it.) Shu"T Bnai Tziyon points to a gemara about two villages within techum shabbos, where it was Yom Kippur in one and not the other, because that was the last place the messenger had made it before sunset. (I can't figure out how that actually worked, but that is what the gemara says.) He avoids the awkwardness of the situation posited in this clip by positing that the line is not one-dimensional but is several miles wide, and that the area inside the line has an official din of sofek, like bein hashmoshos. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:21:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 19:21:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: saw some trivia questions: 1) Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters of the alph-bet (I only know one) 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:51:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:51:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150729165138.GH12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 07:21:20PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 1) Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters : of the alph-bet (I only know one) Soferim use Tzefania 3:8 to show their penmanship, because it not only includes all 22 letters, it also includes all the sofios. Is that a way to denote total ultimate justice (the meaning of the words ) or what? This question is easier than that, just asking for 22 letters, not whether sofis or not. I already heard this one so I will leave the other 6 for others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:58:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B8F834.5060103@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 11:01 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > according to the Hebrew wikipedia Which is no more authoritative than English WP, and in fact seems to have looser rules regarding sourcing. > Matyha bat Baytus Martha. > As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai As Tosfos already points out, in both places where the gemara quotes this memra. > they guess that it was from Agripas II. That seems like a good guess, that the Yannai in the memra refers to the king Josephus calls Herod Agrippa II, but it is only a guess. On 07/29/2015 12:07 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I went to the Soncino, since I don't know who else would comment on a > gemara - Josephus interaction. Fn 16 on Yuma, 20 on Yevamos make the > identity. They first opine that "Jannai is often employed in the Talmud > as a general patronymic for Hasmonean and Herodian rulers." Which, for all we know, it may have been. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 10:13:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:13:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B909C7.7070906@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 12:21 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach 1. The definition of an "edah" from "this wicked edah". 2. Hezek re'iyah from Bil'am. 3. Standing for a davar shebikdusha, from Eglon. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 14:57:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:57:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150729215724.GA3540@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:11:28PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : R"n Toby Katz wrote: : > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too : > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim : > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar.... : > What we are really talking about : > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan : > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... : : Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. : : I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount : of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as : "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" : (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken : literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that : these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might : also be RTK's point). Which is why I quibbled with RnTK's language. Becauser I think it's assur -- really and actually assur -- not to try for perishus where possible. It's a bitul asei of "qedoshim tihyu". However, a mitzvah of hilkhos dei'os is to stretch, to move the nequdas habechirah and is therefore not only "at least partly subjective" but necessarily subjective. And if the criteria for behavior could be spelled out non-subjectively, they would be spelled out in chovos ha'eivarim. : I had posted: :: Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. :: Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. : R' Micha Berger responded: :> ... because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: :> ... 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... : Really? Can we really survive without it? You and me, I suppose, : but that's because we are male. Under normal circumstances, one can't go 3 days without food and water. Not just "one would be miserable if", but actual death. I am not sure how you could compare the need for intimacy to that kind of mechanistic do-or-die. : RTK referenced mitzvas onah. In the Torah's view, sex is as essential : as food and shelter are. But only for women. I disagree. And BTW, my #1 which you ellided /was/ mitzvas onah. : Regardless of whether we're talking about physical closeness : or emotional closeness, it seems that the Torah is concerned about : closeness only for the woman, and not for the man. For women, closeness : is a need which must be met; for men, closeness is a taavah which must : be controlled. Or, the Torah presumes that opportunity is in the hands of men. Not a difference in desire. Or -- a 3rd possibility -- lehefech, men are presumed more likely to get distracted by their own taavos and objectify their spouse and therefore the chiyuv of onah to focus on someone else's psychological needs. In any case, the requirement to avoid misery would motivate a chiyuv, one needn't define it as a need. Esperically since biologically, it's not necessary for survival the way food, drink or air are. But getting back to what you're saying here... Let me repeat point #1 in different phrasing: Because onah is indeed a chiyuv, saying that it should be minimized outside the realm of mitzvah isn't that much of a minimization. And yet, the threat of erotic desire becoming an end in itself is both more damaging, since there will be other victims beyond the self-destructive aspect and more likely. (In most people's psychology -- it's not like there is an internet food "porn" industry.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 15:37:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:37:27 GMT Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> R' Eli Turkel asked: > The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov > mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are > forgotten after 12 months ... > > I have a personal problem with this statement. ... one never > forgets a child R"n Toby Katz answered: > I don't think "gezeira al hameis" means the person is literally > forgotten, but that the degree of mourning becomes less intense. > ... the parent goes on with life, even if a heaviness always > remains somewhere in the background. I have had the same question as RET, and I thank RTK for this answer. I have written on several occasions, about my belief that Chazal often exaggerate, and this misleads those who are not used to their style of speaking. I think we have here another example of the same thing. There's a tendency to take Chazal at literal face value. We need to be more careful when reading the poetry. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 08:02:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:02:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Parallels in Kiruv Message-ID: <56c357c0b3404dbcbfc7bce2d25a6162@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Here's a quote from "Their Rock is Not Like Our Rock" - Daniel Strange In a recent article addressed to evangelical pastors I outlined a three-point "to do" list that might begin to move us into this stance: * Develop and deploy a biblically rich and nuanced theology of religions * Discern and denounce the arrogance and intolerance of pluralism * Demonstrate and display, in both word and deed, the unique power of the gospel to change lives and communities My impression is the first two are not generally done by kiruv folks but I was wondering if you replace gospel with orthodoxy and evangelical pastors with kiruv professionals, what fits? Should it be considered as an approach? Kol Tuv, 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 09:30:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:30:47 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: 'oh hanisa elokim' is one; the other is in parshat haman , i forget which one. will leave the dvar tora connecting the two , to others , other than to say the import of 'zeh gilui shechina' and lechem mishamayim as fundaments of faith,,,, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 10:38:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:38:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: From: Eli Turkel via Avodah " 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach -- Eli Turkel >>>>> Don't know if this is what you had in mind but I can think of these: [1] A woman cannot be married without her consent -- learn from Lavan -- "Nish'alah es pi hana'arah" before sending Rivka off with Eliezer to marry Yitzchak. [2] A younger sister cannot marry before the older sister (unless she gets permission from her) -- from Lavan again, excusing himself for giving Leah to Yakov instead of Rachel. [3] Celebrating seven days of sheva brachos -- from two places. One is Lavan again -- give Leah a week to celebrate and then Yakov can marry Rachel. And from the Pelishti "friends" of Shimshon who celebrated his wedding for a week. [4] We also learn from Izevel (Jezebel) that it's a big mitzva to dance at a wedding, to be mesameach chassan vekallah, but strictly speaking this is not in Tanach, it's a midrash. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 11:41:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:41:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: In Avodah V33n109, RET posted > Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters of the alph-bet (I only know one) < In the Torah, a *pasuq* in P'Va'eschanan (4 :34) is usually noted, but it (containing letter *sin* but no *shin*) works only when the *shin* and the *sin* are considered the same letter (they are, so long as we're considering the written form). The other *pasuq* in the Torah of which I'm aware is Shmos 16 :16 (in it, the *shin* is extant but there's no *sin*). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 15:30:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:30:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months In-Reply-To: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150730223053.GA17753@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:37:27PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : I have written on several occasions, about my belief that Chazal often : exaggerate, and this misleads those who are not used to their style of : speaking. I think we have here another example of the same thing. There's : a tendency to take Chazal at literal face value. We need to be more : careful when reading the poetry. Tanakh sometimes does something else with a similar effect, and it may be what Chazal are doing here. Lei'ah, rather than being described as "less loved" is "senu'ah". It's not necessarily exageration as much as a language norm to express a relative statement uing the same terms as absolutes. Here too chazal are making a comparison. Was the reader expected to know it's guzma, or was the norm in mishnaic Hebrew as well to use the term for the end of the spectrum to mean "less mourned than"? My problem with this is the parent of the MIA who can't let go for years or decades, and then it's found out that the chayal r"l was killed upon capture (or their body was taken after petirah for a bargaining chip). We have no experimental evidence of parents having that mystical knowledge of their children's state, and quite a bit of evidence otherwise. Perhaps Yaaqov avinu, or even someone with "just" ruach haqodesh is that aware of what's going on on the plane of souls without learning about them through normal olam hazeh means. But I do not see it being true of the majority of humanity. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 20:39:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 03:39:12 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> I tried to make the point that although many try to show similarites between food and sex, if we look at the Torah's view, there are far more differences. I suggested a rule of thumb: > Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. > Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. Chazal see food as an entirely proper way of enjoying olam hazeh, to the point that it is actively encouraged as a form of all sorts of celebrations. (And not only happy celebrations, but eating is also involved in various mourning practices.) Under normal circumstances, one can and should eat as much as he needs, subject to the limitations of kashrus and brachos. One is never allowed to eat in a quantity or manner that he becomes a menuval, but that is not a major concern. Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah. And even there, the restrictions are many. Food has tremendous room for creativity even within the restrictions of hilchos kashrus and brachos. Sex could be similar, even within the bounds of hilchos nidda and arayos, but the restrictions set out in OC 240 go much farther than merely to insure that one does not become a menuval. R' Micha Berger responded: > I think the difference is just about that, but because of the > biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: > 1- It involves a second party. There is no threat of > objectifying [food]. > 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... > Therefore, the attitude toward perishus for each comes from > opposite directions. For food, which is necessary for survival, > we talk about how much is too much. For sex, we talk about the > right balance between keeping the other happy (chiyuv onah) > and turning them into a tool for your own happiness. I think that he is agreeing with me that food and sex are very different, but I disagree with his explanation of *why* they are so different. In his first point, intended to be "food"), he seems to feel that the restrictions on sex are to prevent people from taking advantage of each other: If I have even a small desire for a snack, the Torah has no problem at all if I go to the kitchen and take an apple (provided that I say the bracha to acknowledge Hashem's involvement) because the apple is nothing more than an apple. But while casual eating is fine, casual sex is not. Casual sex involves people, and they must not be taken advantage of. My problem with this is on several levels. First, Chazal are pretty explicit that the purpose of Hilchos Nida is to restore a honeymoon-style atmosphere on a regular basis, and that alone might suffice to insure that spouses aren't objectified. Also, we have the many parts of OC 240 which insure that husband and wife are in the same "place" emotionally: no one is drunk, words of "ritzui", and so on. But isn't that sufficient protection against objectifying? What is gained from the additional restrictions (such as various positions, or finishing quickly) which have no parallel in food? In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach the Torah uses for Onah. While men and women are pretty much identical in the halachos of food, Onah places the husband and wife in opposite situations. Any discussion of Onah that uses the word "spouse" will be flawed, because Onah treats the husband and wife so differently. For example, whenever the wife desires relations, then the husband has a clear and present chiyuv d'Oraisa. But if the husband desires, she has no corresponding obligation; in fact (if I'm not mistaken) she's not even labeled as a "moredet" until after prolonged and repeated refusals. It seems to me that Onah may have the effect of objectifying males. Those parts of Orach Chaim 240 which forbid unwilling relations ought to suffice to insure that the women are not objectified. But Onah seems to push the pendulum too far. In response to RTK, RMB wrote: > I'm not sure it's "hashkafah" as much as Hilkhos Dei'os / Chovos > haLvavos. After all "Qedoshim tihyu" is a chiyuv, not a nicety, > and that's a source for "perushim tihyu". > What a mitzvah to be or to become something (such as "qadosh") > is in practice, though, is inherently situational and subjective. > If we were talking about something reducible to black-letter > halakhah and objective rules, it would have been. And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective rules", is it not? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 1 22:55:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 00:55:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: I initially replied on Areivim to a post reminding women during the summer to cover their hair. Mrs. Katz added that there was no support for those who hold that hair covering in public is not necessary. Others have disputed what RYBS's position on hair covering was, in view of the fact that his wife did NOT cover her hair in public at all times(someone seems to have the impression that she wore a hat). Here are the sources I have collected, in addition to the fact that a significant percentage of Modern Orthodox women to not cover their hair in public except in shul/davening situations. In response to those who have stated that the younger more educated women are covering their hair, I would point out that they have been educated to believe that it is an obligation, and the permissive sources have not been shared with them- case in point Mrs. Katz who either is not aware or chooses to dismiss them out of hand. In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is: if it is the practice of women to cover [their hair] and she uncovered it, then this is immodesty ( *ervah*). But if it was not the regular practice [of women] to cover [their hair] then [going uncovered] is not in the category of immodesty at all. If they uncover one hand?s-breadth in a place where they are habituated to cover then it is [a case of] uncovering immodesty and it is prohibited to read the Shema prayer in their presence... But if their (ladies?) custom is to uncover their hair (or a hand?s-breadth of the body) ? as single women do who by custom walk around with head [hair] uncovered - then this [action] does not constitute immodesty (*ervah*)." If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. Here is a list of easily accessable sources: Rabbi Marc Angel(former president of the Rabbinical Council of America) discusses why hair covering is not mandated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbrQwEerLsY Massive article by Rabbi Michael Broyde: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/0095-0180.pdf I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and everyone can come to their own conclusion. Rav Yosef Haim(author of Ben Ish Chai) writing that hair covering is not necessary(and how his opinion was altered by others): http://text.rcarabbis.org/the-ben-ish-hai-and-women%E2%80%99s-hair-covering-an-interesting-case-of-censorship-by-jacob-sasson/ See Rabbi Broyde's article(pages 155-158) for citations of those who state that hair covering is not mandated in the current society: R. Yitzchak Hurwitz in Yad HaLevi R. Moshe Malka(late Chief Rabbi of Petach Tikvah) R. Josef Messas(late chief rabbi of Morocco and later Haifa) R. Yaakov Haim Sofer Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did not cover her hair? Was this permitted by the *halachah*, or was it not prohibited on the grounds of modesty? He took out a *Gemara Berachot*, opened it to page 24A and showed me the Talmudic statement. "Said Rav Sheshet: [showing] hair by a woman is *ervah *(an act of immodesty)." Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with uncovered hair. Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat common. Some will say that- 'they couldn't control their wives' or other such statements. I would point out that RYBS also went to the opera- perhaps in keeping with an approach that hair wasn't erva, a lenient view of kol isha, all of which seems consistent. Furthermore, it seems quite far fetched that a rav who knew that he had great communal status would abide by gross violation of halacha in public by his own family, and at the very least would make it clear that he did not hold by it. Obviously, the fact that he did not make a deal of it(certainly not a big deal), illustrates something. Do you think he would countenance his wife eating treif? furthermore, the chiyyuv is also for men not to see hair(if that is the position that is being taken), and by not protesting his wife's uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 2 03:40:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 13:40:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: <<> 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach 1. The definition of an "edah" from "this wicked edah". 2. Hezek re'iyah from Bil'am. 3. Standing for a davar shebikdusha, from Eglon. >> Some others are: 4. Lavan: Sheva Brachot; also the Bracha we give the Kalla at the bedeken 5. also "chaye shaah" is less important that "chaye olam" from the 4 lepers, gechazi and his sons -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 2 01:25:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 11:25:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: ""It's a big machlokes - there's gotta be someone who paskens the way I want, so that's what I'm gonna do." I shudder when I hear otherwise-observant people saying such things. There are indeed some cases where there is such a *lack* of consensus among the poskim that one can do as he wants (one of my teachers paskened this way and for this reason regarding brachos on dessert), but I do not see Siman 240 in this category. We seem to be abandoning the consensus of the Shulchan Aruch and Nosei Keilim, and running to minority rishonim." R' Lichtenstein was bothered by this point and answered that we need to rely on our teachers and Gedolim. "Probably most significant, however, is our reliance upon our own mentors. Sensing that modern gedolim, ?the judge of your era??for our purposes, most notably, the Rav, but not he alone?have examined the issue and the evidence and adopted a positive stance, we, ordinary students of Torah, follow in their footsteps as we identify with their position. Whether they felt justified in accepting, out of the depths of their own conviction, a minority view; whether they held that our topic was essen- tially a matter of hashkafic proclivity, not necessarily amenable to the nor- mal procedures of pesak; or whether some other unknown but imagined element?might, for instance, the hospitable climate of Kabbalistic sources, have had some impact?is a matter for conjecture. That the authority of our mentors can inform and sustain our sensibility is not." I understand that for many of us that is not a very satisfying answer and leads to many questions about why specifically here we follow minority opinions as opposed to other places (e.g. wombs issues, etc.) but I don't think there is a better answer. This is the way the halachic system works. Even after all of this, R' Lichtenstein himself was bothered by this very point: "I am left, nonetheless, with a lacuna. Even while adhering to the Rav?s position, one may freely concede wishing that he had done for us what we have been challenged and constrained to do here: examine the various tiers of tradition and elucidate the basis for his own judgment and commitment." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 01:21:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:21:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on tefillin Message-ID: There is a disagreement between Rashi/Rambam and R Tam whether one says one or two brachot on tefillin of the arm and head. While sefardim follow SA and say one bracha ashkenazim follow R Tam and say 2 brachot bur add "baruch shem kvod ..." to avoid a bracha le-vatala I have 2 things I don't understand about the ashkenazi minhag 1) The usual rule is "safek bracha le-kula" and so when in doubt don't say a bracha 2) How does saying "barch shem" help ? We have many disagreements about brachot. For example ashkenazim (again following R Tam) say brachot on customs, eg half hallel. We don't add "baruch shem ..." in these cases. Why only in tefillin? Furthermore whenever there is a doubt about a bracha (classical case is if one forgot to count the omer at night and remembered during the day) why do the act without a bracha - why not say the bracha and add "baruch shem" -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 07:43:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:43:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150803144333.GA30399@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 03:39:12AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed : in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah... ... and priya verivya, no? : Food has tremendous room for creativity even within : the restrictions of hilchos kashrus and brachos. Sex could be similar, : even within the bounds of hilchos nidda and arayos, but the restrictions : set out in OC 240 go much farther than merely to insure that one does : not become a menuval. ... : I think that he is agreeing with me that food and sex are very different, : but I disagree with his explanation of *why* they are so different. I have the same assessment. I am saying that the same principle of when perishus is appropriate is very different for food vs sex because food and sex are different in nature. Summarizing my point #1: : But while casual eating is fine, casual sex is : not. Casual sex involves people, and they must not be taken advantage of. : : My problem with this is on several levels. First, Chazal are pretty : explicit that the purpose of Hilchos Nida is to restore a honeymoon-style : atmosphere on a regular basis, and that alone might suffice to insure : that spouses aren't objectified.... If your objection is based on the "might suffice", all one needs to assert is or might not. : What is gained from the additional : restrictions (such as various positions, or finishing quickly) which : have no parallel in food? I am not sure that prohibitions based on mood are sufficient, as it's too easy to fool oneself about what the other person really wants. In any case, you return to OC 240 again at the end of the post and ask: : And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective : rules", is it not? Perhaps not. Is OC 1 black-letter halakhah? Is hitting the snooze button, or even lying around for a few seconds before getting up, actually assur? For that matter, there is a mitzvah to remember right vs left when putting on and tying shoes, but do you really think someone was oveir an issur if they don't? As the AhS OC often notes, the style of the SA is just to discuss do vs don't, and it blurs the distinctions between levels of issur -- a deOraisa can be next to an accepted minhag, and both may even be written in parallel language. : In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival : without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, : psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach : the Torah uses for Onah. : : While men and women are pretty much identical in the halachos of food, : Onah places the husband and wife in opposite situations... Whereas moredes has no parallel because she cannot initiate a gett. And for that matter, it has no parallel because he is obligated to support here. For that matter, the assymetry in who supports who is quite possibly why HQBH set up an assymetric process for gittin. The man who obligates himself in support can get of it. Onah is a protection against that objectification. Against turning that whole support thing into near prostitution. And with onah, the outcome is more symmetric -- he can end a marriage if dissatisfied, and is obligated to keep her satisfied. Without which BD can force him to willingly end the marriage. (Just paraphrasing the din...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 08:17:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:17:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on tefillin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150803151733.GB30399@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:21:03AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I have 2 things I don't understand about the ashkenazi minhag : : 1) The usual rule is "safek bracha le-kula" and so when in doubt don't say : a bracha : 2) How does saying "bar[u]ch shem" help ? ... The AhS (OC 25:11 ) agrees with you on both points, and therefore posits (se'ifim 12-13) a totally different meaning to the 2nd berakhah. And even though shel yad and shel rosh are two different of the 613, we make one berakhah on maaser rishon and maaser sheini. He also quotes that the BY rejects a possibility that if someone talks between the two tefillin, he would have to make both berakhos on the shel rosh -- repeting "lehaniach" and yet still saying "al mitzvah". But even though he uses this as proof, he requires (se'if 16, following the Ran via the MA s"q 15) loosening the shel yad so that you are still saying "lehaniach" the 2nd time on both. This is a pretty big chiddush, a birkhas hoda'ah that says "asher qidshanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu al mitzvas..." However, similar arguments are made about Birkhas haTorah, if one says the berakhah is deOraisa (Ramban) and therefore "aqb"v la'asoq bedivrei Torah" can't be a birkhas hamitzvah. The IM says as much (OC 2:3). : We don't add "baruch shem ..." in these cases. Why only in tefillin? Leshitas AhS, it follows enacting the qesher gadol between us and HQBH for the same reason the pasuq is said after the first pasuq of Shema. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:04:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 17:04:47 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> I wrote: : Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed : in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah... R' Micha Berger asked: > ... and priya verivya, no? I was trying to show differences between sex and food. I would say that, in the eyes of Halacha, there is no connection between pirya v'rivya and the olam-hazeh enjoyment of sex, in exactly the same manner that there is no connection between achilas matzah and the olam-hazeh enjoyment of food. The latter is a means of internalizing a historical connection, and the former is a biological imperative, but neither has any connection to olam-hazeh enjoyment. However, that it not to say that halacha is blind to the fact that sex *IS* enjoyable. This is recognized by the mitzvah of Oneg Shabbos, where if the act is to be done once a week, then Shabbos is receommended. Chiyuv Onah also recognizes that if the wife has a taavah for this particular hanaah, then it is the husband's obligation to satisfy her taavah. But pirya v'rivya? No, I don't see evidence of that. I asked: : And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective : rules", is it not? RMB suggested: > Perhaps not. Is OC 1 black-letter halakhah? Is hitting the snooze > button, or even lying around for a few seconds before getting up, > actually assur? For that matter, there is a mitzvah to remember > right vs left when putting on and tying shoes, but do you really > think someone was oveir an issur if they don't? I agree that there are degrees of obligation. A simple verb like "yaaseh" clearly implies a smaller obligation than "chayav laasos". "Must" is much stronger than "should". But if a subject makes it into Shulchan Aruch - as these did - that also shows a stronger obligation than something that appears only in Mesilas Yesharim, or even Gemara for that matter. Yes, I do think that when the alarm clock rings, one has an obligation to seriously consider whether he really *needs* to stay in bed a little longer, or whether he merely *wants* to. And I will admit that - b'shaas maaseh - I rarely consider that as seriously as I should. And that's one of the things I'm trying to improve on. Same thing for tying my shoes - I think that by now I do it correctly by habit, but I'm not really sure, and I'll try to remember to watch myself tomorrow morning. RMB wrote: > Whereas moredes has no parallel because she cannot initiate a gett. And > for that matter, it has no parallel because he is obligated to support > here. For that matter, the assymetry in who supports who is quite > possibly why HQBH set up an assymetric process for gittin. The man who > obligates himself in support can get of it. Yes, I agree that this could be part of why Hashem set it up that way. But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no corresponding safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55c0f0f9c892870f9653ast02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:43:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:43:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <117801d0cedd$1904bea0$4b0e3be0$@com> > But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan > Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went > uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why > aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? Good question. I can't help but thinking that this is one of those (many) halachic issues where the hanhaga of Klal yisroel in certain halachic (or hashkafic) areas has developed to be inline with yechidim than with the majority of chazal/rishonim/etc Why this happens is certainly a discussion - is it societal / siata shimaya guiding Klal yisroel / etc We have many others similar to this (some d'oriasa, some d'rabbanan) - human hair sheitals, chadash, live music after the churban, etc. When this should happen (and when it should be fought), I will leave to the einei haeida. Mordechai Cohen From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:49:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Baruch Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 10:49:07 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Halachic Requirement for Dayanim Evaluating In-Person Facial Expressions of Parties in Bais Din In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: List Mates: In an AMI issue that was reported in VosIzNais, Rabbi Hershel Schachter was quoted as saying: ""*There is a Mishna in Pirkei Avos that the oilam says a vort on. It says, "K'sheyihiyu habaalei dinim lifanecha, yihiyu b'einecha k'resha'im. K'she'yaamdu m'lifanecha yihiyub'einecha k'tzaddikim, shekiblu aleihem es hadin." ["When the litigants stand before you (the judges), they should be in your eyes like wicked people. When they stand up from being in front of you, they should be in your eyes like righteous people, because they have accepted the judgment."] They say from a few different dayanim that they would put a tallis over their face, to not see the face of a rasha. But that is wrong; part of the din Torah is to look at the person and see from his facial expression and how he talks...whether or not he is saying the truth. You have to be able to detect whether he is telling the truth*.'" ( http://www.vosizneias.com/92931/2011/10/11/new-york-in-exclusive-ami-magzine-intreview-noted-rabbi-schachter-slams-set-up-of-rabbinical-court-system/ ) Is there a Halacha that you can direct me to that mandates in-person and face-to-face participation by the parties to a Bais Din for the reasons given by Rabbi Schechter? I found this... The seating configuration of the Sanhedrin ??????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?? ?? The Mishnah describes how the members of the Sanhedrin sat in a row in the shape of a half-circle in order *for each person to be able to see everyone else*. Why was it necessary for everyone to be able to have direct eye contact with everyone else? Rashi explains that it is only when people have direct sight of each other that they can listen and then argue and debate with each other. ?"????? elaborates and says that when people argue and express their views, they often rise from their seats. If they did not sit facing each other, it is quite possible that they would not be able to hear when a person turns as he speaks from a standing position. Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin 1:3) explains that this arrangement was used in order for the President (????) and the Av Beis Din to be able to see everyone. Lechem Mishneh notes that this was a sign of respect for these leaders to sit in the middle and for everyone to easily be able to listen to them. Rashi also addresses why the Sanhedrin sat in a half-circle rather than in a full circle. From a technical standpoint, the witnesses and litigants would have to have a way to enter the circle to present themselves in front of the judges (see Rashi, Chullin 5a). Furthermore, if the judges sat in a full circle, while the witnesses would be facing some of the judges, their backs would be turned toward the others. *The judges might have a hard time hearing the witnesses and litigants, or they would not be able to see them as they spoke. Facial expressions and other subtleties are essential in communication, and the judges must be able to pick up on any and all such nuances during the deliberations*. The Tosefta (8:1) cites differing opinions regarding the seating position of the President of the Sanhedrin. Tanna Kamma holds that the President sat in the center of the semi-circle, with thirty-five of the members of the Sanhedrin seated on each side of him. R' Elazar b. Tzadok says that when Rabban Gamliel sat in the Sanhedrin in Yavne, one of the sages sat to his right, and all the others sat to his left. Rambam (ibid.) writes that the ???? sat with the Av Beis Din to his right, and the rest of the sages to his left, seated according to their ages and their wisdom, with the wisest among them to his immediate left, and the rest seated closer according to their level. Radva"z and Kesef Mishneh ask why Rambam does not rule according to Tanna Kamma, and, as he rules according to R' Elazar b. Tzadok, why the row begins with the Av Beis Din, and not with the ???? himself. Radva"z explains that it was not only the Av Beis Din who sat to the right of the ????, but the ???? sat in the middle, as Tanna Kamma explains, with the Av Beis Din to his immediate right. ??? ???? explains that Rambam rules according to R' Elazar b. Tzadok because he cites the actual case of Rabban Gamliel http://www.dafdigest.org/Sanhedrin/Sanhedrin%20036.pdf -- Respectfully, Baruch C. Cohen, Esq. Law Office of Baruch C. Cohen, APLC Los Angeles, CA 90010 e-mail: BCC4929 at gmail.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:24:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:24:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> From: Kenneth Miller via Avodah >> In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach the Torah uses for Onah. [snip] It seems to me that Onah may have the effect of objectifying males. << Akiva Miller >>>>>> To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without reproduction. Our nitzchius is absolutely dependent on this particular activity, which is why "peru urevu" is actually a mitzva and not "mutar if you wish." It is Hashem's chessed that He made this activity intrinsically pleasurable. If you were a robot or an alien without human emotions and you witnessed this human activity, you would wonder, "What the heck are these humans doing? And why?!" I am not an expert on male physiology but I am under the impression that for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. This reminds me of something else I wanted to say in response to some of RMB's posts. He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her. But human beings derive pleasure from each other all the time, whether the pleasure is a stimulating conversation, "please scratch my back," playing with a delightful, cuddly baby -- I could go on and on -- and it is just absurd to think that if another person gives me some kind of pleasure, I have "objectified" that person. Not to forget the main point I wanted to make: sex /is/ necessary for survival, and therefore some comparison to eating food /is/ valid. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:57:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:57:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> References: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150804185730.GA28011@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 02:24:43PM -0400, RnTK wrote: : To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS : required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human : species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without : reproduction... The question is the difference in relationship a person to their hunger compared to their sex drive. You appear to only be objecting to an overly broad use of "required for survival" by not saying "individual's survival", without touching the point that people relate to each desire very differently. (You also seem to ignore non-reproductive sex -- an infertile couple, post-menapouse, etc...) .... : This reminds me of something else I wanted to say in response to some of : RMB's posts. He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from : being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her... Pleasure is a positive thing, as long as it's not the only thing. It's turning a wife into a cheftzah by which he obtains his pleasure that is literally objectifying. If the husband is forced to think about her perspective, his wife as a person, during relations, the risk of the pursuit of pleasure taking over to that point, the mutual search for pleasure is humanizing and bonding, quite the reverse. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:10:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 14:10:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150804181031.667AC180E06@nexus.stevens.edu> At 01:51 PM 8/4/2015, Noam Stadlan wrote: >If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered >hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. Is it really true that what women in the general society do is some standard for tznius for Jewish women. If so, then the practices of "well undressed" gentile women (as R. A Miller used to call them) of today have eliminated all tznius standards. One sees women in public today dressed in almost nothing. [Email #2] At 01:51 PM 8/4/2015, Noam Stadlan wrote: >Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat >common. Just because something is or was commonly done does not make is correct according to halacha. Many, many people talk loshon hara, yet it is not proper according to halacha. [Email #3] Please see Covering the Hair by Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 13:07:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 23:07:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: >> Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters >> of the alph-bet (I only know one) < [R' Michael Poppers:] > In the Torah, a *pasuq* in P'Va'eschanan (4:34 > ) is usually noted, but it > (containing letter *sin* but no *shin*) works only when the *shin* and the > *sin* are considered the same letter (they are, so long as we're > considering the written form). The other *pasuq* in the Torah of which I'm > aware is Shmos 16 :16 (in it, > the *shin* is extant but there's no *sin*). We still need another 3 pesukim in the rest of Nach including one that has not only the 22 letters of the alphabet but also all the end letters -- Eli Turkel [Well in I already wrote: > Soferim use Tzefania 3:8 to show their penmanship, because it not > only includes all 22 letters, it also includes all the sofios. Is > that a way to denote total ultimate justice (the meaning of the words > ) or what? -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 15:31:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:31:53 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I see your pesukim and raise you a medieval Hebrew poem of four lines, where each line contains every letter of the alef-beit including sofiot exactly once with no repetition: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pagefeed/hebrewbooks_org_38040_154.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 5 02:53:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 05:53:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" Message-ID: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> I think a philosophy book just came out detending a variant of RSSchwab's "two clocks" explanation of ma'aseh bereishis. RSS's shitah appeared in AOJS's Challenge (ed. R Aryeh Carmel, R/Prof Cyril Domb pg 164 onward. surveys the area and summarized RSS as follows: Similarly, Rav Shimon Schwab talks of two types of time, cosmic time and earthly time. The 6 days of creation are counted according to cosmic time, during which period millions of years may have passed according to our measure of time. (Althugh I disagree with their next sentence on REED's position.) Now for the book. I just got this review : > he Fall and Hypertime > Hud Hudson, Oxford University Press, 2014, 211pp., $65.00 (hbk), > ISBN 0198712693. > Reviewed by Trent Dougherty, Baylor University > Hud Hudson's book is a brilliant and creative defense of the following > proposition. > There is a conflict between a literal reading of the book of > Genesis and science only if one assumes that the hypertime hypothesis > is false. > The import of Hudson's thesis is that those who allege a conflict between > science and a literal reading of Genesis are not basing that claim merely > on science but on controversial metaphysics as well.,,, > To understand the hypertime hypothesis (hereafter "HH"), begin > with the "growing block" theory of time, one of the standard set of > options. According to this theory, the past is real and "still exists" > as a "block" as spacetime and the future is "open," i.e. the future > does not exist. The block grows as the quantity of either space or > time increases. Hudson notes that there is nothing more intrinsically > mysterious about the block losing parts than its gaining parts. He > then points out that it is also not more intrinsically mysterious that > a "morphing block" shrink or grow not just in units of hyperplanes > ("slices" of the block) but also in sub-regions of hyperplanes. As a > result, there are no in principle limits to the ways in which a block can > morph, to the "shape" it can take. Furthermore, there is no good reason > why the hyperplanes (or sub-regions thereof) might not be "reshuffled" > in a different order. > Because the universe is here modeled as a spacetime block, the temporal > dimension only measures changes within the block. Hypertime measures, > as we may think of it, changes to the block (though technically blocks > at different hypertimes are numerically distinct,and there remains a > question concerning the status of various essentialisms about blocks > with respect to their parts). That means that at any given moment on > the hypertimeline, there can be a complete spacetime block, a complete > physical universe distinct from blocks at different hypertimes. Given > infinite hypertime, this generates a plurality of worlds not unlike that > of David Lewis. Hudson applies the possibility of this plurality in three > ways: to an understanding of omnipresence (which I will not discuss), to > (three versions of) the problem of evil (one of which I'll discuss below), > and in defense of his main thesis. The way HH helps with an understanding > of omniscience and the problem of evil gives it credit and motivates > it as a viable option so that its application to the main thesis is > not ad hoc (though it's being ad hoc would not prevent its success for > its purpose). I will describe the application to the problem of evil, > offer a criticism, then describe its application to the main thesis. > If there is a plenitude of spatiotemporally discrete universes, then it is > difficult to infer from any empirical observation that the actual world > is not the best possible world. It is important to remember that on the > hypertime hypothesis the spacetime blocks at different hypermoments are > only one portion of total reality. Our observable universe is a drop > in the bucket. So an argument from evil against the existence of God > from ours not being the best possible world would have to argue that > the observable universe could not even be a part of the best possible > world. That is not clearly an easy argument to make. > This move takes the form of what is traditionally called a "defense" > rather than a "theodicy"... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 5 15:22:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 18:22:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesak and Safeik Message-ID: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> Anyone know a source (or at least a theory) that discusses when we treat a machloqes as a safeiq, rather than applying the rules of peaq? The issue comes up in AhS YD 24:42. (Mazal tovs on completing OC will be graciously accepted.) Siman 24 discusses 4 of the 5 halakhos leMoshe miSinai of shechitah. (Shehiyah got its own siman.) There is a machloqes between the Behag and Rashi about the line between aqirah and tereifos. Rashi says that aqira is the displacement of the qaneh or veshet caused by using a nicked knife. Most rishonim hold like the Behag, and then there is a submachloqes about what kind of dislocated simanim are aqirah, ad what are tereifos. Leshitas Rashi, they would all be tereifos. Anyway, here the AhS says that Rama holds that midinei shechitah, we are machmir for every definition of aqirah. But midinei tereifah, which differ in that it would also prohibit the milk or eggs from such an animal, we recognize that the iqar hedin if the Behag, and are meiqil. So okay, one tiny bit of my question is answered -- we have a special rule by shechitah that machloqesin are resolved by safeiq deOraisa lehachmir. But WRT tereifos.... The AhS says that despite the Rama, we are nohagim lehachmir. So, while the Rama thinks this is a case where the rules of pesaq apply, the AhS says "we" disagree and treat it like a safeiq. Why? I also realize the line isn't all-or-nothing. I presume that not every shitah rises to the level of creating a safeiq, so there is some kind of pesaq-like reasoning necessary to assess which do and which don't. So it's more an issue of how balanced do shitos have to be for us to be unwilling to pasqen and just assume it's a safeiq. But still, these two acharonim are setting te line at a different place. So, does anyoe discuss the kelalim of when to bail out from the (other) kelalei pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 07:47:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:47:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] They Found Gat Message-ID: <20150806144710.GA2303@aishdas.org> As you may have heard, a team found the gates of Gat, Golias's home town. And, as I've noticed in the past, the question of whether they find evidence of the events as found in Tanakh or evidence against can be predicted in advance by checking the religious stance of who is running the dig. So you get this story from Haaretz : Philistine City of Gath a Lot More Powerful Than Thought, Archaeologists Suggest Powerful fortifications newly uncovered by Israeli archaeologists suggest the kingdoms of Saul, David may not have been quite as powerful as thought. Nir Hasson Aug 04, 2015 3:08 AM [IDT] ... According to Maeir, the discovery of Gath as a huge, fortified city on the border of Judea during an extended period, without any signs of destruction as a result of a war with Judea, proves the Philistines controlled the Judean plain. Because Khirbet Kaifa existed for a relatively short period -- about 30 years -- it is likely the remnant of a failure of the Israelite kingdom to spread westward and not a sign of its power. "The Judean kingdom is supposed to be big, important and strong," says Maeir. "But it turns out there is a very big city on its western border. For years, I claimed Gath was a big city, but they countered that it has no lower city, and if it has one it is not fortified. After finding a huge fortification, its clearly the most important city of the 10th and ninth centuries." Now, to get a hint of how we would have heard about Gat had the dig been run by a bilical maximalist, here's an element mentioned in : Near the gate, Maeirs team also unearthed the remains of the citys extensive fortification wall, a Philistine temple, ironwork and pottery. While the pottery bears hallmarks of the distinctive Philistine style, elements of Israelite techniques can be seen on the fragments as well, indicating there was more interaction between the two cultures than previously thought. Since Pelishti culture was importing Jewish culture, doesn't that lend MORE credibity to the idea that David haMelekh's kingdom was at east on the same scale if not overshadowing theirs? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 15:28:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 23:28:31 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] : Re: De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> RAM writes: >And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective rules", is it not? In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? And further read the Tur (and the meforshim on the Tur) in Even HaEzer simin 25 to get a fuller picture of the sources (and the original gemora sources) - so you can see the history of the machlokus on how to deal with this issue all the way back. As Rav Lichtenstein articulated it, the question is not so much that we differ from the position of Chazal, as our position (and the one quoted by the Rema) is much more in line with the majority position in Chazal, but why did the major rishonim - Rambam, Ra'avid etc differ so markedly from what appears to be the majority position in Chazal and posken - well like Rabbi Eliezer (shmuti hu?), as then did the Achronim. I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the influence of the outside world. The same sort of influence that reputedly led to the cherem of Rabbi Gershom (Jews who are supposed to be the upholders of morality cannot be seen to have more than one wife in a world where that is seen as immoral). In a world which identified relations with sin and death (standard Xtian theology of the time, and the Muslim theology in many circles was not that different) - it would have been inappropriate, and led to general looseness if the general non Jewish world view had been repudiated to the extent consonant with the positive positions found in Chazal. Hence Orech Chaim, the book most accessible to the masses, contains not a word of the Rema's position, that is buried in Even HaEzer, where it is more likely only the scholarly will look (or from the point of view of Maran, go look in the Tur). But to talk about relations positively in an open way in Xtian Europe would have created temptations for the non Jewish world that would have unleashed a level of vengeance (eg from the priesthood) that could likely not be endured. There was a lot of censoring and self censoring that went on in all sorts of areas, it seems to me also here, especially as there are the minority positions to bring and rely on. Only in the modern day world which has swung so far the other way is it possible to honestly and openly evaluate the position of Chazal, and that is what in effect has been done, by Rav Lichtenstein and others. >Akiva Miller Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 17:28:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 00:28:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? Message-ID: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Apparently, In the U.S., the therapist's duties are owed to the client, subject to statutory obligations such as the mandatory-reporting requirement. There is no exception for the therapist's religious custom or belief, unless, in limited circumstances, the client consents to it. Question-from a torah point of view should it make a difference who shows up at the therapist's (or Rabbi's)door (for any therapy or advice)? How does Halacha balance the needs of the individual, the family, the community, Jewish society and/or society in general? 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 12:56:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 15:56:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" In-Reply-To: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> References: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> What's the difference between this and Gerald Schroeder? KT, GS, YGB On 08/05/2015 05:53 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I think a philosophy book just came out detending a variant of RSSchwab's > "two clocks" explanation of ma'aseh bereishis. > > RSS's shitah appeared in AOJS's Challenge (ed. R Aryeh Carmel, R/Prof > Cyril Domb pg 164 onward. > > > surveys > the area and summarized RSS as follows: > > Similarly, Rav Shimon Schwab talks of two types of time, cosmic > time and earthly time. The 6 days of creation are counted according > to cosmic time, during which period millions of years may have > passed according to our measure of time. > > (Althugh I disagree with their next sentence on REED's position.) > > > Now for the book. I just got this review > : > >> he Fall and Hypertime >> Hud Hudson, Oxford University Press, 2014, 211pp., $65.00 (hbk), >> ISBN 0198712693. >> Reviewed by Trent Dougherty, Baylor University From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 13:32:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:32:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" In-Reply-To: <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> References: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150807203234.GA14121@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 03:56:56PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: : What's the difference between this and Gerald Schroeder? R' Gerald Schroeder is working within physics, using Relativity to try to make the timelines match up. R' Schwab, and for that matter this Hypertime idea are metaphysical, saying that the 6 days were not physical days, meausured using the same kind of time Galileo turned into a variable when he measured pendulum swings, Newton took derivatives with respect to, and Einstein unified with space. Rather, a logically prior idea altogether. This is more in line with the rishonim who said that science as we know it post-dates creation, and therefore time during creation is has to be measured with a different kind of clock than the one of physics. ------- And some day when humanity develops to this point, the two will finally be in sync. Which would fit RAYK's metaphysics in which every duality is an illusion, as everything is the Or Ein Sof from the Absolute Unity. And le'asid lavo, even the division between olam hazah and olam ha'emes will fall. Leshitaso, techiyas hameisim is a consequence of the reunification of the worlds of life and of death. Those souls don't so much come back to life as the distinction disappears. (I do not recall if RAYK invokes "hayinu kekholmim".) And yes, in such a situation, physical time will be back in sync with supernal time. Although one needn't believe in RAYK's eschatology in order to accept the concept that the two definitions of time will be unified, nor do we need to believe in eventual synchronization in order to talk about the 6 days of ceration being on a different kind of clock than physics. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 13:56:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 15:56:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Re; sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R. Levine wrote: "Is it really true that what women in the general society do is some standard for tznius for Jewish women. If so, then the practices of "well undressed" gentile women (as R. A Miller used to call them) of today have eliminated all tznius standards" Response: Of course there are baseline standards of tzniut for Jew, men and women, that are independent of surrounding culture. But hair covering is not one of them.(At least according the sources and shitta that I have brought). R. Levine then brings an article by Rav Breuer. That is his shitta, it doesn't mean it is universally accepted or binding. Much of what he brings is not specific halacha but advice or Nach based(the entire sugya of kol kevuda etc) I would note that the vast majority of shittot do not require single women to cover their hair I will not have access to respond for a week or so, but will be address further responses at that time. shabbat shalom noam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 8 12:02:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 22:02:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] depression Message-ID: Enclosed is a summary of the last shiur of R Zilberstein to the doctors. I am giving a shiur on this in my shul this coming shabbat. Since I feel it is controversial I am looking for input from the list. Question from a psychiatrist - A patient has 3 kids and has mild depression since the last birth. She wont take chemical drugs and instead uses one based on plants which is good for mild depression. It had some side effects and so the patient stopped that also. The dictor suggested various anti-depression drugs and other help which the patient refused, Contacting a social worker it turns out the woman runs a "nursery' (mishpachton) from 8am to 4pm. The social worker says she manages only with a great effort; her husband comes home from work at 1pm and the mother helps. The woman refuses to open a file in the social ministry because of this nursery which they may close down. The social worker pointed out that if something happens the state will prosecute the psychiatrist. Question: On one side there might be a danger to the kids in the nursery and the psychiatrist might lose her license OTOH this is a major income for the young family. She has successfully run the nursery for several months without any complaint with the help of the husband and mother. If this is all explained to the ministry it most likely won't help and they will closer her down Answer: The job of a bet din is to watch out for the welfare of the community. Hence, according to Torah law the doctor must go the rabbi of the city or neighborhood to hear their opinion, R Zilberstein notes that in Bnei Brak there is an agreement with the authorities that the local bet din deals with such problems and calls in the local authority only if they feel this is necessary. Such an arrangement should be set up in every town that the local bet din makes the decision. see YD 336:1 that ba doctor needs the permission of the bet din to practice, Therefore one needs the permission of the local secular authorities to rely on the judgement of the local rabbi. It is well known that the "mara de-atra" have the ability to treat broken and depressed people. In England there was a baby born with Down's syndrone whose Jewish parents disappeared. The local board of health turned to Rav Yoseph Dinner Zt'L what to do, Rav Dunner , who was the 65, (after checking with his wife) said they would adopt the baby since at that time there was no Jewish institution capable of handing this baby. The local board of health accepted this solution. The couple cared for the child until they reached the age of 80. At that point they transfered the child to an instituion in Afula, Each year R Dunner would come to Israel to bake matzot and then visit the child in Afula. The doctors in Britain said the best social workers are the Jewish leaders. In the beit midrash of R. Pam there was born a child with Down's syndrone. R Pam always tried to cheep up the boy. One year the boy complained that on simchat Torah they used all the sifrei Torah except for his paper one. After Musaf R Pam went to the Bimah and announced to everyone that now they were reading from the sefer Torah of this boy. This was the happiest moment for the boy and the angles surrounding "kise hakavod" Conclusion: The psychiatrist should explain to the local rabbi the situation in the nursery. The rabbi should come to some agreement with the local secular authotities to rely on his judgement -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 8 21:21:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 21:21:33 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? Message-ID: you are basically asking when must the rabbi/frum therapist offer halachic therapy and then risk prosecution? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 12:17:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:17:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] human hair sheitals Message-ID: In the thread "De-Chokifying Arayos", I asked: > But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan > Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went > uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why > aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? R' Mordechai Cohen answered: >>> I can't help but thinking that this is one of those (many) halachic issues where the hanhaga of Klal yisroel in certain halachic (or hashkafic) areas has developed to be inline with yechidim than with the majority of chazal/rishonim/etc >>> ... >>> We have many others similar to this (some d'oriasa, some d'rabbanan) - human hair sheitals, chadash, live music after the churban, etc. You are raising a great point. I have wondered this about chadash and music myself, and I'm somewhat surprised that I didn't see the connection. Thank you very much for bringing it to my attention. (Though, to be honest, these examples sharpen my question about Conservative "psak".) But for THIS thread, my question is simple and direct: Tell me more about why you specify "human hair sheitals". Have chazal/rishonim ever distinguished between wigs made of human hair vs other kinds of wigs? I was always under the (possibly mistaken) impression that chazal and rishonim - and even acharonim - only discussed the requirement to cover hair, and how much to cover, and the ramifications of leaving it uncovered. But I don't recall any discussion of the covering itself except by the leaders of very recent chasidic groups. Am I mistaken? Where is this discussed in the seforim? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 13:15:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 16:15:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: In Avodah V33n111, RET noted: >> Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters >> of the alph-bet (I only know one) << > We still need another 3 pesukim in the rest of Nach including one that has not only the 22 letters of the alphabet but also all the end letters < Fact-checking what I found via Google'ing (besides the *pasuq* already noted by R'Micha) provides these fifteen (!) *p'suqim* containing all the letters: -- Y'hoshua 23:13 -- M'lachim Beis 4:39, 6:32 -- Y'sha'yahu 5:25 -- Yirm'yahu 22:3, 32:29 -- Y'chezqeil 17:9 -- Hosheia 13:2 -- Amos 9:13 -- Esther 3:13 -- Daniel 3:22, 4:20, 7:19 -- Ezra 7:28 -- N'chemya 3:7 All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 14:11:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: <<< To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without reproduction. Our nitzchius is absolutely dependent on this particular activity, which is why "peru urevu" is actually a mitzva and not "mutar if you wish." >>> Yes, that's true. But please note that you yourself are referring to "peru urevu". My question concerns a different mitzva, namely Onah, wherein sex is explicitly linked to food and clothing/shelter. I don't think it is a big stretch to say that the common thread of these three things is how important they are to this particular individual, and NOT how important they are to the species. <<< ... for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. >>> I think we may be understanding the word "objectify" in different ways. Contrary to what some might think, not all men are constantly obsessed with having sex. At any given point in time, a particular man might have other priorities - other activities that he'd rather do than this one. But a husband cannot give higher priority to these activities over Onah, just like he can't choose them over minyan, or other mitzvos. He must be sensitive to his wife's needs and wants, and if he senses her mood, he is under a chiyuv d'Oraisa to act accordingly. (Actually, he'll have this chiyuv even if he does NOT sense her mood accurately, in which case he will have been Mevatel the Aseh b'shogeg, though I suppose it could easily be argued that it's more of a "shogeg karov l'meizid" if he hasn't even tried to judge her mood accurately.) But there is no flip side to Onah. The wife has no responsibility to judge her husband's desires. In fact, even if she does realize that he is "in the mood", there is no Chiyuv d'Oraisa for her to ignore her other desires and respond to her husband's desires. Sure, it could well be advisable for her to do so for Shalom Bayis reasons, and one might even call it a "chiyuv" in that context, but the imbalance remains: Her chiyuv would be Shalom Bayis alone, while the husband must deal with both Shalom Bayis and Onah. That's what I meant by "objectify": Much of Orach Chaim 240 is to protect the wife from a forcible rape (for instance, she can't be asleep or drunk), and much is also to protect her from more subtle rape (such as thinking of another woman). But there are far fewer protections offered to the husband. Neither can be drunk, and neither can have decided to divorce, but in general, the wife is within her rights to demand relations whenever she wants, and to me, this can "objectify" the husband. RTK reminds us that the husband *will* have pleasure from this. But that is exactly my point: If someone is required to have a pleasure that (for whatever reason) he does not actually *desire*, it is a sort of rape. RTK also wrote: <<< He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her. But human beings derive pleasure from each other all the time, ... it is just absurd to think that if another person gives me some kind of pleasure, I have "objectified" that person. >>> You are correct. Merely receiving pleasure does not automatically objectify a person. But if one receives pleasure without returning that pleasure to the giver, this carries a danger of objectifying the giver. And if one receives pleasure against the giver's will, that is the very definition of "objectifying" (in my view). R"n Chana Luntz wrote: <<< In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? And further read the Tur (and the meforshim on the Tur) in Even HaEzer simin 25 to get a fuller picture of the sources (and the original gemora sources) - so you can see the history of the machlokus on how to deal with this issue all the way back. >>> Indeed, the first few times I saw that Rema, he seemed to be saying, verbatim, that "you can do anything you want, and whenever you want to do it." A sexual hefkervelt, a world with no rules. But a more careful reading shows that he is only making two specific points: That there are no restrictions on positions, and that (as we've already said in this thread) the timing restrictions of O"C 240 are a "madrega" but not the basic halacha. But aside from these points, I see OC 240 and EH 25 as very similar: Their main focus concerns the *mental* state, and it is in this area (it seems to me) that Shulchan Aruch - including all acharonim until quite recently - endorses a very prishus-oriented approach. RCL again: <<< I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the influence of the outside world. ... In a world which identified relations with sin and death (standard Xtian theology of the time, and the Muslim theology in many circles was not that different) - it would have been inappropriate, and led to general looseness if the general non Jewish world view had been repudiated to the extent consonant with the positive positions found in Chazal. >>> There are many responses I could give to this. Perhaps the simplest would be: So then let Shulchan Aruch be silent; why did they choose to pasken overtly like the prishus view? Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 10 05:08:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:08:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: To continue from my previous post: R"n Chana Luntz wrote: <<< In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? >>> I think it is noteworthy that the Aruch Hashulchan often goes out of his way to justify the common practice in the face of the consensus of poskim, but does *not* do so in this case. In fact, Aruch Hashulchan EH 25:11 quotes the same Tur as the Rama did, but emphatically warns us *against* following it. This suggests that the turning of the tide, from a more prishus-oriented view to something else, occurred more recently than the days of the Aruch Hashulchan. Can anyone suggest a more precise time? Or, to put my question more blatantly: Does the less-prishus-oriented view appear only in recent articles such as the one by Rav Lichtenstein, and in the sort of verbal psakim such as he received? Does it appear anywhere at all in any of the seforim that one might happen to be learning, such as the Igros Moshe, Tzitz Eliezer, or similar? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 07:14:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akirah In-Reply-To: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> References: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150811141458.GA31500@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 6:22pm EDT, I wrote: : The issue comes up in AhS YD 24:42... : There is a machloqes between the Behag and Rashi about the line between : aqirah and tereifos. Rashi says that aqira is the displacement of the : qaneh or veshet caused by using a nicked knife. Most rishonim hold : like the Behag, and then there is a submachloqes about what kind of : dislocated simanim are aqirah, and what are tereifos. Leshitas Rashi, : they would all be tereifos. : : Anyway, here the AhS says that Rama holds that midinei shechitah, : we are machmir for every definition of aqirah. But midinei tereifah, : which differ in that it would also prohibit the milk or eggs from such : an animal, we recognize that the iqar hedin if the Behag, and are meiqil. In response RAF sent me offlist an essay he wrote in Dec 2001, titled "Hagdaras Iqur Simanim baTalmud", which I put up on-line here . The article does a survey of various definitions of ique hasimanim, which vary amazingly widely. He lists some causes: - The discussion is in scattered snippets across Chullin, not one organized sugya. - The rishonim do not agree about the girsa of the gemara that contrasts iqur from tereifah. - The rishonim do not even agree on basic defining features about iqur simanim. RAF also mentioned to me: "I have a very different peshat in ikkur, based on actually looking at the Behag." Sec. 4 does appear to quote a Behag that is at odds with the mesorah about shitas haBehag that the baalei Tosafos received. We've discussed the relationship between errors in reception and whether finding one would change pesaq before. Here, the nafqa mina lemaaseh is small but real, as per above. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: If anyone else has a Torah article they want up on-line, feel free to ask. -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 15:53:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:53:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150811225301.GA13480@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 12:55:06AM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : Here are the sources I have collected, in addition to the fact that a : significant percentage of Modern Orthodox women to not cover their hair in : public except in shul/davening situations. Although there is long evidence of rabbis saying it's a problem, but not a battle they can win. So the mimetic side is dismissable. (Also, how does someone who advocates for more roles for women in shul make a mimetic argument?) : In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of : uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is... : If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered : hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. But saying it's not a breach of tzeni'us doesn't say it's allowed, that's your addition not in the translated text you quote. RYB could mean what the AhS says, that it's terrible things came to this, but you may daven in her presence. Or, that whle it's not a tzeni'us problem, it's still prohibited deOraisa as per the implication in parashas sotah. : Here is a list of easily accessable sources: : Rabbi Marc Angel... Listening to his citing R' Masas and your quoting R Badad, maybe it's a Seph thing? He presumes hair covering is das Yehudis, which makes his a rare shitah. (Again, given the derivation from a pasuq.) But then again, R' Ovadiah Yosef firmly disagrees. But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. ... : I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and : not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. : However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and : everyone can come to their own conclusion. ... which is what he does, that the theory is there, but it's a shitah dechuyah. And noticably, he too quotes R' Yosef Masas, R' Moshe Malka and the Kaf haChaim -- Sepharadi sources. : Rav Yosef Haim... So, assuming the woman doesn't eat qitniyos, may she go with her hair uncovered? And even if she does... At what point is a shitah dechuyah? ... : Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony : of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. : R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: : "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did : not cover her hair? ... : Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in : this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." : I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the : artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with : uncovered hair. : Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat : common... And yet the rabbanim protested. This isn't even admissable as mimetic tradition, any more than noting how often people speak leshon hara or buy off-the-books or anything else rabbis have failed to curb. : uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his : wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. He too, would only need to be convinced is wasn't ervah in the sense of "all those men" sinning. But as we see in the AhS, that doesn't mean it's allowed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 16:00:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:00:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R' Noam Stadlan wrote: <<< Of course there are baseline standards of tzniut for Jew, men and women, that are independent of surrounding culture. But hair covering is not one of them. ... I would note that the vast majority of shittot do not require single women to cover their hair. >>> I both agree and disagree. Hair covering is NOT a "baseline standard", in the sense that it applies only to married women and not to single girls. But hair covering IS a baseline standard for Jewish women, in the sense that it remains in force independent of the surrounding culture. Thus, we have at least three different standards: males, married females, single females. And actually, we have several more than that, if we distinguish among various ages of boy and girl children, not to mention infants. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 21:26:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:26:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: From: Akiva Miller via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) <<< ... for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. >>> [--TK] >> I think we may be understanding the word "objectify" in different ways. Contrary to what some might think, not all men are constantly obsessed with having sex. At any given point in time, a particular man might have other priorities -- other activities that he'd rather do than this one. But a husband cannot give higher priority to these activities over Onah, just like he can't choose them over minyan, or other mitzvos. He must be sensitive to his wife's needs and wants, and if he senses her mood, he is under a chiyuv d'Oraisa to act accordingly.... But there is no flip side to Onah. The wife has no responsibility to judge her husband's desires. In fact, even if she does realize that he is "in the mood", there is no Chiyuv d'Oraisa for her to ignore her other desires and respond to her husband's desires....<< Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) >>>>> There is a great irony in what you have written. You seem to think that there is an inequality, a lack of reciprocity, in the mutual obligations of men and women -- with women having all the power and men all the obligation. It is ironic because the mitzva for men to be sensitive to their wives' feelings derives from the /curse/ that was given to Chava! Look at Rashi on Ber 3:16, "el ishech teshukasech -- your desire will be towards your husband." Rashi says the curse is: You -- the woman -- will desire relations, but will not be so brazen as to request it verbally. Rather, "he will rule over you" -- it is all from him -- the initiative is his -- and not from you. [end Rashi] To modern ears this Rashi might sound strange because the idea that "women are not brazen" sounds so old-fashioned. Modesty has gone out the window in modern society. But even the brazen women -- and certainly the more refined and eidel women -- want to be wanted. By their nature, most women do not want to be the ones taking the initiative or the ones pursuing the men. For most women it is embarrassing to have to ask outright. If you want an example of a woman in the Torah who was brazen even way back then, look at Eishes Potiphar -- "Lie with me." The very fact that she behaved this way shows what a hussy she was, but also, it shows that she was utterly humiliated. Not only was Yosef not seduced by her wiles, but even when she so lost her dignity as to ask him outright, he /still/ refused. It is no wonder she felt such a burning desire for revenge. It was in order to mitigate the harshness of Chava's curse that Chazal instituted the rule that men have to be sensitive to their wives' desires, that a woman should not have to humiliate herself by spelling out what she wants. It is a chessed that a man does for his wife, to mitigate the curse, to somewhat level the playing field in which men have all the advantages! I actually think this a wonderful example of Chazal's extraordinary sensitivity to women. They acknowledge and partially correct an imbalance that favors men at the expense of women, ever since Adam and Chava. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 22:47:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (bk via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:47:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: depression Message-ID: I have worked in the mental health field and have other personal experience with serious depression. The description which you provided "mild depression", would not at all indicate a danger to anyone including daycare children. It seems that the description is very much lacking. Either there is much more to warrant defying her confidence, including/especially to a rav, or someone doesn't understand what depression is all about. I'm assuming that the former is the case. So, the question is, what can we learn from a case in which the problem is not accurate? b'kavod, ChaimBaruch Kaufman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 06:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:19:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waiting Six Hours for Dairy- A Rabbanite Response to Qaraism Message-ID: <20150812131918.925F517FC6A@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/08/waiting-six-hours-for-dairy-rabbanite.html Qaraites are a Jewish group that began around 760 CE. They rejected the Talmud and rabbinic Judaism and insisted that Jews only observe halacha as expressed in the literal text of the Torah. "Qaraite" means "Scriptualist". The movement started in Iraq and Persia by Jews who objected to the authority of the leaders of the Babylonian Talmud Academies, the Gaonim. The Gaonim and their successors, the rishonim, are called Rabbanites because of their stance in defending the Talmud and rabbinic laws. Scholars have noted that many minhagim began as a response to the Qaraite movement. For example, the recital of Bameh Madlikim on Friday evening after davening [1] was started in the times of the Gaonim to reinforce the rabbinic stance on having fire prepared before Shabbos, in opposition to the Qaraite view that no fire may be present in one's home on Shabbos [2]. There is evidence that the reading of Pirkei Avos [3] on Shabbos afternoon, which began in Gaonic times, was to emphasize to the Jewish masses that the Oral Law was passed down since Moshe Rabbeinu as stated in the first mishna of Pirkei Avos. Professor Haym Soloveitchik [4] has argued convincingly that the unique arrangement of Hilchos Shabbos in Rambam's Mishna Torah was organized specifically with anti-Qaraite intent. Briefly, Rambam's formulation of the Shabbos laws does not follow a chronological order or any other expected logical order. See the above URL for more. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:03:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 11:25:27AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : R' Lichtenstein was bothered by this point and answered that we need to : rely on our teachers and Gedolim. : "Probably most significant, however, is our reliance upon our own mentors. : Sensing that modern gedolim, "the judge of your era" -- for our purposes, most : notably, the Rav, but not he alone -- have examined the issue and the evidence : and adopted a positive stance, we, ordinary students of Torah, follow in : their footsteps as we identify with their position... : I understand that for many of us that is not a very satisfying answer and : leads to many questions about why specifically here we follow minority : opinions as opposed to other places (e.g. wombs issues, etc.) but I don't : think there is a better answer. This is the way the halachic system works. To some extent, yes. However, I do not know what halachiccategory is "gedolim". My job is to have my own poseiq, someone ho cnot only knows the halakhah, but knows me and my situation. Or to get as close to that as possible. My rav's job is to have experts to inform him, and to know when a question is either too complicated for his skills, or the stakes to high (eg mamzeirus, potential intercommunal fallout, or....) to not consult others, starting with his own rav. Yes, you will eventually reach the few at the head of the pyramid, so I guess we can call them "the gedolim", and their opinions will end up shaping policy on big or broad issues. But I do not think RYBS would be happy learning that he had a talmid in the job of mara de'asra who had so little confidence in his own ability to map theory to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronos and desires of the people in it that he hands the job off to people who know less of that reality. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:19:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:19:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> References: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150812201911.GB8165@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 11:28:31PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the : influence of the outside world. The same sort of influence that reputedly : led to the cherem of Rabbi Gershom (Jews who are supposed to be the : upholders of morality cannot be seen to have more than one wife in a world : where that is seen as immoral)... I understood this as well as the Sho'el uMeishiv's take on intellectual property in a single way, and slightly different than your explanation. The Sho'el uMeishiv invokes "lo sehei Torah shelanu kesichah beteilah shelahem. If they recognize a kind of property as a right our native sense finds moral, we obviously must obligated to protect it as well. This is not DDD, as the protection isn't to the extent of the civi law, but to the extent of the halakhos of property. He is identifying a moral obligation we must halachically defend, not the civil law in and of itself... My understanding is that it's not that we learned morality from their law, but their law reflects a new social contract. The new expectations are a change in metzi'us. Now that we expect to have intellectual property, that is part of the new situation, to which a new pesaq applies. Similarly, I understood Rabbeinu Gershom's mandating monogamy in the same terms. He was less worried about being seen as immoral, or learning morality from Xian marriage norms. Rather, once society created different expectations of what marriage is, we had no ability nor obligation to reset to the old expectations (after all, even chazal referred to sister wives as "tzaros"), and therefore have to support a moral solution to the new expactations. A woman gets married expecting a man for herself. Rabbeinu Gershom mandated treating that woman morally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:22:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150812202233.GC8165@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:04:47PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : ... But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent : the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no corresponding : safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. Given the size of the two porn industries, or the difference between what "porn" usually refers to and locating smut in a romance novel, I would think that it's not just Chazal who would conclude the threat of objectfication is assymetric. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 16:24:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:24:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> References: , <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <13CC426F-297A-4E3A-AC33-979E5391FA35@sibson.com> > > But I do not think RYBS would be happy learning that he had a talmid in > the job of mara de'asra who had so little confidence in his own ability > to map theory to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronos > and desires of the people in it that he hands the job off to people who > know less of that reality. > > I agree but I think it's also true That RYBS would not be happy learning that he had a talmid in the job of mara de'asra who had so so much confidence in his own ability to create the theory to map to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronosand desires of the people in it that he doesn't hand the job off to those more qualified to break new ground. Kol tuv 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 20:21:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:21:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: I wrote: : ... But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent : the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no : corresponding safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. R' Micha Berger responded: > Given the size of the two porn industries, or the difference > between what "porn" usually refers to and locating smut in a > romance novel, I would think that it's not just Chazal who > would conclude the threat of objectfication is assymetric. Chazal were aware of the differences between those two industries, and they suggested reasons for it on the top few lines of Kesubos 64b. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 12:36:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:36:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Copyright Message-ID: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> Back in Jun 2001, Napster was in the news, and I heard a shiur from R Zev Reichman, then of REITS' Kollel Elyon. So at the first on-list mention of copyrights, I used it as an excuse to post a summary on-list at and . It's been 14 years, and I just learned of a beautiful einfahl by R' Asher Weiss on the subject. So, I'm reviewing the list, and adding to it. (v7n58 #13 is marked ">", #4 is marked ":".) > 1- Dina dimalchusa issues: > According to Tosafos on Gittin, dina dimalchusah dinah is only on > taxation. > The Beis Yitzchak does rule that ddd applies here. However, RZR opined > that ddd still wouldn't apply apply to Sony Bono's law that was aimed > specifically at Disney, allowing them to extend their copyright on some > animated characters. It's not an evenly applied rule. > 2- I already cited the most chamur, the Sho'el uMeishiv 1:44, who goes > beyond ddd. : The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral : obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it : is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership : of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal : (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights : are lehalachah also eternal. : Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for : that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a : halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos : of copyright. : I just want to note the SuM's assumption, and the importance he assigns : moral rights identified by the surrounding culture. > RZR wondered if the SuM would also recognize the French philosophy of > copyright: that the artist could sell reproduction and profit rights, but > eternally retains rights to controlling how the idea is changed. (So even > if you sell a painting, the owner is allowed to copy it, but not modify > it.) After all, this is also a secularly identified moral right. Would > it be a halachah only in France? > 3- Hasagas gevul: > There is an old cheirem, invoked in many if not most haskamos for a few > centuries, against copying sefarim. (The SuM mentions it.) The cheirem > is at least as old as the publication of Tomer Devora (about a century > after it was written) -- because it's mentioned in the haskamos. That > if one copies the sefer beli reshus, or buys such a copy he is subject > to the cheirem and will lose all the berachos showered on people who > learn TOmer Devorah listed in the begining of the haskamah. > The Chasam Sofer traces the cheirem back to the Maharam Padua's edition of > the Rambam. After he invested all the time and money preparing the plates, > a non-Jewish publisher, Justinian, took those plates and printed his > own copy of the Yad, charging one gold coin less than the original. The > Rama said that anyone who bought a Justinian edition was under cheirem, > as they prevented him from recouping his loss. > Given this lashon, the CS concludes that the problem is hasagas gezul. > However, as RZR noted, hasagas gevul only applies to unfair competition, > not to give copies away as a tzadakah or a fundraiser. > This is also the conclusion of R' Moshe. R' Bleich, back when he was > a talmid at Torah Vadaas found a rare publication of a notebook of R' > Chaim and had it published as a TvD fundraiser. The original publisher > found out about it and cried "hasagas gevul". They went to R' Moshe who > ruled in favor of R' Bleich. > 4- Issur geneivah: > R' Bleich himself, when writing on the subject, quotes "ein berei'ach > mishum me'ilah", and that there is no geneivah without a cheftzah. > 5- Hezek > Now we're in "Micha's 2 cents" territory. Li nir'eh that even for a > tzedakah to do it, even if not hasagas gevul, you are causing hezek to > someone who would otherwise earn money. > Even if not quantifiably assur, I would want to invoke bal tishaktzu on > this one. > 6- Chilul Hashem > In a case like Napster, where the case will have a kol and a trial in > the press, I would think that the risk of chillul Hashem, and therefore > *dinei nefashos*, is enough to assur it -- even in cases where the > copying would be found to be technically legal. 7- Chamas So I heard from R' J Ziring (YUTorah.org) that R' Asher Weiss in a 2013 shiur compared the theft of intellectual property to the dor hamabul (after revisiting some of the above). I found a blog post of RJZ's that describes it or : Chazal explain that the sin of the dor hamabul was that they would each steal less than a shaveh perutah. Thus, in the aggregate they would destroy people's livelihood, but none of them could be prosecuted in court. From here he argued that there is an issur to do something, which while not formally theft, lends to a society that destroys other people's financial well being. If no one respects intellectual property, then inventors, writers, and the like will have no way of supporting himself. Thus, even if no one can properly be called a gazlan, they have all participated in chamas. Tir'u baTov! -Micha > PS: While on the subject, I should point out that we obtain reshus to > include any emails that are reposted on Avodah. When asking, I make it > clear that a copy will appear in the web archive as well. -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 15:08:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baal Nefesh in the Igeros Moshe Message-ID: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> R' Elli Fischer contrasted the use of baal nefesh yachmir in the MB with its use in the IM. (Also heard via R' Jonathan Ziring.) The MB uses baal nefesh yachmir to refer to chumeros where the person is acting in a way to fulfill all shitos. The MB lists the more recent opinions, and then advises that the baal nefesh follow the most stringent. (Although I believe we found in previous iterations that the MB doesn't actualy use the expression particularly often. The IM argues that chalav hacompanies is actually chalav yisrael, so that there is no textual reason to only drink milk that was literally Yisrae'el ro'ahu, as opposed to using anan sahade eidus. But leshitaso, FDA certified milk is kosher even according to the Peri Chadash. (YD 1:47) In 1:48 he dismisses all other possibilities, and then says baal nefesh yachmir. RMF's baal nefesh is not being chosheish for all shitos, he dismissed those other shitos. Instead he is keeping minhag yisrael saba beyond halakhah. Pretty much the opposite of the MB's baal nefesh, who is ignoring accepted pesaq in order to make sure all the textual bases are covered. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 20:27:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 05:27:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Baal Nefesh in the Igeros Moshe In-Reply-To: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> References: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55CD6005.7020707@zahav.net.il> I don't have it open in front of me, but IIRC, in his psak on eating veal RMF makes it very, very clear that the baal nefesh will not eat it and anyone who does is (to use my words) walking on thin ice. The way he relates to a baal nefesh in the CY issue (it is a nice thing to do but if you don't keep, no big deal) vs the veal issue (you really shouldn't be eating this stuff) is stark. Ben On 8/14/2015 12:08 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In 1:48 he dismisses all other possibilities, and then says baal nefesh > yachmir. RMF's baal nefesh is not being chosheish for all shitos, he > dismissed those other shitos. Instead he is keeping minhag yisrael saba > beyond halakhah. > > Pretty much the opposite of the MB's baal nefesh, who is ignoring accepted > pesaq in order to make sure all the textual bases are covered. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 14 12:13:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Heather Luntz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 20:13:15 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> I have been struggling with this thread, but have not found it easy to explain why, although I will do my best: On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:153am EDT, R Saul Guberman wrote: : RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & : the Tosafists. : http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ : Our *Torah shebe'al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish : history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a : great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, : but the *Torah shebe'al peh* would have survived without him. However, : without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, : any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe'al peh* today. And RMB then wrote: >Which is a different statement than the subject line. >I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to >the survival of mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue understanding the gemara. I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? I really struggle with that statement. Now, if you want to limit the claim, and say that Rashi and Tosphos are far more key than the Rambam to what people do in modern day yeshivas all day, including (if not particularly) the Briskers, then it would be hard to disagree. But is what people are doing in yeshiva all day in the 21st century "the mesorah" or is the Shulchan Aruch "the mesorah"? What are the consequences if we relegate the Shulchan Aruch and elevate the Tosphists in terms of halacha as she is practiced? Somehow these seem troubling directions in which to be heading, but I must log off as shabbas is coming very soon in this part of England (and I, for one, am not about to rely on Rabbanu Tam, Tosphotist par excellence, regardless of his mesorah, I don't know about you,). -Micha Shabbat Shalom Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 14 13:48:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:48:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 08:13:15PM +0100, Heather Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> Which is a different statement than the subject line. : :> I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah :> through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who :> stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of mesorah :> than the parshanim... : : I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan : Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the : Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, : we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. : : Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the : Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? Let me make it far more more explicit. The subject line differs from my understanding of RGS' expansion of RYGB's idea in that it claims "Mesora ONLY through Rashi" (emphasis added), whereas I heard them talking about cofication being "less critical". Comparative terms, not absolute ones. IOW, the mesorah could survive without codes, if we had to. But it couldn't survive without parshanim. Without them we couldn't handle any new case that isn't in a code, nor even have the skills to always determine which are the new cases. In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that discusses how the conclusions are reached. Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The parshan connects the past to the now. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 15:41:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:41:09 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> I wrote: : I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan : Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the : Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, : we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. : : Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the : Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? And RMB replied: <<>Let me make it far more more explicit. The subject line differs from my understanding of RGS' expansion of RYGB's idea in that it claims "Mesora ONLY through Rashi" (emphasis added), whereas I >heard them talking about cofication being "less critical". Comparative terms, not absolute ones. >IOW, the mesorah could survive without codes, if we had to. But it couldn't survive without parshanim. Without them we couldn't handle any new case that isn't in a code, nor even have the >skills to always determine which are the new cases.>> Firstly of course, the Rambam wrote his perush on Mishnayos, so I don't think it is merely parshanut that distinguishes the two. Secondly, in the Rambam's code there are various "nire li" statements where he comes across areas where the answer from the gemora is not clear, and he therefore inserts his own view. It seems slightly bizarre to suggest that he or the Shulchan Aruch ever assumed that their code would make determining new cases more difficult, nor does that seem accurate historically. >In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that >discusses how the conclusions are reached. So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no Rambam and no Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any distinction at all between the halacha of the Orthodox and the halacha as championed by the Conservative movement? Is that not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would of necessity lead (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent than we have today - one that would perforce have to embrace the Conservative movement, and certainly all the forms of Open Orthodoxy that RGS is so vehemently against. Part of RAM's distress on one of the other threads on this list at the moment, regarding modern day psak vis a vis sexual relations versus the postion of the Shulchan Aruch has to do with the fact that Orthodoxy in general (although not, I would note, at least some of the Chassidic movements, such as Ger, and possibly increasingly not other groups within the Charedi world) has without appearing to notice, abandoned the position as set out in the Shuchan Aruch (albeit for one that can be said to be the more majority position of Chazal). But take the codes out of the equation and *all* these multiple rishonic positions become tenable, allowing a general free for all within the vastness of the parshanut tradition. The codes therefore are a critical part of what might be considered a dual process - equivalent to the situation where one first brainstorms ideas, and then whittles away to those most tenable. There are of course, situations where Sephardim do not posken like the Shulchan Aruch, and there are even more situations where Ashkenazim do not hold like the Rema, preferring a Shach, Taz or Magen Avraham (or even a Bach). But in the post-Shulchan Aruch world the conversation that RAM has been leading on the other thread is fundamental and critical - if we do not posken like the Shuchan Aruch in the particular case in question - we need to understand and investigate precisely why not, because by and large, the Shulchan Aruch draws the line as to where we go or do not go halacha l'ma'aseh. Without the Shulchan Aruch, we are only left with the brainstorming side of the halachic endeavour, and that means - as I intimated in my closing remarks, that if you find Rabbanu Tam's shkia analysis compelling (or indeed, that of a more minor rishon), there would seem to be little to prevent you holding like it halacha l'ma'aseh. What would hold us together? Indeed you are, I see, engaged in a debate regarding hair covering on another thread. But surely those who seek to justify the practice of many, many women who otherwise led and lead fully halachic lives are full square within the mesorah of tosphos. It is only those who also have an eye to the codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in the light of common practice. >Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The parshan connects the past to the now. That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation handed over to the next. And the generation of the Shulchan Aruch, in accepting it as "The" Code which shall be followed in most circumstances (with exceptions) handed that down to all generations following - making the Shulchan Aruch the mesorah par excellence. I can debate the nature of shkia with the Tosphotists in a conversation down the generations, but my mesorah regarding Shabbas is unlikely to be based upon any such conversation, nor is it expected to be. If you want to redefine the word mesorah to mean only that which Rashi has given us, then of course the title of this thread becomes 100% correct, just rather pointless. Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more of them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the Rambam, were able to formulate their halachic conclusions. Without them it would be far more difficult to have anything like the number of people we have today engaging with the gemora. The Rambam in contrast might well not see the point - if you can't manage without Rashi and Tosphos, then, in his view, maybe you shouldn't be trying, and should be relying on his code instead, leaving gemora engagement to the true elite who should be leading the people. That aspect of the Rambam's view has not dominated as "the mesorah" - using the more commonly understood use of the term. While we might debate the length of time that should be spent in yeshiva, and whether one should do work/army instead of long term yeshiva study - there is pretty close to universal agreement within Orthodoxy that all Jews should spend at least some significant time engaging with the fundamental texts, even if they are of only average intelligence. But what people do in yeshiva is still, in my view, only a small slice of "the mesorah", as it is commonly understood (as opposed to as redefined by RYBS) and a far greater slice is the Shuchan Aruch itself, and for that, the Rambam's influence is surely pre-eminent. >-Micha Shavuah tov Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 13:35:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:35:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim Message-ID: Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? [image: --] Shui Haber [image: https://]about.me/shuihaber *"The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are."* ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 19:20:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:20:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55CFF350.3030205@sero.name> On 08/15/2015 04:35 PM, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: > Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? Devarim 6:13, 10:20. Hil' Yesodei Hatorah 2:1 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 22:14:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:14:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R. Micha offered the following critiques: > Although there is long evidence of rabbis saying it's a problem, but > not a battle they can win. So the mimetic side is dismissable. (Also, > how does someone who advocates for more roles for women in shul make a > mimetic argument?) If the same rabbi's whose wives were not covering hair were the same ones saying it is a problem, this critique makes sense. otherwise, there is no reason to say that those whose wives were not covering their hair were unhappy with the mitziut. The mimetic argument here is that the shitta existed and was followed. It doesn't mean that it is obligatory. So I think this is apples and oranges regarding roles of women in shul. >: In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of >: uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is... >: If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered >: hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. > But saying it's not a breach of tzeni'us doesn't say it's allowed, > that's your addition not in the translated text you quote. RYB could > mean what the AhS says, that it's terrible things came to this, but you > may daven in her presence. Or, that whle it's not a tzeni'us problem, > it's still prohibited deOraisa as per the implication in parashas sotah. I think that you are making a moving target, one rationale knocked down and another rationale surfaces. Obviously hair covering could be mandated for a number of different reasons, but all of them? I am not sure it is necessary to be yotzei l'chol hadayot and even if so, the sources who permit, permit it regardless of the rationale against. I also have to go back and look at the source because I think it said more than the quote. >: Here is a list of easily accessable sources: >: Rabbi Marc Angel... > He presumes hair covering is das Yehudis, which makes his a rare > shitah. (Again, given the derivation from a pasuq.) > But then again, R' Ovadiah Yosef firmly disagrees. He obviously is not paskening like R. Ovadiah > But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And > two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. There are Ashkenazim among the sources as well.....I am illustrating that not only the shitah exists, but was followed and continues to be followed by a significant segment of the MO community. And, were it not for the shoah, it seems that a large segment of Lithuanian Jewry would still be following it. ... >: I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and >: not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. >: However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and >: everyone can come to their own conclusion. > ... which is what he does, that the theory is there, but it's a shitah > dechuyah. And noticably, he too quotes R' Yosef Masas, R' Moshe Malka > and the Kaf haChaim -- Sepharadi sources. >: Rav Yosef Haim... > So, assuming the woman doesn't eat qitniyos, may she go with her hair > uncovered? Again, apples and oranges, or peanuts and sesame. It isn't just a Sephardi shita. > And even if she does... At what point is a shitah dechuyah? Good question. From my limited point of view, if it makes sense and some Rabbonim of at least some stature (and I think Rav Messas et al quality) hold that position, it is not dechuyah. What is your definition? ... >: Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony >: of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. >: R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: >: "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did >: not cover her hair? ... >: Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in >: this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." >: I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the >: artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with >: uncovered hair. >: Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat >: common... > And yet the rabbanim protested. This isn't even admissable as mimetic > tradition, any more than noting how often people speak leshon hara or > buy off-the-books or anything else rabbis have failed to curb. I do not agree. Many in Meah Shearim protest that all women do not wear long thick stockings but that doesn't mean that every rabbi holds that long thick stockings are obligatory. if it is the rabbi whose wife didn't cover her hair, you have an argument. otherwise I suggest that those who protest do not speak for everyone. >: uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his >: wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. > He too, would only need to be convinced is wasn't ervah in the sense of > "all those men" sinning. But as we see in the AhS, that doesn't mean > it's allowed. It is a possible option, but not the probable one. It seems you are going out of your way to figure out how this could occur in consonance with your pre-selected approach, rather than accepting the most likely and obvious rationale. kol tuv. Noam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 16 14:05:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:05:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150816210531.GE28046@aishdas.org> : I think that you are making a moving target, one rationale knocked down : and another rationale surfaces... You gave two counterarguments: 1- Ashkenazi mimeticism 2- A list of sources that appear to be predominantly if not entirely Sepharadi. I therefore gave a teo part reply: 1- Ashk mimeticism was consistently gainst rabbinic will. Even the AhS who weighs halakhah-as-practiced as a major factor in pesaq laments the ubiquitous sin of neglecting this din. He also says it's not ervah. So, the sole person who does spell out Ashk position gives me no reason to equate either (1a) ubiquity nor (1b) a textual statement ruling out ervah with permissability. 2- Those sources are not only Seph, but are possibly dechuyos in their community as well. But at the end of the day, I did write: :> But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And :> two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. (And I still find it ironic that someone making a mimetic argument about hair covering wants to also change the role of women by looking at tets to the exclusion of 3-1/3 millenia of common practice.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 17 08:59:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 11:59:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Soloveitchik on Single Women Lighting Shabbat Candles Message-ID: <20150817155949.GA11283@aishdas.org> http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/single-women-lighting-shabbat-candles Snippet: Torah Musings Halakhic Positions of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik Single Women Lighting Shabbat Candles By Aharon Ziegler on Aug 14, 15 1:00 am in Halakhic Positions ... ... Those who have family customs and if their minhag [custom] is that the single women do not light their own candles then they should certainly not deviate from their custom- "Ve'al Titosh Torat I'mecha"... ... .... As a matter of fact Rav Soloveitchik suggested that Le'chat'chila, all women should indeed first turn off the electric lights, light the Shabbat candles, open the electric lights and then recite the Beracha. Regarding single girls, Rav Soloveitchik noted that this was the practice in Europe, even in his town, and that is how the Rav practiced with his daughters when they were single-that they lit their own candles, even with a Beracha, even when his wife also lit candles with a Beracha. Interestingly, RYBS promoted mimeticism in not taking on the practice of lighting candles if one's mother and grandmother didn't light when they were single and still living with their parents. Yet in the same discussion, he acknowledges how the new reality of electric lights makes relying on the mimeticism of making the berachah on the candles / oil alone just a bedi'eved. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 01:22:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 04:22:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Copyright In-Reply-To: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> References: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55D2EB40.1060303@sero.name> On 08/13/2015 03:36 PM, in a message that Gmail, for some reason, decided was spam, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Beis Yitzchak does rule that ddd applies here. However, RZR opined > that ddd still wouldn't apply apply to Sony Bono's law that was aimed > specifically at Disney, allowing them to extend their copyright on some > animated characters. It's not an evenly applied rule. This isn't true. > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, > it is impossible that the Torah is less moral. This assumes its own conclusion. The exact same reasoning could have been used during the Jim Crow era to "prove" that the Torah requires racial segregation of shuls and yeshivos, or during Prohibition to "prove" that the Torah requires teetotalism. > Now we're in "Micha's 2 cents" territory. Li nir'eh that even for a > tzedakah to do it, even if not hasagas gevul, you are causing hezek to > someone who would otherwise earn money. Even if not quantifiably assur, > I would want to invoke bal tishaktzu on this one. Why should he earn that money? You could invoke the same idea against giving anything away to someone who might otherwise have bought it. Every wedding takes parnassah away from wherever the guests might have bought their dinner that night. Sellers do not own their customers, and have no rights to them. > Chazal explain that the sin of the dor hamabul was that they would > each steal less than a shaveh perutah. [...] From here he argued > that there is an issur to do something, which while not formally theft, Stop right there. Stealing less than a shaveh pruta *is* formally theft. The thief is over on lo sigzol. It's not *returnable*, which is an entirely different matter. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 17 22:18:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:18:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Splendor of Clothes Message-ID: <20150818051824.9B2F7183235@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/the-splendor-of-clothes/ Rav Soloveitchik further added that wearing a Yarmulke, a Kippa, is more dignified than a baseball cap. He said, "If the President of the United States suddenly appeared and wanted to take a picture with me, would I wear a Russian hat, a baseball cap,- or a Kippa? That is the way we should stand Shemoneh Esrei when addressing the King of the Universe, HaKadosh Baruch-Hu. See the above URL for more. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 15:08:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:08:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150818220842.GA26873@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:35:26PM +0300, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: : Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? While it's obligatory (see Zev's citations), I am not sure it's halakhah rather than something prior to halakhah. As in Moshe rabbeinu's list: Mah H' sho'el mei'imakh, ki im - leyir'ah es H' Elokekha - lalekhes bekhol derakhav - ule'avah oso - vela'avod es H' Elokekha... - lishmor es mitzvos H' ve'es chuqosav... It would seem that MRAH is excluding these for thing from the realm of mitzvos and chuqim, and yet still mandatory. Even though the Rambam calls "lalekhes bekhol derakhav" to be "HILKHOS Dei'os". I don't know how to shtim this with the pasuq. It seems more like the Rambam's approach, that there is a duty of pursuing qedushah, yashrus and tov in ways beyond the limits of black-letter halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 10:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:17:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halachic Requirement for Dayanim Evaluating In-Person Facial Expressions of Parties in Bais Din In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150819171747.GA2506@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:49:07AM -0700, Baruch Cohen via Avodah wrote: : ... The Mishnah describes how the members of the Sanhedrin : sat in a row in the shape of a half-circle... : Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin 1:3) ... : The Tosefta : (8:1) cites differing opinions regarding the seating position of the : President of the Sanhedrin. Tanna Kamma holds that the President sat in the : center of the semi-circle, with thirty-five of the members of the Sanhedrin : seated on each side of him. R' Elazar b. Tzadok says that when Rabban : Gamliel sat in the Sanhedrin in Yavne, one of the sages sat to his right, : and all the others sat to his left.... My apologies to RBC that I don't have any thoughts about his intended topic, but he got me thinking about something else... To quote myself from 2010 : > REMT quoted the IE, which I found at Shemos 25:37, in what Bar Ilan > calls the short version of the IE: > Neiroseha: And the qadmonim said that one lamp was in the middle > ve"hashisha ne'erachim ze achar ze bachatzi iggul" (to cut-n-paste > from REMT's post) > And after the scripture said "vehei'ir al eiver paneha", and the > reason for "al eiver" one [eiver], behold the shape is clear. Not semicircular as seen from the front, but the lamps in that pattern as seen from above. Continuing: > The IE appears to very explicitly places all the lamps on the same side > of the middle one. Similarly, in the long version of the IE, Shemos 27:21: > Yaarokh: baavur hayos haneiros bechatzi igul. Ve'od adaber al zeh. Notice that leshitaso, the layout of the Sanhderin parallels the layout of the neiros in the keli most associated with chokhmah. Which makes it interesting that the definition of neir ma'aravi also parallels the machloqes about where the nasi sat. We generally assume it's the middle lamp, on the central shaft. However, Tamid 33a speaks of the two western lights, which we also find implied in Abayei hava mesader, "hatavas shetei neiros" being at a different time than "hatavav 5 neiros". >From which Rashi (see also Rashi Menachos 86b "mimenah hayah madliq") concludes that the neir ma'ariv was the 2nd in the row. So it looks like a two machloqes, leshitasam, setup. But... IE's semicircular menorah is based on the idea that the middle lamp was westmost, the other lamps curving off toward the NE and SE directions. A variant on the shitah that the menorah stood so the lamps run north to south. The idea that the 2nd was the ner hama'ari has the lamps running from west to east. The 2 neiros on the west are lit on their own. The second from the west end is the neir hama'arivi, a title not given the westmost candle because it is lit facing the NhM, with the wick on the east. But that leshitasam looked so pretty! Anyone want to help me salvage it? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 12:25:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:25:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? In-Reply-To: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> References: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150819192519.GB2506@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 12:28:27AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Question-from a torah point of view should it make a difference : who shows up at the therapist's (or Rabbi's)door (for any therapy or : advice)? How does Halacha balance the needs of the individual, the : family, the community, Jewish society and/or society in general? Confidentiality and for that matter focusing on the needs of the client serves society in general in the long run. Society needs not only therapists, but therapists clients are willing to get help from. If we tell therapists that they are to compromise client trust for the sake of the family, community or society, we will lose that. So, even if halakhah requires factoring others' needs in to a greater extent, it might not change things all that much. (After all, the profession developed those standards for a reason. That reason needn't reflect a different set of values.) There are also the secondary effects of the law... If someone loses the opportunity to offer therapy because disobeying those standards open them up to threat of suit or legal consequences, we still lose the therapy. Which has to be factored in to the halachic decision. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 14:45:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:45:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Bais Hamussar] The Small Things Message-ID: <20150819214542.GD812@aishdas.org> ----- Forwarded message from Bais Hamussar ----- Bais Hamussar Al Sheim HaRav Shlomo Wolbe zt"l Shoftim - Elul Rav Wolbe (Daas Shlomo) cites a mind boggling Medrash (Bereishis Rabba 2:7). Reb Avahu said, "From the beginning of time Hashem gazed at both the actions of the righteous and the actions of the wicked. Yet, it is not clear whose actions He desired. Once the Torah writes, 'And Hashem saw the light that it was good' it is clear that He desires the actions of the righteous and not the actions of the wicked." What is this supposed to mean? Could there be a possibility that Hashem prefers the actions of the wicked over the actions of the righteous? Rav Simcha Zissel Ziv, the Alter of Kelm, offers a beautiful explanation. Indeed, even the wicked perform good deeds. However, they limit their good deeds to grandiose actions whose effects can be heard around the world. They will found organizations, create moral ideologies and give their lives for the sake of their country. In contrast, the righteous focus on the small, even minuscule, actions. Chazal were asking who's good deeds are superior -- those performed by the righteous or those performed by the wicked? The answer was provided by the Torah: Hashem prefers the small actions of the righteous over the high-flying deeds of the wicked. A similar idea is mentioned by the Rambam. He asserts that for one who wishes to give tzeddaka, it is better that he give many small donations than one big donation. Many small mitzvos are preferential to a single big action. Rav Yisrael Salanter writes that the focus of teshuva also must be on the small actions. Many are overcome with despair when faced with the prospect of teshuva. "There is no possible way for me to stop speaking lashon hara" or "I simply can't overcome this middah" they lament. However, there is no room for despair when the topic is teshuva. They are absolutely right; at the present time they cannot entirely overcome their inclinations. Nevertheless, they can greatly reduce the severity of their actions if they would merely desist at the times when it is easy for them to refrain from transgressing. If they would take small steps and resist for five minutes here and there, they will already have progressed tremendously down the road of teshuva. With this in mind, our understanding of Chazal's well known statement becomes even more profound. "Hashem says to Klal Yisrael, 'Open for me a hole like the eye of a needle and I will open for you gateways that wagons and carriages will be able to pass through!'" Hashem specifically is interested in the small holes. Teshuva must begin with a focus on the small actions. "Just five minutes" is a mantra that can change your life. I will refrain from lashon hara just for five minutes. I will learn just for five minutes. I will spend just five minutes on helping another Yid. The truth is that sometimes one doesn't even need five minutes. A wave of the hand to motion that one can't talk now can save a person from pages of bittul Torah or loads of lashon hara. Moreover, Hashem guarantees that He will reciprocate our small gesture with a huge dose of Heavenly assistance, as He waves us through big gateways of teshuva! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 20:49:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:49:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: I'm really very unsure what this thread is asking. Let's take, for example, this paragraph from R' Micha Berger: > In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the > BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, > but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that > discusses how the conclusions are reached. What can you possibly mean, that we COULD HAVE limped along without it? We ARE limping along without it! There is so much that is ALREADY missing from the Mesora! There are so many masechtos missing from the Bavli, for example. I suppose it is possible that Ravina and Rav Ashi never saw a need to compile them, but it's much more likely that they were written and then lost, no? Now, imagine, if you will, a halacha which was decided (by a rishon, acharon, it doesn't matter) because of one obscure gemara that some ingenious thinker found and applied to a particular situation. Without this gemara, the halacha pesuka would have been different than we are accustomed to, but because that gemara -- obscure though it might be -- WAS found, and is a legitimate part of our Mesora, the halacha as we know it came to be. There must be hundreds of such halachos, maybe even thousands. But what if that particular gemara was not hiding in Chullin or Makos? Suppose it was a gemara in Terumos? Then that halacha would never be known to us, because that gemara has been lost. R"n Chana Luntz wrote: > Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more > of them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the > Rambam, were able to formulate their halachic conclusions. You do realize, of course, that there was no such person as "Tosphos". The Tosaphists were very real, and very important, but they were not the ones to decide on the inclusion or exclusion of any particular comment. That was the choice of the publisher of the gemara, and if his whim had gone in another direction, who knows what other views would have gotten more press coverage. (Yes, I know that there are many volumes filled with the writings of even the most obscure Tosaphists, but the fact remains that getting included in the standard printed edition is the path to widest influence.) My point is that while RMB and RCL are trying to imagine what Torah would look like without Tosaphos, as I see it, even the Tosaphos that we do have is a somewhat random document. If Hashgacha (or, some might prefer, blind luck) had gone in another direction, Tosaphos would be very different, and practical halacha with it. But it doesn't stop there. Need I remind anyone that even our Torah Sheb'ksav is a reconstruction (or, some might prefer, an approximation) created by the Baalei Mesorah? If the sources that they worked from had been just a bit different, then our Sifrei Torah today would be different too. And yet, somehow we manage. We use the Torah that we have today, because it rendered the previous versions (the source material of the Baalei Mesorah) to be passul. What an amazing concept! One day, these several Sifrei Torah, all with known yichus, each had its own chezkas kashrus. And the next day, a new document, different from those that preceded it, comes to center stage and replaces the others! I would like to suggest that this is exactly how it would have worked if there was no Rashi, or no Rabenu Tam, or no Rambam, or no Rav Yosef Karo: We would use whatever we did have, and that would be our Torah. It would be different than the Torah that we do have, but so what? Rashi's Torah was different too! IN CLOSING, RCL asked: > So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no > Rambam and no Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any > distinction at all between the halacha of the Orthodox and the > halacha as championed by the Conservative movement? Is that > not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would of necessity lead > (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent than > we have today ... If you've been following me, then my answer to this should be clear: No! This "much broader tent" is pure speculation. If we had no Rav ABC to guide us, the void would have been filled by Rav XYZ, whose views might have been to the right, to the left, or the same. And in *exactly* the same manner as how we are obligated by the new Torah created by the Baalei Mesorah, the possibility of differences is much less important than our confidence and emunah that this Torah is the right one FOR US. Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller on gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:19:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:19:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mesorah only through rashi Message-ID: <> Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against the concept. Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own interpretation and not rely or be bound by any text. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:29:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:29:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mimetism Message-ID: <> I understood mimetism and trying to follow the custom of one's family. This is of no help when the physical circumstances have changed. Would anyone suggest using outdoor toilets because that is what our ancestors did and would object to an indoor bathroom. Plumbing changed the halacha. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:25:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:25:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] splendor of clothes Message-ID: > Rav Soloveitchik further added that wearing a Yarmulke, a Kippa, is > more dignified than a baseball cap. He said, "If the President of the > United States suddenly appeared and wanted to take a picture with me, > would I wear a Russian hat, a baseball cap,- or a Kippa? That is the > way we should stand Shemoneh Esrei when addressing the King of the > Universe, HaKadosh Baruch-Hu. The average person would also not wear a black hat while taking a picture with the president. I have noted before there has become a new minhag of wearing a hat all the time not only when wearing davening or saying a bracha. I went this week to a charedi wedding and most of the men wore their hats throughout the meal. OTOH I also went to a shiur of Rav Zilberstein this week. Throughout the shiur he wore a kippah. In the break he took some food and put on his hat for the bracha and then removed it for the shiur. This is also what I observed from RYBS If so why do other rabbis insist on giving a shiur wearing a hat? [Email #2.] BTW I just received a copy of a formal photo of RYBS with Ed Asner. RYBS is wearing a black kippa -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 05:10:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 08:10:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] splendor of clothes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 3:25 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > I have noted before there has become a new minhag of wearing a hat all > the time not only when wearing davening or saying a bracha. I went this > week to a charedi wedding and most of the men wore their hats throughout > the meal. For me, at least, this is a practical matter: There is often no place to leave a hat, not even in the coat room; and certainly no place from which the hat can be easily retrieved before bentching. --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 16:16:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 19:16:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:49pm EDT, R Akiva Miller wrote: : I'm really very unsure what this thread is asking... Part of the difficult of this thread is that we came in mid-conversation. RGS quoted Qinot Mesorat haRav. The quote is long, so I'm just giving part: Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebe'al peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... This is a comment RYBS frequently made in shiur. Picture sitting in a brisker shiur, where every talmid needs a reference set of shas and Rambam. It is logical for the rebbe to need to remind people that they couldn't play this game of comparing that Yad back to shas if we didn't have Rashi and Tosados opening up shas to understanding. Interestingly, RGS compared this to the Yam Shel Shelomo: Rav Shlomo Luria, the Maharshal, famously said that Rabbeinu Tam was greater than the Rambam (introduction to Yam Shel Shlomo). In discussing Kinah 42, Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik suggests that the French and German Tosafists were more important than the Rambam, without discussing who was greater. The Maharshal was very opposed to the SA. He had a hostile attitude toward the whole notion of codification which goes way beyond RYBS's intent in ways RYBS wouldn't agree to. He and the Maharal (his brother) were of the "many" in RET's response. On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:19am IDT, R Eli Turkel wrote: : Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against the : concept. : Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own : interpretation and not : rely or be bound by any text. This coming in in the middle caused language confusion and consequent frustration for RnCL. On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:41:09PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the :> Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The :> parshan connects the past to the now. : That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. : Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation : handed over to the next. Yes, but if you want to know what RYBS meant, it requires knowing what the word means in RYBS's lexicon, with the connotations he assumed. Notice my suggestion about how "mesorah" was being used fits the quote from the qinos and the example of the Yerushalmi. I understand the frustration of thinking you were discussing a statement that meant one thing and only after formulating a log response being told that it likely meant something else. But that's a straightforward misunderstanding due to your being outside the target audience when RYBS was saying / learning Qinos, and therefore not being used to the connoctations he assumes; and Lewis Carrol refferences aren't needed. I intend to write a post on the meaning of the word "mesorah" as developed in RYBS's and RHS's thought as the start of its own thread. Because it not only comes up here, it comes up in the discussions raging elsewhere (Torah Musings, Cross Currents, Facebook) on RWMO's objections to Open O and feminism. RnCL argues for the importance of codes in that post: : So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no Rambam and no : Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any distinction at all between : the halacha of the Orthodox and the halacha as championed by the : Conservative movement? Is that not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would : of necessity lead (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent : than we have today... ... : But take the codes out of the equation : and *all* these multiple rishonic positions become tenable, allowing a : general free for all within the vastness of the parshanut tradition... ... : It is only those who also have an eye to the : codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in : the light of common practice. Actualy, it's only those who have an eye on common practice. After all, we discuss machloqesin between Rashi and the Rambam in halakhah lemasseh contexts all the time. And if Ashkenazim accepted Rashi's ruling, or one found in Tosafos, the Rama has no problem limiting his pesaq to that rather than that of the Rif, Rambam or Tur. And had there not been a Rama, then some shu"t or parshan could as well. For that matter, there is also the middle ground, the shu"t writer (eg the Ritva) who discusses halachic sevara and lomdus without either using a study of a pre-existing text as his organizing principle nor trying to codify a complete set of rulings. For that matter, the Beis Yoseif and AhS also sit in the middle ground -- code-like works that spend more space discussing how they understood the sources to get there. Returning to RAM's post for his reply to RnCL's question: : If you've been following me, then my answer to this should be clear: No! : This "much broader tent" is pure speculation. If we had no Rav ABC to guide : us, the void would have been filled by Rav XYZ, whose views might have been : to the right, to the left, or the same. And in *exactly* the same manner as : how we are obligated by the new Torah created by the Baalei Mesorah, the : possibility of differences is much less important than our confidence and : emunah that this Torah is the right one FOR US. Without the parshanim, there is no way to fill in the holes between se'ifim, to know how the conclusions were reached so that halakhah can survive beyond the limited set of cases in the Rambam or SA. However, without the codifiers, it's hard to find Rashi's ruling, but not impossible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 02:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:02:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha Message-ID: RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear as ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) 1) Prozbul - while the originial takanah was for individuals that made loans and meant a trip to bet din today it has become a piece of paper signed given to the rabbi or some ad hoc bet din (similar to hatarat nedarim). 2) nonJewish produce during shemitta - whther bought directly from nonJews or through heter mechirah the end result is that the consumer feels little difference between a shemitta year and a regular year. Only consumers that use Otzar bet din have to account for shemitta rules (of course it affects the farmer) 3) mechirat chametz - In the extreme one goes away for the entire Pesach, sells everything in the house and returns after Pesach to eat whatever is around, no need to even put away the chametz. For the rest of us it means putting what we sell in some closet and for some getting rid of "real" chametz like cakes 4) heter iska - again originally meant making a document for a specific loan and allowing a possibility pf loss. Today (in Israel) the banks and other financial insitutions have the document on the wall somewhere and most customers are not even aware of it. Because of court cases the heter iska has been refined so that the possibility of loss to the bank is essentially zero. In addition the heter iska today applies to non business loans - eg renovating a house, buying a car or going on a pleasure trip In addition to things that appear as cereonies to the average layman there are halachot called "ha-aramh" which is a trick way of avoiding the usual halacha. Again some eamples (again including inyana de-yoma" 1) paying the chazan for RH and YK for singing the first night of selichot 2) returning to shemitta - buying the lulav and throwing in for free the etrog 3) R Tarfon "married" 300 women so they could eat termah In an actual case involving yibum a couple without children and the husband was senile and near death while the brother-in-law lived in New Zealand. The solution was for the brother-in-law t "marry" the wife's sister and then divorce her but now the wife no longer needs a yibum or chaitzah. Note that pruzbol and heter iska began as ha-aaramah and later became a ceremony. I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview it. Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 11:57:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 14:57:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah Message-ID: <20150821185758.GA8815@aishdas.org> The word "mesorah" is overloaded with too many meanings. Literally, it's "that which was passed on". So logically, a common usage would make it synonymous with TSBP. And yet it's also used for the near opposite -- we speak of the mesoretic text, its vowels and its trope -- the ultimate in TSBK. And the collections of notes that describe that text are also called "mesorah". (So the mesorah describes the mesorah?! And you can join the email list if you wish to discuss the mesorah, diqduq, nusach hetefillah and the like.) More along the lines of the direction I want to head in, unlike talking about TSBP and thus focusing our attention on Divine origins, when we speak of mesorah we focus out attention on the chain of people. And so there is the usage of "mesorah" to mean mimetic tradition, and is often posed in contrast to textual TSBP. Notice R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik not only defines "mimetic tradition" as knowing what a kezayis is because you remember what your father and greandfather ate at the seder but also considers such cultural mesorah (my term) rather than textual transmission to be the carrier of value and emotion. It is the loss of mimetic tradition that he blames for the loss of dread of the Yamim Noraim and (in speech, not writing) for the loss of what his father RJBS called the "Erev Shabbos Jew" (from "On Repentance, pp 97-98): Even in those neighborhoods made up predominantly of religious Jews, one can no longer talk of the 'sanctity of Shabbat.' True, there are Jews in America who observe Shabbat... But it is not for Shabbat that my heart aches; it is for the forgotten 'erev Shabbat'.... There are Shabbat-observing Jews in America, but there are no 'erev Shabbat' Jews who go out to greet Shabbat with beating hearts and pulsating souls. There are many who observe the precepts with their hands, with their feet, and/or with their mouths - but there are few indeed who truly know the meaning of the service of the heart!" Then we speak of someone "having a mesorah" in two different uses: both if they have a received practice and cultural (as above) and if they have a known rebbe-talmid lineage. Still in contrast to texts, we're talking about the importance of all that Torah that doesn't fit into books. We also talk about those in the hands-on kelei qodesh, such as a sofer, a mohel, a shocheit, etc... also of "having a mesorah" from the one who taught them the craft. And that too is all about the kind of thing you need to learn with your senses and muscles, and not know from books discussing the topic in the abstract. To pasqen mar'os, a rav must also have a mesorah in that sense. It's a skill, a craft, that is learned from practice under the guidance of a mentor. Usually called "shimush". For regular pesaq too there is an element that is a craft, an art, a skill, the kind of thing one needs to learn from shimush, not by studying from abstract texts. Qara veshanah velo shamash TC, harei zeh am ha'aretz. ... - Sotah 22a This is why I like R/Dr Moshe Koppel's metaphor of laws of grammar for some usages rather than always comparing halakhah to civil law. (More as per his sefer "Metahalakhah" than in the essay "Judaism as a First Language" .) As I wrote in Feb : The "First Language" model is much like R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik's mimeticism, but also somewhat different. Halachic rules are an approximation of something that is inherently more complex in kind than rules and algorithms. Much the way grammar is only approximated by ever more complex rules which still never get a foreigner studying the language in class to the same feel for grammar that the native-speaker has. (And why TSBP loses something when not be'al peh.) So the ESL student may know what a past pluperfect is, and I don't, but the native speaker is more likely to know what is valid poetic license and what will produce non-English results. Similarly, a poseiq needs to pick up that feel, not the formal rules. Unstructured knowledge. I have two rather lengthy quotes that help create a feel for what I am talking about. They're quite beautiful, so I appreciate this excuse to share them. Notice how RYBS explicitly defines the word "mesorah" at the beginning of this first quote, UBiqashta miSham 10:1, pp. 63-65 (tr. RARR, The Rav, vol. I, pp. 247-250): Let me stress the idea of the Mesorah by telling you a personal story. I remember that when I was growing up I was frightened and lonely boy. I was afraid of the world. For me, the world was a cold and strange place. I imagined that everyone was mocking me. But I had one friend; do not laugh at me, it was the Rambam [Maimonides]. How did we become friends? Simply, we met. Rambam was a constant guest in our home. During the days when my father was newlywed, supported by my grandfather... father studied Torah day and night. A small group of outstanding young scholars gathered around him and eagerly absorbed his teachings. My father studied with his disciples in the room where my bed was located. My wont was to sit on my bed and listen to my father's words. He constantly quoted Rambam. His method was to first open the Talmud and analyze the text under discussion and the relevant commentaries. He would generally say: these are the explanations of Tosafot. Now, let us analyze the explanations of Rambam. My father would inevitably discover that Rambam rejected the basic explanation of the text and differed with Tosafot. My father would declare, as if to complain, that we cannot comprehend the approach and conclusion of Rambam towards the Talmud text. It was almost as if my father were directly saying to Rambam: "Rabbi Moshe, why have you taken this approach?" My father would continue, "at first glance, the Ra'avad (commentary on the Rambam) is correct at his criticism." The students would jump forward and each would express his thoughts. My father would carefully listen but would refute their proposed interpretations. Once again he would exclaim that the words of Rambam were incomprehensible. Nevertheless, my father would not give up. He would place his head on his hand and soon be engrossed in deep thought. The students would not disturb his thought process. Finally, my father would gradually lifts his head and begin to expound the true meaning of Rambam. Sometimes he would be lengthy, and on other occasions brief. I would strain my ears to catch my father's every word. In my young and impressionable mind, there developed a duel impression: First, that the Rambam was being attacked by enemies who wanted to hurt him, and second, that the Rambam's only defender was my father. I felt strongly that without my father, who knows what would happen to the Rambam? It was as if the Rambam himself were with us in the room, listening to my father's words. The Rambam sat next to me on my bed. What did he look like? I don't know exactly. He seemed to look like an exceedingly handsome and good father. His name was also Moshe, just like my father. Intensely following my father, the students absorbed his every word. Slowly but surely, the tension evaporated. My father continued his discourse with strength and courage. New ideas were clarified; the laws under discussion were classified and carefully articulated. A new light emerged; the questions were resolved and the topic properly explained. Rambam emerged triumphant, and my father's face was filled with happiness and delight. He had defended his friend, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon. The Rambam was comforted and smiled. I too was delighted and joined in the feeling of joy in the room. I would jump from my bed and run to my mother and cry out the good news: "mother, mother, the Rambam won; he beat the Raavad. Father helped him. Look how wonderful my father is!" But once in a great while my father did not succeed, and despite all his efforts the enemies of the Rambam defeated him. Their questions were as strong as iron. Although my father mustered all his strength, he could not save the Rambam from his detractors. Salvation did not come for the Rambam. Deep in thought, my father would lean on his head on the palms of his hands on the table. The students and I, and even the Rambam, waited in great tension for my father's words. But my father would raise his head and sadly state: "there is no answer. The words of the Rambam are difficult. The shiur ended with no explanation. The students were sad, and even my father was depressed. A sense of despair descended upon all of us. I cried. Even the eyes of the Rambam glistened with tear-drops. With a broken heart, I would walk slowly to my mother and cry out to her: "Mother, father cannot answer the Rambam. What will we do? He did not succeed today." And my mother would tell me: "Don't worry. Father will find and answer to the Rambam. If he does not succeed, then when you grow up perhaps you will find an answer to the Rambam. Always remember, my son, the important thing about Torah is to study it in happiness and enthusiasm." It is true that this story is part of my youth. It is not, however, the fantasy of a young child or the creation of mystical feelings. This story is an historic and psychological reality that guides me at all time. When I sit down to learn, the giants of the Mesorah are with me. Our relationship is personal. The Rambam sits to my right, Rabbeinu Tam to my left. Rashi sits at the head and explains, Rabbeinu Tam asks, the Rambam decides the halacha, and the Raavad objects. All of them are with me in my small room, sitting around the table. They look at me with fondness. They world the text out with me, and life a father, they encourage and strengthen me. Learning Torah is not just a didactic, formal, and technical experience whose purpose is the creation and exchange of ideas. Learning Torah is the intense experience of uniting many generations together, the joining of spirit to spirit, and the connecting of soul to soul. Those who transmit the Torah and those who receive the Torah are invited to meet one another at the same historic juncture. And Reflections of the Rav, vol II, pp. 21b-23 (original language in: RARR's The Rav vol II, pp 186-189) this quote winds up with mention of the mesorah: The old Rebbe walks into the classroom crowded with students who are young enough to be his grandchildren. He enters as an old man with wrinkled face, his eyes reflecting the fatigue and sadness of old age. You have to be old to experience this sadness. It is the melancholy that results from an awareness of people and things which have disappeared and linger only in memory. I sit down; opposite me are rows of young beaming faces with clear eyes radiating the joy of being young. For a moment, the Rabbe is gripped with pessimism, with tremors of uncertainly. He asks himself: Can there be a dialogue between an old teacher and young students, between a Rebbe in his Indian summer and students enjoying the spring of their lives? The Rebbe starts his shiur, uncertain as to how it will proceed. Suddenly the door opens and an old man, much older than the Rebbe, enters. He is the grandfather of the Rebbe, Reb Chaim Brisker. It would be most difficult to study Talmud with students who are trained in the sciences and mathematics, were it not for his method, which is very modern and equals, if not surpasses, most contemporary forms of logic, metaphysics or philosophy. The door opens again and another old man comes in. He is older than Reb Chaim, for he lived in the 17th century. His name is Reb Shabtai Cohen, known as the Shach, who must be present when civil law (dinai mamonot) is discussed. Many more visitors arrive, some from the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, and others harking back to antiquity -- Rabbeinu Tam, Rashi, Rambam, Raavad, Rashba, Rabbi Akiva and others. These scholarly giants of the past are bidden to take their seats. The Rebbe introduces the guests to his pupils, and the dialogue commences. The Rambam states a halacha; the Raavad disagrees sharply, as is his wont. Some students interrupt to defend the Rambam, and they express themselves harshly against the Raavad, as young people are apt to do. The Rebbe softly corrects the students and suggest more restrained tones. The Rashba smiles gently. The Rebbe tries to analyze what the students meant, and other students intercede. Rabeinu Tam is called upon to express his opinion, and suddenly, a symposium of generations comes into existence. Young students debate earlier generations with an air of daring familiarity, and a crescendo of discussion ensues. All speak one language; all pursue one goal; all are committed to a common vision; and all operate with the same categories. A Mesorah collegiality is achieved, a friendship, a comradeship of old and young, spanning antiquity, the Middle Ages and modern times. This joining of the generations, this march of centuries, this dialogue and conversation between antiquity and the present will finally bring about the redemption of the Jewish people. After a two-or three hour shiur, the Rebbe emerges from the chamber young and rejuvenated. He has defeated age. The students look exhausted. In the Mesorah experience, years play no role. Hands, however parchment-dry and wrinkled, embrace warm and supple hands in commonality, bridging the gap with separates the generations. Thus, the "old ones" of the past continue their great dialogue of the generations, ensuring an enduring commitment to the Mesorah. So there is a community of baalei mesorah that carries down a mimetic tradition of how to pasqen. A tradition of informal knowledge that cannot be codified into books and that creates a feel and emotional consequence. This is RYBS's usual usage of the word, "mesorah". No better or worse than any of the other usages, but more relevant to two of the conversations we've (we as in various members of the A/A chevrah, not necessarily here on Avodah) been having lately. In the discussion of feminism and Torah (which hasn't been here, but we have had identical cycles here before), RHS's piece "Preserving Our Mesorah in Changing Times" and others like it are often cited. RHS opens: What is Mesorah? Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today.[1] The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers.[2] 1. Avot 1:1. 2. For a more extensive discussion of mesorah, see Nefesh HaRav, pp. 34-58 and Beikvei HaTzon, pp. 21-37. Firmly in line with what we've seen from his rebbe, mesorah is used in the sense of the chain of transmission down time that conveys the art and culture of halakhah decision-making and Torah as a whole. And a bit further down he discusses "Who Is Authorized to Institute Change?" {emph mine): Changes in practice require delicate evaluations that only a master Torah scholar, a gadol baTorah, can properly conduct. Only someone with a broad knowledge and a deep understanding of the corpus of halachah, with an intimate familiarity with both the letter and the spirit of the law, WITH A MASTERY OF BOTH THE RULES AND THE ATTITUDES OF THE MESORAH, can determine when a change is acceptable or even required. The more wide-reaching the proposed change, the greater the expertise required to approve it. The evaluator must not only be a master of the mesorah, but he must also be able to consider new practices based solely on values internal to the mesorah, removing external influences from the deliberation.[14] 14. See Halakhic Mind, n. 98. But I think this example from a teshuvah (tr and poor title by YWN is more on-topic: Indeed, the Rav would often say (see drasha to Parshas Korach), that every person must recognize that he needs a Rav or a Rebbe. Even a Talmid Chochom whose Rebbe had passed away must constantly ask himself in truth (when they present questions to him) what his Rebbe would have said in such a scase, and what stance he would have taken. ... The expression that some of those who have permitted this utilize that according to the technical halacha a certain act is permitted, and that which people wish to prohibit it is because of political considerations is incorrect. For even a matter such as changing the mesorah the traditions of the Jewish people is in and of itself an integral section of halacha. When one rules on the donning of Tefillin for women it is not enough to merely examine the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch in Hilchos Tefillin and in the sources there and treat it as a simple question. The version of mesorah in RYBS's usage is the same concept RHS invokes to reject a "but it can be fit to the technical halakhah so your objection is merely political" attitude. Change must conform to mesorah to be valid, even if the textualists are satisfied. This is not an invocation of "daas Torah", because we're talking about questions of Torah, not politics or other metzi'us; we are invoking knowledge, if cultural and informal knowledge rather than book knowledge, and not invoking any metaphysical or mytical power; and because we do not expect a single correct answer that "the gedolim hold". But it still makes halachic decisionmaking when it comes to significant change subject to the skill of a few, and the rest of us are forced to submit to their understanding. The other use we've been knocking around, and this was here on-list, is RYBS's statement (Qinos Mesorat haRav, quoted by RGS here : Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebeal peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... RYBS identifies mesorah as the ineffible skill to think like a poseiq. And that we do get from those who explain how the prior generations developed the law, how the community down the ages conversed about the law, from living in the culture whose mimeticism is mesorah. And we saw Sotah's opinion of someone who learns without shimush. From only a little further down in that sugya (22a): Tanna: Hatannaim (those who repeat codified law) are swallowers of the world. Could you really think [they] are "swallowers of the world"? Ravina said: For they are morah halakhah from their repetition of the law. There is a a beraisa like this: R' Yeushua said, "And are they 'swallowers of the world? Aren't they settlers of the world, as it says 'halikhos olam lo' (Chavaquq 3)? Rather, because they are moreh halakhah from their repetition of the law. You can't pasqen from codes, from legal knowledge. It takes knowledge of how the codes reached their conclusion -- both textual knowledge obtained from the meforshim, and the skills to pasqen obtained by shimush. As R Yochanan quotes besheim Rashbi (Berakhos 7b), "gedolah shimushah shel Torah yoseir meilimudah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 22 16:06:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 00:06:16 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:41:09PM +0100, RMB wrote: :> Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the :> Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The :> parshan connects the past to the now. I replied: : That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. : Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation : handed over to the next. And RMB further replied: <> I read the quote and the original RGS posting before commenting on the thread because I generally try not to jump in mid-conversation without understanding what has previously been said. And that is precisely what I am objecting to. Because the RGS piece (including the quote) - is actually about our mesorah *regarding learning* (ie a much narrower slice of the wider definition). In that, as I said, I think it correct - our mesorah regarding how to learn - how to sit in Yeshiva and deal with the texts owes far more to Rashi and Tosphos than to the Rambam. But as stated in the quote, this suddenly becomes "our mesorah" in general and that is what I find problematic as I will try and articulate below. So let us look at the quote again: RGS quoted Qinot Mesorat haRav. The quote is long, so I'm just giving part: Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebe'al peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... The point I am making is that "any mesorah, "any chain of tradition" is much, much wider than what is done in Brisker yeshivas as part of the learning process. <> Now, if the point you are making is that RYBS was addressing yeshiva bochrim within a yeshiva setting (albeit explaining kinos on Tisha B'av) and hence explaining what it is that they do all day learning-wise- then the use of such language is probably excusable without the modifier - ie in this context mesorah is simply short for "mesorah with regard to how to learn". But the problem is that this language has now been pulled, by way of RGS's article (and lends itself to being pulled by its sheer breadth), into a wider application and wider audience, and not modified as such. It was then pulled across into Avodah, and the reference questioned, which I think it should be, because RGS's argument is implicitly if not explicitly far wider. And that I think is a problem, because what is true for one slice of "the mesorah" is not necessarily true for the whole. Whether this imprecision is RYBS's or RGS's is hard for me to be sure, as you say, this is a quote taken out of context. <> And this is where this slide from discussing one slice of the mesorah - what to do in Yeshiva, to a much wider slice of the mesorah becomes problematic, because of the implication you have just made which is that what is true of the section applies to the whole. And in this context you are dealing with what is called in common parlance the mesorah, not about conversations down time. So by slight of hand what you are doing is taking a definition which you acknowledge is a very limited and idiosyncratic one, but then sliding the conclusions that arise from that definition into the more standard debate, and claiming that was RYBS's opinion regarding the debate about what is more commonly known as "the mesorah". Let us therefore back up for a minute and discuss that aspect of RGS's post which in my view is unquestionably correct, even using the usual definition of mesorah: RGS comments that he and his father tried to learn meseches Nedarim just using the meforash, in the absence of Rashi, and were not able to do so (they were then only able to do it using the Ran, a much later commentary) - thus demonstrating the point of the post, which is, without Rashi, most of the Talmud Bavli would be a closed book to most people of average, and even above average, intelligence (like the Talmud Yerushalmi). This is unquestionably true. The Rambam was also aware of this problem (after all he learned all of Talmud Bavli without Rashi and everybody he knew either did so or tried to do so). His solution to RGS's problem was to tell RGS and his father, and people like him, not to try and learn Talmud Bavli, but to learn his, the Rambam's, Code instead. Ie instead of trying to tackle Maseches Nedarim, he would suggest that RGS and his father learn Hilchos Nedarim from the Mishne Torah. Now the truth is that if RGS and his father had in fact learnt all of Hilchos Nedarim from the Rambam, and all of the rest of the Mishne Torah, backwards and forwards and inside out - they are likely then to be well set up to tackle the Talmud Bavli without Rashi. Ie you *can* use the Rambam as a guide back into the Talmud if you are bright enough (because you have most of the concepts already explained by him), but it is not an easy way to do it. The Rambam assumed that the average person would stop with his Code, and only the best and brightest would need then to go back to the Talmud, to help determine the ambiguous cases not caught by his code, in a method not a million miles away from the one use by smicha students in learning Hilchos Shechita or Kashrus - first learn the Shulchan Aruch, then work your way back to the underlying gemoras so you are in a position to posken those cases the Shulchan Aruch doesn't catch. Our mesorah is like Rashi in this regard and not the Rambam (except when it comes to smicha students). We open up the Talmud Bavli even to children using Rashi and hundreds of thousands are sitting in yeshiva following Rashi. The problem is that people (it would appear including you) then generalise from "how we learn" to "how we posken" - which is what really is involved in the discussion regarding Open O and feminism. And they are not the same thing at all. Indeed, the fact that smicha students (those that are being set up to posken) are taught in a totally different way to the more general way of learning in yeshiva, and one that owes far more to the Rambam than to Rashi and Tosphos should alert you to that. I am then going to diverge a bit to discuss RAM's post, because he is discussing something completely different again: I wrote: > Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more of > them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the Rambam, were > able to formulate their halachic conclusions. And RAM replied: <> But you here (and it is even more explicit later) are discussing something completely different to what I was and am discussing. To best differentiate, I would say that you are discussing *content* and I am discussing *process*. Yes with regard to *content* it makes a difference which particular one of the Tosphosim were included on the page, and which weren't - but that is not what I am discussing. Rather I am discussing *how to learn* - ie how to make sense of this Talmud Bavli which (as RGS elucidated so eloquently) is so difficult for people to get into without help. What Rashi did was to provide a clear and simple explanation of the words on the page. What Tosphos did (and in this regard the whole commentary called Tosphos - despite the fact that it was made up of many different people, in fact teaches pretty much the same thing) was to teach people to say "hold on a minute, if we take the simple explanation provided by Rashi, then: a) there is a contradiction with what the gemora says somewhere else; or b) there is a contradiction with what in fact people do - so therefore we need to try and solve this problem. I then further goes on to teach people to say: very commonly we can solve this problem by: (i) re-interpreting this gemora; and/or (ii) reinterpreting that gemora; and/or (iii) finding some way of harmonizing the two gemoras, or the gemora and people's practice, or if we cannot manage to that (but only in extremis), (iv) working out that a certain gemora is more authoritative or the people are wrong. Note that when you are considering the process, it doesn't matter which particular sets of Tosphos' questions made it onto the page and which didn't - what is far more important is the fact that the commentary in general teaches people to ask these questions and mechanisms for trying to answer them. That is what a (eg child) who is first taught to study the gemora with Rashi suddenly encounters when he moves on to Tosphos. Hold on, Rashi's commentary may make a lot of sense in localised context, but we now have to try and consider the whole. Now of course the Rambam had not only to be his own Rashi, but he had to be his own Tosphos. He could not have written his Code if underneath the surface he did not deal with the fact that the gemora appears to contradict itself all over the place, and also to contradict what people are actually doing. The fundamental job of most meforshim on the Rambam is therefore (a) to explain how the Rambam understood the simple explanation of the gemora (ie what the Rambam would have said if he had written Rashi) and (b) how the Rambam resolved the contradictions in the various gemoras and with common practice (ie how the Rambam deals with the kinds of problems raised by the Tosphosim). But all of this is under the surface. All we have from the Rambam is the result, what we have from Tosphos are the questions. And it is the questions which give people a better window into how to learn gemora. So that is why, when discussing *process* it does not matter that: <> Because while we might have different Tosphos questions (ie content) on (or off) the page if hashgacha had gone in a different direction, or if there were gemoros on some of the mesechtos on which we have none, the process of *how* Tosphos (or the Rambam) would have dealt with that content is still the same. But if we would have had no Rashi and no Tosphos at all, ie the process they originated, but only the Rambam, we would all have learnt the code backward and forward, and a few bright sparks would have then used that to understand the gemora - a very, very different process of learning. In that regard our mesorah of learning comes from Rashi and Tosphos. On the other hand, RET is correct: <> Although I would modify that statement not to say "and not be bound by any text", as most at that point agreed that they should be bound by the gemora (and the Tanach as understood by the mishna/gemora), just not beyond that. And that is the point. There are two different concepts being discussed here, the mesorah of "how to learn" and the mesorah of "how to posken" (which then leads into what it is that people do). And when the Shulchan Aruch came out a lot of people strongly objected to the way of poskening that is a consequence of the codes. They thought that each posek should re-learn the relevant underlying gemoras, and work out their own harmonisation of them without being influenced, and certainly not bound, by what the Shulchan Aruch said. Some people perhaps thought that was a bit extreme, and that at least they should learn the underlying gemoras with all the rishonim, and, to the extent there was rishonic view, at least make a judgement within that spectrum (but not necessarily prioritise eg the Rambam, Rif and Rosh, or the Trumas HaDeshen and the Mordechai, being the most recent, over the others). The problem you have though is that - well, according to the gemora there are at least 50 ways of determining that a sheretz is kosher. Even if you then say that the gemora draws certain lines in the sand, there is no question that - well, let us take the hair covering question as illustrative. There are clearly (at least) two ways of reading the question: (a) hair covering for married women is an absolute and immutable d'orisa principle; (b) hair covering for married women is a tznius related convention - and given the convention at the time of the gemora (and earlier) it is required in those societies where it is practiced by modest Jewish women by virtue of rabbinic decree. If you can't see that the underlying sources (eg the mishna and gemora) *could* lead to either interpretation, then you are either wilfully blinding yourself or you can't learn. If you purely follow Rashi and Tosphos, then *if* you can read the underlying gemora sources in such a way as to harmonise with common practice today (even if you believe it is a bit of a dochek), then you would be free to do so, or at least, have no basis to criticise others who do this. However, nobody has that conversation today. The conversation you are having is about "how authoritative" are the various poskim (and from which tradition) who do appear to rule in one way or another. The power of Rav Broyde's article for example - is that he argues that the Rosh (and hence the Tur) and even the Rambam actually posken (b) out of the options, and this can be seen in the Shulchan Aruch. That is the kind of conversation we have today - with others of course rejecting that this is what can be read into the Shulchan Aruch. Hence I said: : It is only those who also have an eye to the : codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in : the light of common practice. And RMB replied: <> But neither Rashi nor Tosphos gave us any method of limiting where psak went, and indeed the Ri can hold one thing and Rabbanu Tam another within the same Tosphos. The Codes are far less open. And the language of the Shulchan Aruch is in the vast majority of cases the language of the Rambam thereby leading back to the thought process of the Rambam. The Rema then picks up a few of the cases where Ashkenazi practice differs and used a Code process to insert Rashi's explanation into the Code (although often where it had already been filtered through the Rosh and the Tur first). That is taking Rashi content and using it in a Rambam like way. Which is why the mesorah for how we posken is much closer to the Rambam than it is to Rashi. And what we do outside of the yeshiva is more about how we posken than about how we learn. Which is why I disagree: >Without the parshanim, there is no way to fill in the holes between se'ifim, to know how the conclusions were reached so that halakhah can survive beyond the limited set of cases in the Rambam >or SA. Of course there is, you have to go back to the original gemora - having first learnt through all of the related si'ifim in the Codes, and then make sure you understand how the rulings that are in the Codes relate to the underlying gemora. Once you have done that you can start to fill in the gaps, But only the select few who need to actually posken need to know this method - which is why it only needs to be taught to smicha students. But it is obvious that is the method used by the Rambam when answering questions outside of his own code in his teshuvos. <> And if you don't find it, it probably doesn't matter - because without the attitude of the codifiers, you really only need Rashi to understand the gemora and if you can do it without him, then great. And if you can't understand the gemora without him you wouldn't have a hope of formulating any ruling as the gemora would be a closed book. >Micha Shavuah tov Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 04:38:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:38:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Daf HaKashrus August 2015 Message-ID: <20150823113822.1203D183A0B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/daf_hakashrus_aug_2015.pdf This issue includes articles about bishul on Shabbos and dairy bread as well as other topics. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 02:10:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:10:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: [Email #1, in reply to R' Akiva Miller.] > My point is that while RMB and RCL are trying to imagine what Torah would > look like without Tosaphos, as I see it, even the Tosaphos that we do have > is a somewhat random document. I believe this is somewhat of an exaggeration. The school of Tosafot was basically begun by Rabbenu Tam followed by Ri (haZaken). Unfortunately we don't have much of their notes and Sefer haYashar is fragmentary. However, from Tosfat Shantz through Tosafot Tuch we have several manuscripts. It is true that the early publishers (or more exactly the rabbis chosen by these publishers) used whatever material they had however, I don't think that in most cases the differences between different talmidim were that great. Obviously some were more verbose and some less so and each included their individual rebbes and their own opinions. Nevertheless on the whole they were similar. Tosafot haRosh was the main version used in much of Spain. For reasons that are not clear to me this version was lost for many centuries before reappearing relatively recently. In individual cases one learns something new from Tosafot haRosh but I am not sure that on the whole it is that dramatically different from the printed versions [Email #2, in reply to me. -micha] > To pasqen mar'os, a rav must also have a mesorah in that sense. It's > a skill, a craft, that is learned from practice under the guidance of > a mentor. Usually called "shimush". I recall seeing recently (on avodah?) a machloket of poskim whether one needs shimush in order to pasken on maaros or it is sufficient to learn from seforim. In general some poskim feel that for many areas shimush is no longer needed now that we have detailed seforim. A number of gedolim of the 20th century essentially learned alone with minimal input from teachers. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 07:20:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 17:20:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] child conversion Message-ID: The recent court to allow conversion of under bar/bat mitzvah children is controversial. The bone of contention is whether it is considred a zechut for children to become Jewish when they grow up in a non-religious setting. R. Rosen recently gave a list of rabbis that allow it (at least bideved) and those that forbid it. I found the list interesting and not what I would have guessed Machmirim and not allowing the conversion: R Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor, Sridei Eish,R. Kook and R. Yisraeli Mekilim (at least bideved) Bet Yitzchak, Mateh Levi, Achiezer, RMF, R. Elyashiv, ROY -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 15:03:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:03:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150823220352.GA13158@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:10:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : In general some poskim feel that for many areas shimush is no longer : needed now that we have detailed seforim. A number of gedolim of the : 20th century essentially learned alone with minimal input from teachers. Well, RYBS's notion of "mesorah" is broader than that, as Rashi and Tosafos are considered part of it. Yes, shimush is more central to relaying a feel for how halakhah should be decided, but books that spell out past decisions also apparently play a role. But the truth is most of the gedolim in the 20th cent (Slabodka alumni aside) learned one-on-one often moving in with their rebbe. What you call "minimal" I would call "short and intense". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 25 18:27:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:27:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion Message-ID: The assumption is that it is better to be a non-religious Jew (thereby violating numerous halakhos) than a moral non-Jew. (I am being over simplistic as being non-Jewish citizen in Israel is more of a liability than elsewhere, so there may be a zechus to be a non-religious ger katan.) The irony as many have noted is that those who are most lenient about child conversion tend to be those who are also lenient in accepting that one could lead a perfectly good life as a non-Jew. Those who think that it is better to be Jewish than non-Jewish by extension should accept the conversion of a ger katan who will be raised by a non-religious family. The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for reasons of Nationalism. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 25 18:50:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:50:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) Message-ID: To parachute into an ongoing discussion, I have found that people use Mesorah in four different ways: 1) Personal Mesorah from a Rebbe to a Talmid. What a scholar or layman learns from his teacher. 2) Mesorah as the unbroken chain of Torah going back to Sinai. Rambam zt"l has the most famous mesorah chart, though I like Micha Berger's. (Parallels can be in Hadith transmission traditiona, Sufi traditions or the Catholic Church's assumption of an unbroken chain back to Peter). 3) Communal norms and traditions. This is how the term is commonly used in the Chareidi communities and also how it is being used in the ongoing discussion. This is the idea that there are legitimate practices, norms, values or halakhic understandings. For example different methodologies of learning. Or, as my brothers-in-law say to me, well if that is the mesorah of your community, then it is legitimate, even if they don't relate to this practice. (Personally, I do not relate to such a usage. Either an approach is valid/true or not valid/true.) I discussed the last category in an essay that Gil was kind enough to post: http://www.torahmusings.com/2011/07/two-types-of-orthodox-judaism/ There are probably other uses of the term *mesorah*, but I cannot think of them at the moment. Best wishes, Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 26 00:43:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:43:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] smart lighting Message-ID: can one use smart lighting on shabbat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_lighting -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 05:00:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:00:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov Message-ID: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? KVCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 10:37:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:37:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:00:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party : to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not : actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) My own lexicon: hakaras hatov: realizing that a good thing came into your life hoda'ah: acknowledging the one who / One Who provided that good Say Avi gives Berakhah a ball. Berakhah's hakaras hatov has an primary object, which is the ball -- the tov she received from Avi. Not taking life's gifts for granted. But her hoda'ah has a primary object -- which is Avi, and a secondary object, the ball. As in the grammar of "Modim anachnu Lakh al..."; the prespositional phrase giving you the secondary object is a list of all the things Hashem does for us. I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. Which, if you think about it, is what Chazal say about the early makos and how Moshe would not be the one to launch a makah that afflicts the water that saved him as a baby or the sand that hid the body. I'm not thrilled with the whole idea of exchanging favors, creating a market. It turns everything back on self-service -- every positive act is tainted by expectation of being repaid. : How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? Perhaps kibud av va'eim and kavod harav are their own concepts for a reason. And that hakaras hatov might explain the issur against hurting or cursing one's parents, but not kavod and yir'ah. I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 10:55:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:55:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". Tir'u baTov! -Micha Zechiyah uMattanah - Chapter Seven Translated by Eliyahu Touger Halacha 1 It is a universally accepted custom in most countries that when a man marries, his friends and acquaintances send him money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Then the friends and acquaintances who sent him this money come and eat and drink with the groom during all - or part - of the seven days of wedding celebration; everything should be done according to the accepted local custom. The money that he is sent is called shushvinut, and the people who send the money and then come and eat and drink with the groom are called shushvinin. Halacha 2 Shushvinut is not an outright gift. For it is plainly obvious that a person did not send a colleague 10 dinarim with the intent that he eat and drink a zuz's worth. He sent him the money solely because his intent was that when he would marry, he would send him money as he has sent him. Therefore, if the sender marries a woman, and the recipient does not return the shushvinut, the sender may lodge a legal claim against the recipient and expropriate the money from him. KVCT 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 12:01:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:01:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55DF5E92.9020405@sero.name> On 08/27/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". I believe the reference is to the law of shushvinin. But that is not a matter of hakaras hatov; it's an explicit quid pro quo arrangement. If you don't pay it back when it falls due, you're cheating the person of a quantifiable amount of money that you explicitly owe him, so he can sue you for it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 12:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <55DF64EA.6000201@sero.name> On 08/27/2015 01:55 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Mistranslation: This should be "...the expenses of the feast." -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 11:40:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 11:40:40 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus Message-ID: if there is a general assumption that one eats in another shomer shabbos' house without going thru their pantry, does the same hold in a shmitta year in israel where there are also multiple minhagim ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 14:08:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:08:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> On 08/28/2015 02:40 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > if there is a general assumption that one eats in another shomer > shabbos' house without going thru their pantry, does the same hold > in a shmitta year in israel where there are also multiple minhagim ? Lich'ora, since there is no consensus about shmita standards among shomrei shabbos, one who has a stricter practise can't assume that a randomly selected shomer shabbos is at least as strict as his. Therefore, without ascertaining this he can't eat those things which (according to his practise) are subject to shmita, but can eat those things which are not. Most importantly, though, he *can* eat from the other person's kelim, even if he *knows* that his shmita practices are more lenient than his own; for this purpose he can rely on "stam keilim einam benei yoman", even though normally one may only rely on this bediavad. This is the famous kula of "keilim divnei rhenus". -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 13:56:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:56:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov Message-ID: R' Micha Berger: <<< I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. >>> "Mah ashiv laShem, kol tagmulohi alai?" Akiva Miller On Aug 28, 2015 2:46 PM, "via Avodah" wrote: > Send Avodah mailing list submissions to > avodah at 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 at lists.aishdas.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." > > > A list of common acronyms is available at > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi > (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Child Conversion (Kaganoff via Avodah) > 2. Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) (Kaganoff via Avodah) > 3. smart lighting (Eli Turkel via Avodah) > 4. hakarat hatov (Rich, Joel via Avodah) > 5. Re: hakarat hatov (Micha Berger via Avodah) > 6. Re: hakarat hatov (Rich, Joel via Avodah) > 7. Re: hakarat hatov (Zev Sero via Avodah) > 8. Re: hakarat hatov (Zev Sero via Avodah) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:27:59 -0400 > From: Kaganoff via Avodah > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion > Message-ID: > oOARsdknGfHD5uwwUfKrmZGA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > The assumption is that it is better to be a non-religious Jew (thereby > violating numerous halakhos) than a moral non-Jew. > > (I am being over simplistic as being non-Jewish citizen in Israel is more > of a liability than elsewhere, so there may be a zechus to be a > non-religious ger katan.) > > The irony as many have noted is that those who are most lenient about child > conversion tend to be those who are also lenient in accepting that one > could lead a perfectly good life as a non-Jew. > > Those who think that it is better to be Jewish than non-Jewish by extension > should accept the conversion of a ger katan who will be raised by a > non-religious family. > > The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious > Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also > for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for > reasons of Nationalism. > > Yonatan > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150825/68f7e72c/attachment.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:50:52 -0400 > From: Kaganoff via Avodah > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) > Message-ID: > JWwz1eftmfgGuULn71A at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > To parachute into an ongoing discussion, I have found that people use > Mesorah in four different ways: > > 1) Personal Mesorah from a Rebbe to a Talmid. What a scholar or layman > learns from his teacher. > > 2) Mesorah as the unbroken chain of Torah going back to Sinai. Rambam zt"l > has the most famous mesorah chart, though I like Micha Berger's. (Parallels > can be in Hadith transmission traditiona, Sufi traditions or the Catholic > Church's assumption of an unbroken chain back to Peter). > > 3) Communal norms and traditions. This is how the term is commonly used in > the Chareidi communities and also how it is being used in the ongoing > discussion. This is the idea that there are legitimate practices, norms, > values or halakhic understandings. For example different methodologies of > learning. Or, as my brothers-in-law say to me, well if that is the mesorah > of your community, then it is legitimate, even if they don't relate to this > practice. (Personally, I do not relate to such a usage. Either an approach > is valid/true or not valid/true.) > > I discussed the last category in an essay that Gil was kind enough to post: > http://www.torahmusings.com/2011/07/two-types-of-orthodox-judaism/ > > There are probably other uses of the term *mesorah*, but I cannot think of > them at the moment. > > Best wishes, > Yonatan > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150825/4814ca39/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:43:29 +0300 > From: Eli Turkel via Avodah > To: Avodah > Subject: [Avodah] smart lighting > Message-ID: > < > CAGDtJ1GVgO0Ez55DoorrtQw_kfhbpGcPtQS8J8mV2rq-8rjYAA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > can one use smart lighting on shabbat > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_lighting > > -- > Eli Turkel > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150826/394e7ffd/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:00:05 +0000 > From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" > To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group (avodah at lists.aishdas.org)" > > Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: > <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de at VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party to > return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not > actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) > How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? > KVCT > 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. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150827/99422da9/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:37:32 -0400 > From: Micha Berger via Avodah > To: "Rich, Joel" , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <20150827173732.GA29088 at aishdas.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:00:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > : Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party > : to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not > : actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) > > My own lexicon: > hakaras hatov: realizing that a good thing came into your life > hoda'ah: acknowledging the one who / One Who provided that good > > Say Avi gives Berakhah a ball. > > Berakhah's hakaras hatov has an primary object, which is the ball -- > the tov she received from Avi. Not taking life's gifts for granted. > > But her hoda'ah has a primary object -- which is Avi, and a secondary > object, the ball. As in the grammar of "Modim anachnu Lakh al..."; > the prespositional phrase giving you the secondary object is a list > of all the things Hashem does for us. > > I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although > there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, > Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an > obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. > > Which, if you think about it, is what Chazal say about the early makos > and how Moshe would not be the one to launch a makah that afflicts the > water that saved him as a baby or the sand that hid the body. > > I'm not thrilled with the whole idea of exchanging favors, creating a > market. It turns everything back on self-service -- every positive > act is tainted by expectation of being repaid. > > > : How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? > > Perhaps kibud av va'eim and kavod harav are their own concepts for a > reason. And that hakaras hatov might explain the issur against hurting > or cursing one's parents, but not kavod and yir'ah. > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, > micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just > http://www.aishdas.org beginning. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:55:37 +0000 > From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" > To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group (avodah at lists.aishdas.org)" > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: > <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7 at VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > > Zechiyah uMattanah - Chapter Seven > Translated by Eliyahu Touger > > > Halacha 1 > > > It is a universally accepted custom in most countries that when a man > marries, his friends and acquaintances send him money to support the > expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Then the friends and > acquaintances who sent him this money come and eat and drink with the groom > during all - or part - of the seven days of wedding celebration; everything > should be done according to the accepted local custom. > > The money that he is sent is called shushvinut, and the people who send > the money and then come and eat and drink with the groom are called > shushvinin. > > > Halacha 2 > > > Shushvinut is not an outright gift. For it is plainly obvious that a > person did not send a colleague 10 dinarim with the intent that he eat and > drink a zuz's worth. He sent him the money solely because his intent was > that when he would marry, he would send him money as he has sent him. > > Therefore, if the sender marries a woman, and the recipient does not > return the shushvinut, the sender may lodge a legal claim against the > recipient and expropriate the money from him. > > KVCT > 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. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:01:38 -0400 > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > To: Micha Berger , The Avodah Torah Discussion > Group > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <55DF5E92.9020405 at sero.name> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > On 08/27/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > I believe the reference is to the law of shushvinin. But that is not > a matter of hakaras hatov; it's an explicit quid pro quo arrangement. > If you don't pay it back when it falls due, you're cheating the person > of a quantifiable amount of money that you explicitly owe him, so he > can sue you for it. > > -- > Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you > zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in > the street and commands me to surrender my purse, > I have a right to kill him without asking questions > -- John Adams > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:28:42 -0400 > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > To: "Rich, Joel" , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <55DF64EA.6000201 at sero.name> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > On 08/27/2015 01:55 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > > money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. > > Mistranslation: This should be "...the expenses of the feast." > > -- > Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you > zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in > the street and commands me to surrender my purse, > I have a right to kill him without asking questions > -- John Adams > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Avodah Digest, Vol 33, Issue 117 > *************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 30 20:32:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 23:32:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz - Lu'ach 5776 Message-ID: <20150831033207.C42DF1831DF@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 00:33:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 03:33:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz - Lu'ach 5776 Message-ID: <20150831073325.1618E182644@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 18:44:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 21:44:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: <20150901014419.GA6761@aishdas.org> Something I noticed... After the animal is shechted, a lung could be hollow, or full of liquid, and it's still kosher. But if there is a pinhole in both membranes around the lung, it's treif. Similarly the brain -- if the outside is solid, the inside could be rotten and the animal is still kosher. These are laws of tereifah that we refuse to change recardless of whether veterinary medicine disagrees about survivability. So I assume there is some point being made about chiyus in general in all this. However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is more important than penimius. Maybe something more like "fake it till you make it" -- as long as you keep the externals going, there is hope that the internals will fill in. But I'm fishing for better suggestions. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 19:18:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 22:18:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Factory Farming and Panicking the Animals Message-ID: <20150901021819.GA14109@aishdas.org> If the lung is tzemuqah (dried enough to be wrinkly like a raisin, but not dry enough to be called yeveishah)... There is a halakhah leMoshe miSinai that if it was due to fright caused by a person, the animel is tereifah if it's caused by HQBH (eg a lion attack), the animal is kosher. (AhS YD 36:70) If you do not know what the cause was, you check the lung -- man-made rei'ah tzemuqah won't rehydrate when soaked in water for 24 hours. But, this test is only used if the cause of the fright wasn't known (se'if 74); the cause of the stress is the iqar, not the dryness. Interesting is a comment at the end of se'if 70: Therefore it is correct that shoechtim be careful not to shecht one ba'al chai in front of another ba'al chai so that the lungs not get wrinkly and will require checking, ae will be explained. Also, there is tza'r ba'alei chaim in it ve'issur gamur hu and so wrote a number of gedolei ha'achronim. So I'm wondering, is our factory-style slaughter mutar? Can you say that this speed is a tachlis that makes the tza'ar needful, and thus mutar? Do people disagree with the AhS and his unnamed acharonim? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 20:52:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 05:52:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus In-Reply-To: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> References: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> Message-ID: <55E5210A.9050302@zahav.net.il> I would just add that like any other kashrut issue, a lot depends on why one has a particular practice. If one refuses to eat heter michira vegetables (that is the real issue) because he feels the HM is simply invalid, that is quite different than not using HM products because one wants to be machmir (assuming of course that not relying on the HM is a chumra). Ben On 8/28/2015 11:08 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > Lich'ora, since there is no consensus about shmita standards among > shomrei shabbos, one who has a stricter practise can't assume that > a randomly selected shomer shabbos is at least as strict as his. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 10:49:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 13:49:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another Tereifos Observation Message-ID: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> As I mentioned yesteday, any hole in the surface of the lung large enough to leak air would make the animal tereifah. What if the hole heals? AhS YD 36:7 (and elsewhere) says that a qerum (membrane) she'alah machmas makkah doesn't count. In se'if 14 he learns peshat in Rashi (Yavamos 76a "eino qerum") that there are two sevaros: 1- because this kind of closure isn't permanent 2- the closure is new. Akin to Chullin 68b "kivan shenitrefah, shuv ein lah heter) But in reality, the AhS says, "be'emes chad ta'amah hu" -- what makes the closure temporary is that it is made from the liquids of the makah. And therefore once the makah is healed, it has no cause. RYME notes that this is bedavqa when a new membrane is closing the hole. But if the side grow in until it closes, the lung is kosher. What about "kivan shenitrefah"? He writes "keshehaheter hayah mukhan be'eis hatarfus, lo chal alahh sheim tarfus ba'olam." Continuing what I wrote yesterday, that there must be much lehislameid from the halakhos of tereifos, given how we etched them in stone despite many of the rules losing their veterinary explanations.... We are told to have bitachon that before sending troubles, "Ein HQBH makeh es Yisrael ela im kein borei lahem refu'ah techilah" (Megillah 13b) This rule of tereifos, that the chalos sheim "tereifah" doesn't apply if the means by which the hole would close were pre-existing, seems to imply something further. In a sense, the makah itself isn't real because the refu'ah is already prepared. It is not that the bad times cause the good ones. Because they aren't permanent enough to be the root of permanent solutions. Rather, it is because it's all one process, the bad times being a bump in a road that from the moment you strarted traveling it leads to good. Or as Nachum ish Gam Zu said, "gam lu LEtovah" (emphasis mine), not "gam zu tovah". What redeems the bad times is that the route from them to tov is there before they even begin. ---- Language note: I noticed that rei'ah means "lungs", even though the term is in the singular and the translation is in the plural. There is no term of art for a single lung -- the main body of each lung is an omah and the lobes are onos or in Hebrew "aznayim". Tir'u baTov! -Micha Off-topic PS: I am seriously finding the beginning of YD turning me off to meat. -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 09:55:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 19:55:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Kosher Switch, Grama and Rav Osher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://podcast.headlinesbook.com/e/8-15-15-headlines/ where Rav Osher Weiss explains in detail his approach to grama, and electricity on Shabbos in general. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 11:17:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 14:17:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another Tereifos Observation In-Reply-To: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> References: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55E5EBB7.7060400@sero.name> On 09/01/2015 01:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Language note: I noticed that rei'ah means "lungs", even though the term > is in the singular and the translation is in the plural. There is no > term of art for a single lung -- the main body of each lung is an omah > and the lobes are onos or in Hebrew "aznayim". Yes, Chazal conceived of the lungs as a single organ. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 18:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 21:45:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > Similarly the brain -- if the outside is solid, the inside > could be rotten and the animal is still kosher. > ... > However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that > chitzonius is more important than penimius. > > Maybe something more like "fake it till you make it" -- as > long as you keep the externals going, there is hope that > the internals will fill in. > > But I'm fishing for better suggestions. I will offer another data point which also seems to suugest that chitzonius is more important than penimius. Mechaber 78:1 and Mishne Brurah 78:2,3 are obviously talking about a person who unfortunately suffers from incontinence. If he urinates while davening, he must pause, but can continue when the flow stops. This applies even if his legs and undergarments are totally wet, but NOT if the urine is on his outer garments. It seems that the cleanliness of one's outer garments is more important than the cleanliness of his undergarments, or even of his body itself. Similarly, if one needs to defecate, but he can hold himself for 4 mil, he will be yotzay davening b'dieved -- Mechaber 92:1. But that leniency is because it is mere pnimius; Mechaber 76:4,5 seems to be stricter once the tzoah has gone external. (Note: I think that it would not be difficult to show that chitzonius *is* important. The problem as I see it is that we've found some cases where it is *more* important than pnimius.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 00:17:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 10:17:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] bavli variants Message-ID: We are pleased to announce the launch of a new version (1.2) of the ' *Hachi **Garsinan*' Site for Variant-Readings of the Talmud Bavli. The site is freely accessible to all through the Friedberg portal: http://jewishmanuscripts.org . Version 1.1 of the website shows all hand-written text witnesses of the Talmud Bavli from the Cairo Genizah, with digital images (more than 4,600) and their transcriptions, in the framework of a software that allows the display of all text-witnesses of a specific Talmudic text in parallel columns in small units. Identical excerpts in a specific text-witness and in the Vilna can be marked, in order to spare the user the effort of comparing the texts. There are also additional helpful functions such as Save and Print, as specified in the website Homepage. *In the new version (1.2) - text witnesses from the following early printings have been added:* - *Guadalajara**(1480?), Spain / Portugal (Toledo? 1480-1490), Portugal (Faro? before 1498), Faro (1497?), Fez (1516-1521)* - *Soncino (1484-1489), Italy (1489-1498), Barco (1498-1499), Pesaro (1509-1516), Constantinople (1505-1509)* - *Venice** (1520-1523) * *(for details on tractates included in early printings - see Homepage). * *Furthermore, a function has been added to enable the user search for **terms or expressions in the Vilna** edition and each of the text witnesses that take part in the current version (Genizah and early printings) as well as a function to display the lexicon (**list of different words and their frequency**) of Vilna and of each of the other text-witnesses. Finally, the new version allows each user to alter the way that the text units are displayed on the variant-readings screen, using special editing tools designed for this purpose.* -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 05:05:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 08:05:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In my previous post, I cited some halachos which seem to demonstrate - surprisingly - that externals are *more* important than internals. Perhaps the source pasuk for those halachos might help us out. Devarim 23:15: "... v'hayah machanecha kadosh, v'lo yir'eh v'cha ervas davar..." "... your *camp* will be holy, and nothing unseemly will be seen in *you*..." We learn much from each of these phrases, but does anyone compare the relative importance of the reisha to that of the seifa? Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 08:31:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 11:31:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150902153128.GB27954@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 09:45:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Mechaber 78:1 and Mishne Brurah 78:2,3 are obviously talking about a person : who unfortunately suffers from incontinence... : Similarly, if one needs to defecate, but he can hold himself for 4 mil, he : will be yotzay davening b'dieved -- Mechaber 92:1. But that leniency is : because it is mere pnimius; Mechaber 76:4,5 seems to be stricter once the : tzoah has gone external. I am not sure these are examples. It may have to do with when tzo'ah smells, or when it starts being "tzo'ah" rather than part of the person. : (Note: I think that it would not be difficult to show that chitzonius *is* : important. The problem as I see it is that we've found some cases where it : is *more* important than pnimius.) Thinking about it more, I have more confidence in my earlier guess, that chitzonius is a better indicator of future penimius than current penimius is. Someone who is a passionate eved H', but for some reason isn't acting on it will likely lose that passion, and someone who develops the right habits in attempt to develop the feelings, mitokh shelo lishimah, ba lishmah. So it's not that it's more important; it's still of derived value. And yet, this reasoning explains Yahadus's focus on halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 18:30:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 21:30:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In Avodah V33n118, R'Micha wrote: > However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is more important than penimius. < Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what can be seen? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 06:30:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:30:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We recently had a thread which discusses the meaning of the word "mesorah". Coincidentally or not, I'd like to ask about the meaning of the verb "moser" as it occurs in the context of the Prozbul. I'd like to begin by giving two different *colloquial* uses of "moser": It can refer to the act of literally handing a fellow Jew to the authorities, but it can also refer to merely informing the authorities about a fellow Jew. My question about Prozbul is this: When the Prozbul says that the lender is "moser" the loans to Beis Din, does he actually hand them over, or does he merely inform? For decades, I had thought that the lender actually gives the loans to the Beis Din, in a manner similar to how anyone can use a commercial collection agency: Usually, if someone owes me money, I can sell that debt to a collection agency, but in the context of Shmitta, I give it as a gift to the beis din. Then, the beis din authorizes me to collect the debt on their behalf, and will allow me to retain 100% of it as my service fee. With the above, I have accomplished three important things: (1) When Rosh Hashana arrives, no one owes me anything, so I have no possibility of violating any halachos of Shmitas Kesafim. (2) When I collect from the borrower, I'm merely acting as an agent of beis din, to whom Lo Yigos does not apply, so I'm not violating anything. (3) Although the lender did not repay anything to me directly, my finances did not suffer, and future Shmitos will not influence to me avoid lending. BUT - From what I've learned, when a Prozbul is done, no kinyan ever occurs between the lender and the Beis Din, not even a kinyan sudar of the sort that I do when authorizing the rav to sell my chometz. Without a kinyan, I can't see how the loan ever leaves the ownership of the lender. So it is clear to me that Prozbul does NOT follow the "collection agency" model. Is there some other model that it does follow? The Mechaber Choshen Mishpat 67:8 talks about a situation that I will presume occurs before Erev Rosh Hashana: "If one claims money, and the other denies it, and the first sues in beis din and wins, and the psak din is that the second one must pay - this is a gibui, and shmita does not cancel it." If I'm understanding this correctly, then when a court verdict declares the A must pay B, this is not the sort of debt that shmita cancels, because the requirement to pay does not come from any interaction between the two men, but directly from the beis din's power. In other words, the lender can ask the borrower for money, but he is not asking for the loan to be repaid; rather, he is enforcing the court's ruling. This is a new obligation upon the borrower, which was created by the court, and is therefore exempt from Shmitas Kesafim. Perhaps this is how Prozbul works: Without any evidence or documentation, or even an itemized list, a person approaches the beis din and tells them that there are debts which are owed to him. The beis din responds with a court order that those debts must be paid. He can now collect them, because it is the *Beis Din* that wants them to be paid (irrespective of the fact that the lender wants them paid). This explanation solves the problem of Lo Yigos: The lender is not pressing the borrower for repayment of a personal loan; he is pressing the borrower to pay the court judgment. But the personal loan does still exist, doesn't it? The lender would still have an obligation to be personally m'shamet the loan at some point, but I think most people think that the Prozbul relieves them of that obligation. I'm stumped. When the lender is "moser" the loan to Beis Din, exactly what is happening? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 11:26:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 18:26:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0b20dda77d534fbdbec18095eaf0ce72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> We recently had a thread which discusses the meaning of the word "mesorah". Coincidentally or not, I'd like to ask about the meaning of the verb "moser" as it occurs in the context of the Prozbul. Akiva Miller ================================= Listen hear for discussion on point http://www.torahbase.org/prozbul-concept-halachos-5775/?lang=en Rav Asher Weiss-Prozbul ? Concept and Halachos 5775 Kvct 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 13:07:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:07:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch Message-ID: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> S"A O"C 55:11 as recorded in the 1st volume of the mishna brurah (it's not in my regular S"A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of the S"A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn't apply "now" because dina dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? KVCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 14:41:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2015 23:41:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What am I missing? Message-ID: <55EB6184.5050706@zahav.net.il> Re prozbul, I seem to be missing something. Personally I haven't loaned out any huge sums such that if I don't get them back, I would be reticent about loaning in the future. If I did loan out something small, why should I sign the prozbul? If the borrower doesn't pay me, well he doesn't have to (right?). If the borrower does pay me, he gets a bracha and everyone is a winner. What am I missing? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 21:10:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 00:10:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <55EBBC9C.9070304@sero.name> On 09/04/2015 04:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > S?A O?C 55:11 as recorded in the 1^st volume of the mishna brurah (it?s not in my regular S?A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of the S?A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn?t apply ?now? because dina dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? The note appears in the first edition, so presumably it was put there by the original publisher, in order to get it past the censor. Or perhaps it was inserted at the censor's insistence. In any case it houldn't need saying that it was not intended to be taken seriously by the intended audience. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49623&pgnum=170 (BTW, the censor's approval is dated 23-Dec-1882, the Hebrew date on the front page is 5683, but the secular date on the front page is 1884. Presumably that's how long publishing took.) -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 21:04:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 00:04:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Factory Farming and Panicking the Animals Message-ID: From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> If the lung is tzemuqah (dried enough to be wrinkly like a raisin, but not dry enough to be called yeveishah)... There is a halakhah leMoshe miSinai that if it was due to fright caused by a person, the animel is tereifah if it's caused by HQBH (eg a lion attack), the animal is kosher. (AhS YD 36:70) ....Interesting is a comment at the end of se'if 70: Therefore it is correct that shoechtim be careful not to shecht one ba'al chai in front of another ba'al chai so that the lungs not get wrinkly and will require checking, ae will be explained. << Micha Berger >>>> I remember reading that Temple Grandin had designed a spiral ramp with high walls for cattle to walk along before reaching the slaughtering spot. The design was such that the animal could not see out the sides or very far ahead as it walked, and would thus not witness other animals being slaughtered. This was meant to keep the animal calm and not frightened. I did not find the article with a quick google search but I am sure it's available somewhere. Temple Grandin is a famous expert in humane methods of animal slaughter. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 01:19:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 11:19:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? Message-ID: Most of selichos is us beseeching Hashem (poetically) for forgiveness and declaring that we are unworthy and sinners. However, the main part of selichos is the recitation of the 13 middos. However, the recitation of the 13 kiddos seems like almost magic, something we say because Hashem told us to as we say in the preceding paragraph "Hashem you commanded us to say the 13 [middos] ... as you told Moshe [the anav] ...". What is our kavannah supposed to be when we say the 13 middos? What should we be thinking? Why is saying the 13 middos so important? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 16:25:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 19:25:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150906232531.GA15175@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 11:19:51AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Most of selichos is us beseeching Hashem (poetically) for forgiveness and : declaring that we are unworthy and sinners. However, the main part of : selichos is the recitation of the 13 middos. However, the recitation of the : 13 kiddos seems like almost magic, something we say because Hashem told us : to as we say in the preceding paragraph "Hashem you commanded us to say the : 13 [middos] ... as you told Moshe [the anav] ...". What is our kavannah : supposed to be when we say the 13 middos? What should we be thinking? Why : is saying the 13 middos so important? Actually, the wording in the gemara is Whenever Israel sins *ya'asu* lefana keseder hazaeh, and I will pardon them. The point isn't to say the 13 Middos, they're just a reminder that we're supposed to do them. If we remember the essential, to be merciful people in His Image, HQBH is ready to pardon everything else. (I am defining "mocheil" as pardon as in being mochel a debt, in contrast to full forgiveness. That's a choice among how acharonim take selichah, mechilah and kapparah, so your mileage may vary.) I passionately recommend printing up and keeping it with your selichos and YK Machzor. It's a summary of the 13 Middos as per Tomer Devorah mapped to the version of the Thirteen Middos in Shemos that we say in Selichos. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 16:58:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 19:58:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 08:07:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : S"A O"C 55:11 as recorded in the 1st volume of the mishna brurah (it's : not in my regular S"A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of : the S"A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting : for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn't apply "now" because dina : dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. However, the MBs Poland wasn't it. Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 07:31:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 10:31:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: Let's go back to one of the sources: Yoma 72b - "Any talmid chacham whose tocho (inside) is not like his baro (outside) is not a talmid chacham." Is this speaking only of one who appears fine externally, but is deficient internally? Or does it also apply to one who is fine internally, but doesn't look it to an outside observer? If it applies to both, does anyone compare the two? I have always presumed that the one who is not-so-good on the inside is a bigger problem than the one who is okay on the inside. But if I understood them correctly, RMB and RMP brought independent reasons why one should focus on the externals. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 01:32:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 11:32:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What am I missing? Message-ID: R' Ben Waxman asked: > Re prozbul, I seem to be missing something. Personally I haven't loaned > out any huge sums such that if I don't get them back, I would be > reticent about loaning in the future. If I did loan out something small, > why should I sign the prozbul? If you have money in the bank in Israel then you have lent the bank money and therefore Shemitta will cancel your loan and the bank could keep your money. Now, the fact is that all the banks in Israel have a hater iska so that they can pay interest, but even with a heter iska half the amount is an iska but half is a loan, so the half that is a loan would be cancelled by shemita. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 17:56:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 20:56:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> I passionately recommend printing up . It explains the 13 Middos as found in Shemos and therefore Selichos in terms of the version in Michah and the Tomer Devorah thereon. Rather than repeating the same words / names over and over throughout selichos and much of Yom Kippur, it can become an opportunity to commit and recommit to emulating them. As the gemara (RH 17b) says Whenver Israel sin, they shall perform before Me like this structure (ya'asu lefanai keseider zeh), and I will forgive them. Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:27:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:27:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 08:56 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > As the gemara (RH 17b) says > Whenver Israel sin, they shall perform before Me like this structure > (ya'asu lefanai keseider zeh), and I will forgive them. > > Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:18:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:18:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55ECF3DF.8090003@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 04:19 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > However, the recitation of the 13 middos seems like almost magic, > something we say because Hashem told us to as we say in the preceding > paragraph Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we say them and invoke that promise. Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a magical power that the holy ketores has. The Malach Hamaves told Moshe Rabbenu about this trick, and when the occasion arose Moshe told Aharon to use it. "There are more things in heaven and earth..." -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:22:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:22:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was > written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? No. > Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law > and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't > practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. > > However, the MBs Poland wasn't it Yes, it absolutely was. > Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 12:08:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 15:08:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dr. Leo Deutschlander - Father of the Bais Yaakov Movement Message-ID: <20150907190830.A1951181640@nexus.stevens.edu> The name of Sarah Schneirer is invariably associated with the Bais Yaakov Movement. However, she was not the only one who was responsible for the success of the movement before WW II. Sarah Schneirer was an idealist who decided that religious schools for girls were needed in Poland and who set out to found such schools. However, WADR to Sarah Schneirer, she had a very limited academic background and her Jewish education was quite basic. (This was the case for most girls who lived when she did.) Thus others were needed to assist her in the development of the Bais Yaakov Movement. One such person was Dr. Leo Deutschlander. Up until today I knew very little about him. I did know that there had been an article in the Jewish Observer about his life, but I did not have access to it. Today a friend mine, who has a complete collection of all issues of the JO, brought me a copy of the article about Dr. Deutschlander. I have put it at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/deutschlander.pdf Note that other people who helped Sarah Schneirer with the development of the Bais Yaakov movement are mentioned and almost all of them have a Frankfurt background which means they attended the school that RSRH started in Frankfurt that educated both boys and girls. Thus in a certain sense RSRH is to be considered the grandfather of the Bais Yaakov Movement. Judith nee Rosenbaum Grunfeld played a key role in the development for the Bais Yaakov movement. See her article about Sarah Schneirer at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/sara_schenierer.pdf Anyone really interested in the history of the Bais Yaakov movement should read Rabbi Abraham Atkin's PhD thesis which is titled The Beth Jacob Movement in Poland 1917-1939. I have put this document at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/beth_jacob_movement_poland.pdf Note that the article about Dr. Deutschlander says that he never had children. To the best of my knowledge, he never married, yet he taught Bais Yaakov girls of seminary age and perhaps even younger, something that would be considered scandalous today! Given that Dr. Deutschlander never married, I find him being characterized by Chaim Shapiro as the "Father of the Bais Yaakov Movement" somewhat amusing. >:-} YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 11:41:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 14:41:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar Message-ID: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> Please click here to download a back issue of Halachically Speaking on eating before Shofar. ---------- From the article Custom of Some Gedolim The Steipler zt"l used to recite the zohar and other tefillos during the break. In his later years he recited portions of tehillim.[1] He did not make kiddush before tekios.[2] Harav Moshe Feinstein zt"l did not eat before tekios.[3] Harav Elyashiv zt"l [4] and Harav Yisroel Belsky Shlita do not eat or drink before tekios. [1] Orchos Rabbeinu 2:page 182:4. Refer to Darchei Chaim V'sholom 716:page 251. [2] Orchos Rabbeinu 2:page 181:1. Refer to Chelek Levi 189. [3] As related by Harav Aron Felder Shlita. [4] As quoted in Chag B'chag page 113:footnote 79. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 14:13:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 17:13:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar In-Reply-To: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <55EDFE13.7010505@sero.name> I have to admit that this is one of the Lubavitcher customs that puzzle me. All year, not just on Shabbos but also on weekdays, the official Lubavitch minhag is to allow eating before davening (after saying sh'ma, on weekdays in tefillin), on the grounds that it's difficult to daven properly without it. In the Tzemach Tzedek's words, "it's better to eat in order to daven, than to daven in order to eat". If you find that you're davening in order to get to breakfast, you'd do better to get breakfast over with and then daven with kavanah. And yet on Rosh Hashana, when one often doesn't get to kiddush until 2 or 3 in the afternoon, and when one needs kavanah in davening more than ever, Lubavitchers fast until kiddush! I don't understand it. If you can make it on Rosh Hashana, why not on any other day? And if you can't daven on an empty stomach on a weekday without thinking about breakfast, then how can you daven on an even emptier stomach on Rosh Hashana without thinking about lunch? -- Zev Sero KVChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 16:32:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:32:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:18:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. : Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we : say them and invoke that promise. : Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores : to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a : magical power that the holy ketores has.. Where is this made explicit? On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:27:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. : That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". Who said that remembering something in tefillah, unlike lekhishah, talks about the words themselves without internalization? What's the verb for tefillah, anyway? In any case, the idea that it's about saying the words until we're committed to emulating them isn't mine, it's R' Elimelekh miLetzhinsk's, the Chafeitz Chaim's and R YL Chasmin's. The latter two relate this gemara to "mah Hu 'Rachum' af atah..." Hashem is not only just, He's not a Vatran. The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 16:43:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:43:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:22:37PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was :> written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? : No. Source? :> Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law :> and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't :> practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. :> However, the MBs Poland wasn't it : Yes, it absolutely was. Again, source? Actual excommunications were commonplace. Comes up in teshuvos on agunah. :> Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. : Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could : be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the : MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. In the CC's hayday, Radun was in the Vilna Voivodship, Poland. And I didn't ask about censortship, I asked about autonomy, as in having courts empowered to punish, and the Jewish community certainly did. At least, azoi shteyt YIVO The Polish government never recognized Jewish communal autonomy de jure, but autonomy existed de facto in hundreds of local communities, school systems, and youth movements during the interwar period. Because regardless of whether this appeal to dina demalkhusa was real or to satisfy a censor, the mileau that created this footnote had to have such a law. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 17:42:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 20:42:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EE2EF6.2060509@sero.name> On 09/07/2015 07:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:18:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. > : Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we > : say them and invoke that promise. > > : Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores > : to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a > : magical power that the holy ketores has.. > > Where is this made explicit? It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell? Also, the gemara deduces that this is where Moshe must have got it, because how else could he possibly have known about it? Now if it was about the kavanos or the zechus of the mitzvah stopping plagues, then why couldn't Moshe Rabbenu have worked it out from first principles? This shows that it isn't anything that could be worked out, there's no reason why it should be so, it just is. In other words, magic. > > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:27:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. > > : That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". > > Who said that remembering something in tefillah, unlike lekhishah, talks > about the words themselves without internalization? What's the verb for > tefillah, anyway? "Lehazkir" doesn't mean to remember, it means to mention, to pronounce words. For that matter, the word "yaasu" that you're basing yourself on refers not to the midos themselves but to the "seder tefillah", i.e. the ritual of naming the midos. > Hashem is not only just, He's not a Vatran. The notion of magic words > that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah > would be very problematic. But that is what the gemara seems to say. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 18:06:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 21:06:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EE34A8.7060303@sero.name> On 09/07/2015 07:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:22:37PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was > :> written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? > > : No. > > Source? There is no source that it was banned then. Why would you even imagine that it would be? There is no such note in any edition of the Shulchan Aruch. In any case, the concept of banning cherem doesn't seem to have come up until the late 18th century. http://t95.el.sl.pt > :> Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law > :> and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't > :> practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. > > :> However, the MBs Poland wasn't it > > : Yes, it absolutely was. > > Again, source? Actual excommunications were commonplace. Comes up > in teshuvos on agunah. Catherine the Great banned cherem in 1795. Of course they ignored the law and did it anyway, but to get a sefer past the publisher they had to pretend to be obeying the law, so if the sefer mentioned cherem they had to note that this was written before it became illegal. > :> Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. > > : Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could > : be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the > : MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. > > In the CC's hayday, Radun was in the Vilna Voivodship, Poland. What Poland? There was no such place as Poland. It was Russia, and there was no autonomy. > And I didn't ask about censortship, I asked about autonomy, as in having > courts empowered to punish, and the Jewish community certainly did. > At least, azoi shteyt YIVO > > The Polish government never recognized Jewish communal autonomy de > jure, but autonomy existed de facto in hundreds of local communities, > school systems, and youth movements during the interwar period. Read what you just wrote: "The Polish government". What period could this paragraph possibly be talking about? The period when there was a Poland and a Polish government. IOW not the time we are discussing. And indeed if you look at the page again, you will see that it is explicitly discussing the interwar period, after Polish independence. > Because regardless of whether this appeal to dina demalkhusa was real > or to satisfy a censor, the mileau that created this footnote had to > have such a law. Yes, it did. Catherine's law that I mentioned above. And it also had a strict censorship law, which this sefer was subject to. If you need any further convincing, note the language of the censor's stamp. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 20:16:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 23:16:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Joel Rich wrote: > Listen hear for discussion on point > http://www.torahbase.org/prozbul-concept-halachos-5775/?lang=en > Rav Asher Weiss - Prozbul - Concept and Halachos 5775 Thank you very much for showing me this. I listened to it a few times, and it seems that he gives his conclusions right at the beginning: (00:42 to 01:05) "The takana of Pruzbul is that there is no need to physically give over your notes to Beis Din and there is no need Beis Din should be the ones to collect your money. Hillel was metaken: it is enough if you declare, either orally or in writing, Mosrani lachem..." (02:00-02:24) "The takana of Hillel was: It is enough if you write 'Mosrani lachem ploni v'ploni'. It is considered AS IF you transferred your notes to Beis Din, and when you collect the money, you would be considered AS IF you would be shliach of Beis Din even though it's not really the real thing in practicality. But that was the takana of Pruzbul." But how does it work? He clearly says (at 8:40 to 9:23) that the functions of a Beis Din do not include acting as a collection agency. There ARE (9:49 to 10:30) are very limited circumstances where Beis Din does have that function, such as collecting for yesomim, because that *is* one of the roles of the Beis Din, as "avi yesomim". One the other hand, (10:30 to 10:52) yesomim do not need to make a pruzbul at all, because Beis Din is *automatically* the Avi Yesomim, and their loans will not be cancelled by shmitta. So he suggests (12:19 to 12:40) that although it is not Beis Din's practice to accept the responsibility of collecting loans except for unusual cases, perhaps the difficulties posed by Shmitta put other loans in this category, and so if someone would be moser his loans to Beis Din, then Shmitta will not cancel them. But exactly why are such loans exempt? He explains (14:20 to 14:40), "You have to be m'shamet loans, but the moment you gave your notes, your loans over to Beis Din, it is k'gavui dami - it is as if those monies were already collected." He then compares this situation to the case where the lender has collateral for the loan, and that too is "already collected" and exempt from Shmitas Kesafim. It seems to me that this is how Rav Weiss understands the Pruzbul: The loan was and remains property of the lender, but Beis Din accepts the responsibility to go to the borrower to demand payment. From that point, it is considered as "already collected". Since it is already collected, not only is he allowed to request the money after Rosh Hashana, but there's no need to even state "M'shamet Ani". There is no need for any kinyan, because the loan remains property of the lender, and the role of Beis Din is simply to accept responsibility for collecting the loan; this occurs automatically at the inception of the loan where the lender is an orphan, and it also occurs automatically at the execution of a Pruzbul per Ezra's takana. ON THE OTHER HAND, over Shabbos a friend lent me his copy of Sefer Dinei Shviis Hashalem, published by Keren Hatarbut Degel Yerushalayim, which contains a photo of a pruzbul on the stationery of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and (apparently) in his handwriting, dated 29 Elul 5754. It contains a very interesting clause. Other pruzbuls avoid details, and simply say something like "I am moser my loans to beis din", but this one adds some very significant points. Here is the full pruzbul, as best as I can render it: "[B'mosav tlasa bei dina k'chada havinu] We were three dayanim sitting together, [uva l'faneinu...] and R' Aharon Dovid Goldberg came [v'amar lanu] and said to us: [Hen shana zu hee shnas hashviis] This year is the seventh year, [v'yesh li chovos b'shtar uv'al peh] and I have loans - both in writing and orally - [al ayzeh anashim] against certain people. [V'hareni moser lachem pruzbul] I am now moser a pruzbul to you, [viyhavis l'chon b'matana] and give it to you as a gift [b'kinyan dalet' amos karka] with a kinyan of four amos of land, [me'arah d'ees li] from the ground that is mine. [V'al gabayhon] And through that, [arshees yas'chon] I give you permission [limigbah kol chovos] to collect all my loans, [d'ees lee al inshee] which I have against people. [Mayatah t'havoon li daiyna] Henceforth you will be my dayanim, [v'sagbuhu uskabluhu li] and you will collect and accept payment for me. [V'im lo tagbuhu atem] And if you do not collect it yourselves, [mayata kayvan shemasarti lachem pruzbul zeh] then since I was moser this pruzbul to you, [ani goveh kol chov] so I can collect any loan [sheyesh li ad hayom etzel kol adam] which I have up to today against anyone, [kol zman she'ertzeh] any time I want. [next paragraph] - "[Anachnu beis din] We the court [shamanu dvarav] heard his words, [veefinu kocho] and affirm its validity, [shelo t'shamet lay] that he will not have a cancellation, [v'yigbeh kol chovosav] and he can collect all his loans, [al ydei pruzbul zeh] via this pruzbul, [k'takanas Hillel v'Chazal] in accordance with the takana of Hillel and Chazal. [next paragraph] - "[Banu al hechasum] We have signed below [yom kaf"tes l'chodesh Elul, shnas heh-tav-shin-nun"dalet] this day, 29th of Elul 5754 [poh Ir Hakodesh Yerushalayim] here, the holy city of Yerushalayim. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach [I cannot read the other two signatures]" (end of pruzbul) I don't understand the purpose of the four amos of land. (Yes, I'm quite aware of the requirement in halacha, I just don't understand why that requirement was included. That's a topic for another thread.) And I quite likely made some errors in the transliteration and the translation. But I think that I understood it well enough to state with confidence that it seems that RSZA does indeed subscribe to the "collection agency" model, which Rav Asher Weiss had so clearly rejected. RSZA explicitly uses the word "kinyan". One could argue that the "matanah" which the lender is giving to the beis din is merely the pruzbul and not the loans. One could also point out that after the kinyan has occurred, the lender continues to refer to the loans (which beis din would collect) as "MY loans", suggesting that they are still owned by the lender and not the beis din. But if that is so, then what does it mean to make a kinyan on the *pruzbul*? This pruzbul is merely a record of the court proceedings, and it seems very likely to me that the intent is for the court to acquire the loans themselves, in very much the same way that a modern collection agency works. If anyone disagrees, and feels that RSZA does *not* subscribe to the "collection agency" model, please explain how you think this pruzbul works. And if anyone does agree with me, then I wonder if any other poskim hold that way, because every explanation of pruzbul that I've seen describes the document itself, and no one ever mentions any requirement of kinyan. Thank you Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 02:10:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 05:10:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar Message-ID: And if you can't daven on an empty stomach on a weekday without thinking about breakfast, then how can you daven on an even emptier stomach on Rosh Hashana without thinking about lunch? Kal v?chomer, how can you daven on T?B and Y?K when you wake up without having even drinking or eating and then must go another good 12 hours on an empty stomach? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 03:51:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:51:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote; > "It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that > ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to > have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there > the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so > obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. > How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell?" Rashi in Chumash quoting the Mechilta offers a second explanation of why the ketores was used to end the plague. Bnei Yisrael were complaining about the ketores that it was a sam hamaves, that it killed people. The ketores killed Nadav and Avihu, it killed the 250 people, therefore Hashem said watch that it can stop the plague and that sin is what really kills people. We see clearly from this explanation that there was nothing magical about using the ketores, rather Hashem wanted to make a point to the Jewish people about the ketores. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 07:35:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:35:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very problematic. (Or perhaps "confusing" would be a better description, as it moves the focus away from a "problematic halacha", chalila, and towards my obligation to understand it.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 08:14:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 11:14:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:35:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a : measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very : problematic... And I don't believe there is such a thing, so I have no problem. I suggested twice now 2007 http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol23/v23n174.shtml#12 and 2010 http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n130.shtml that itzumo shel yom mechaperes only someone who acknowledges and embraces the etzem shel yom. >From 2007: > My understanding is that itzumo shel yom is mechapeir, but without inuyim, > one isn't connected to that etzem. IOW, someone who eats on YK doesn't > get kapparah, but someone who observes YK gets kapparah from YK itself, > not the zekhus of observance. > And it's clear from R' Elazar ben Azaryah on Yuma 86a that YK is never > effective in and of itself. > - For an asei, teshuvah is effective > - For a regular lav, teshuvah must first achieve selichah (removal of > onesh) before YK can effect kaparah > - For a chayav kareis, one needs teshuvah and YK for selichah, and onesh > brings kaparah > - For chillul Hashem, only misah brings kaparah. > The philosophical problems are > (1) The justice in YK being mechapeir > (2) Given a ba'asher hu sham approach, why would onesh or misah in and > of itself help? > I couldn't make heads or tails of it without stretching the notion, > and saying that YK is mechapeir to the extent that one allows oneself to > experience the soul-changing nature of YK, and thus change the ba'asher > hu sham. Similarly oneshim or misah. I know all this could be seen as dachuq BUT, Divine Justice is the 11th iqar. I would prefer to take a number of chazal's statements as colloquial shorthand for more nuanced ideas than to dismiss what we have blessed as a defining feature of Yahadus. Or IOW, given that Ani Maamin and Yigdal made it into the siddur, I feel the burden rests on those who take itzumo shel yom in its simple sense. (And yes, "problematic" should be tken as "a problem for us to understand.") Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 10:08:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:08:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 midos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55EF15F0.8060200@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 06:50 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote; >> "It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that >> ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to >> have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there >> the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so >> obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. >> How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell?" > Rashi in Chumash quoting the Mechilta offers a second explanation of > why the ketores was used to end the plague. Bnei Yisrael were > complaining about the ketores that it was a sam hamaves, that it > killed people. The ketores killed Nadav and Avihu, it killed the 250 > people, therefore Hashem said watch that it can stop the plague and > that sin is what really kills people. > > We see clearly from this explanation that there was nothing magical > about using the ketores, rather Hashem wanted to make a point to the > Jewish people about the ketores. Yes, this is an alternative explanation, offered because the primary explanation leaves some question unanswered. But it is the second explanation rather than the first, because the problem with it is obvious: Hashem didn't tell Moshe to do this. Moshe told Aharon on his own initiative, which is why the gemara wonders how he knew that it would work. This is also why the Malach Hamaves challenged Aharon's right to stop him; if the instruction had come from Hashem he would have had no reason to object to being stopped. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 12:04:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:04:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55EF3124.3060704@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 05:10 AM, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: > Kal v?chomer, how can you daven on T?B and Y?K when you wake up > without having even drinking or eating and then must go another good > 12 hours on an empty stomach? Absolutely. But you don't have a choice. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 12:07:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:07:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> References: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EF31E7.5090303@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 11:14 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:35:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > : True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a > : measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very > : problematic... > > And I don't believe there is such a thing, so I have no problem. > > I suggested twice now 2007 > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol23/v23n174.shtml#12 and 2010 > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n130.shtml that > itzumo shel yom mechaperes only someone who acknowledges and embraces > the etzem shel yom. Rebbi is the one who says Itzumo shel yom mechaper, and he explicitly says that one who eats on YK is automatically forgiven the moment he swallows the food, so that the only way to get kares for eating on YK is to choke on the food and die before swallowing it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 10:18:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:18:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] thermostats Message-ID: as thermostats for the house get more sophisticated do they present a shabbat problem? http://www.cnet.com/products/nest-learning-thermostat-third-generation/?ftag=CAD1acfa04 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 10:37:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:37:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 12:11:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 15:11:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> References: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F08476.8010605@sero.name> On 09/09/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay > (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan. Whether it's allowed is a different question from how it works. Moser Shtorosav leveis din worked even when shmitah was d'oraisa. Tosfos says that Hillel didn't invent it, he merely legitimised it. Before his day it was known, but it was considered unethical, and no reputable beis din would go along with it. To do it required finding a fly-by- night beis din willing to entertain it, so upstanding lenders didn't take advantage, and instead were reluctant to lend. Then Hillel decreed his "solution for rich and poor", which was to instruct botei din to accept and even encourage such applications, so that people would be willing to lend. And he only felt comfortable doing so because shmita was d'rabonon. -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 15:32:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 18:32:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 09:30:46PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V33n118, R'Micha wrote: :> However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is :> more important than penimius. : Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what can : be seen? How is the surface of a lung or brain more visible than the innards? The only difference is how much cutting is required. In general, halakhah only deals with what can be seen in principle, not what happens to be visible in this instance. You can't eat unchecked lettuce any more readily because the light bulb blew in the room you're in. And in principle, these things can be checked. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 17:23:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:23:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> Re: Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom - Rabbi Natan Slifkin From: Ben Rothke via Areivim <_areivim at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:areivim at lists.aishdas.org) > >> "The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom" is the latest book by Rabbi Natan Slifkin. I found it to be a fascinating work. My review is here: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/book-review-the-torah-encyclopedia-of-the-ani mal-kingdom Let me know what you think. << --Ben Rothke >>>>> I think the book is magnificent. I've seen the first volume and read a good chunk of it (the projected second volume is not out yet). It is a fascinating work based on tremendous research, and also aesthetically beautiful. The first volume is about wild animals mentioned in the Torah. The projected second volume I believe is about domestic and kosher animals. The book definitively answers, at least to my satisfaction, a question I've wondered about for a long time: What is a re'em? According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). In Moshe's brachos to the shevatim he says Yoseph has "the horns of a re'em" (Dev. 33:17). Bil'am says when Hashem took the Jews out of Egypt He had "like the strength of a re'em" (Bamidbar 23:22). R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs, a huge and powerful horned animal, a wild ox, nearly the size of an elephant, that lived in Europe, Asia and North Africa. It went extinct only about 400 years ago. The last recorded aurochs died in Poland in 1627. BTW a description and drawing of the aurochs can be seen on pages 17 - 18 of a lovely 28-page monograph that is particularly appropriate for this season. See *Exotic Shofars: Halachic Considerations* by R' Natan Slifkin. http://zootorah.com/assets/media/essays/ExoticShofars.pdf --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 21:37:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:37:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> ------------------------------ I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem?s love for His people: ?If you sin, even if you?re not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here?s a ?ticket? of sorts that I?m giving you _now_ to show my love for you, that if you ?remind? me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate that you see yourselves as close to me, and I?ll give you some measure of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah.? The best Mashal I could think of for this is a PBA placard ? you buy it and put it in your car, and when the cop pulls you over for speeding, you show it to him and he goes easy on you, because he sees that you?re really a friend of the police. NOT because you demonstrated regret for speeding, necessarily. Does that make sense? KT, MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:14:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:14:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Thinking about, knowing about, and knowing G-d In-Reply-To: <000601d0eb81$09d77c90$1d8675b0$@gmail.com> References: <20150901180343.GC11612@aishdas.org> <20150903002115.GA1793@aishdas.org> <55F08884.3010503@sero.name> <000601d0eb81$09d77c90$1d8675b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150910191452.GD3345@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:27:43AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Areivim wrote: : R' ZS: :> The Nachum in your story is too busy to think about HKBH, and that's not :> good, but OTOH HKBH Himself said "I wish they would forget me and keep my :> Torah", so this Nachum is better than someone who is constantly :> thinking about HKBH but doesn't keep mitzvos. But this is why Tanya :> (ch 41) says to interrupt ones learning once an hour to think about why one :> is learning. : This discussion reminds me that there's another step - not only to think : about Hashem, but to _know_ about Hashem, as in the old story (excerpted : from a piece I wrote for "A Daily Dose of Torah"): : R' Levi Yitzchok of Berditchev studied for an extended period of time with : the Maggid, R' Dov Ber of Mezeritch. When he returned, his father-in-law - : who did not approve of R' Levi Yitzchok's leanings towards chassidus - asked : him, "What did you learn there?" R' Levi Yitzchok answered, "I learned that : Hashem exists." His father-in-law, annoyed, protested that everyone knows : that, and to prove it, asked the maid, "Does Hashem exist?" She answered, : "Certainly!" : "She says it," R' Levi Yitzchok responded, "but I know it!" : Certainly pertinent to Malchiyos. I often quote something R/Prof Shalom Carmy wrote in (Aug '01): > [RGStudent: ] >> However, in his Al HaTeshuvah (pp. 195-201), R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik >> investigates what it means to "know" God. As he points out, it is >> impossible to know God. Rather, the Rambam means that we are obligated to >> constantly recognize God's existence. As it says in Mishlei (3:6), "In all >> your ways know Him." Cf. Rabbeinu Yonah's commentary to Mishlei, ad loc. > People who throw around big words on these subjects always seem to take > for granted things that I don't. > The people who keep insisting that it's necessary to prove things about > G-d, including His existence, seem to take it for granted that devising > these proofs is identical with knowing G-d. > Now if I know a human being personally the last thing I'd do, except as > a purely intellectual exercise, is prove his or her existence. RMYG's point is similar to that in the quote from RGS. There is a difference between knowing about Gcd and knowing Gcd. The latter is experiential, and doesn't demand proof. And IMHO more related to Malkhios. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:23:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:23:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150910192331.GA25852@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 04:56:04PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger: :> I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although :> there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, :> Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an :> obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. : "Mah ashiv laShem, kol tagmulohi alai?" I do not see obligation here. Rather, how can I possibly repay, given that everything I have is from Him. Even if voluntarily. Therefore (next pasuq), I will simply recognize what He gave me (kos yeshu'os esa) and that He was the One Who gave it (uvsheim H' eqra), follow through on what I already promised.... Do you see new obligations in this pereq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:47:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:47:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:02:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. : I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear as : ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) ... It's an intersting point, but relating it to RYBS's position just confuses the matter. You're using the word "ceremony" in nearly the opposite sense. And while you note that: : I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview it. : Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not : ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view This isnt' merely an answer, it's an indication that you're discussing two different topics. There is no question, just a miscommunication. Anyway, the contrast between the usages of the word "ceremony" interested me. You listed a number of cases where a halachic legality can be accomplished through something the lay-person considers meaningless ritual: pruzbul, mechiras chameitz, heter isqa, ha'aramos, etc.. RYBS made that statement about ceremony in the sense of ritual in which the person finds meaning, but lacks halachic structure. The two examples that most readily leap to mind are (1) his disparaging kiruv that focuses on white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos candelabra, and (2) his modifying the minhagim of the Three Weeks and Nine Days because leshitaso, the minhagim must follow the same forms as ones found in hilkhos aveilus. I posted about this in Aug '08 at . I also noted in 2011 that RYBS's position that minhag must mirror halachic structure is in opposition to the Brisker Rav's (his uncle's) shitah. RYZS holds that one makes berakhos on minhagim that have a cheftzah shel mitzvah (eg lighting a Chanukah menorah in shul), and that the Rambam and Rabbeinu Tam don't argue about that. What they do argue about is whether Chatzi Hallel is close enough to Hallel to qualify for a berakhah. However, leshitas RYBS, there are no such minhagim that wouldn't require a berakhah. If Chatzi Hallel didn't require a berakhah because it's not close enough to the cheftzah shel mitzvah, it would be "ceremony", and not a valid minhag. He therefore would have to reject his uncle's chiddush. Neo-Chassidus is basically a MO rebellion to this kind of Halakhic Man approach to Yahadus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 10:54:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:54:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle Message-ID: <20150910175503.5E910182948@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6500 Picture, if you will, the hallowed halls of almost any Yeshivah, almost anywhere in the world, on Rosh Hashanah morning. As the strains of Shiras Chanah conclude, followed by the post-Haftarah brachos, there suddenly is a loud bang on the Bimah and the Gabbai calls out "Kiddush!" Most of those assembled take a break for a quick Kiddush and then return for the day's main Mitzvah - the Tekiyas Shofar, the Blowing of the Shofar. The reciting of 'Lamnatzeach' soon reach a crescendo, not unlike a deafening roar, as the congregation eagerly anticipates and prepares for the Shofar Blowing. Although this is indeed the common custom in almost every Yeshivah, curiously, the idea of making Kiddush and eating prior to the main Mitzvah of the day is considered an anathema to some. In fact, the Matteh Efraim, who is considered the authority on issues relating to the Yomim Nora'im, writes that it is actually prohibited to eat before Tekiyas Shofar, barring if one is weak, and, even only then, a small 'Te'imah', tasting of food, in private, is allowed.[1] If so, why do so many make Kiddush[2] and eat before Tekiyas Shofar? To sum up the matter, and although this dilemma is quite complicated, one must ascertain from his knowledgeable halachic authority, as well as taking his personal situation, strength level, and minhag into account, as to what to do on Rosh Hashanah morning.[23] Postscript: One interesting upshot of this machlokes seems to be the recent proliferation of Vasikin Minyanim on Rosh Hashanah. In this way, it is possible to daven all of Shacharis and Mussaf and still be able to make Kiddush after completing davening but still before Chatzos, as well as gain all the spiritual benefits of 'Davening Haneitz'.[24] A seemingly excellent way to avoid spiritual conflict on the Day of Judgment, all the while literally fulfilling the Rambam's famous dictum (Hilchos Teshuvah Ch. 3: 4) of 'Uru Yesheinim Mi'shnascham, Wake up you slumberers, from your sleep', for the clarion call of the Shofar. See the above URL for more. ---------- Any one living in Flatbush is welcome to come to the YI of Ave J Haskama Minyan on RH morning. We start at 7:15 and davening will be over by 11:30 (with Musaf). Then there is plenty of time to go home and make kiddush before Chatzos. Davening is on the second floor in the Simcha Hall. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 08:46:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:46:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha responded to me: >> Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what >> can be seen? > How is the surface of a lung or brain more visible than the innards? > The only difference is how much cutting is required. And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an external tool is required in order to 'see' something. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 13:00:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:00:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:46:32AM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: : And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external : magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an : external tool is required in order to 'see' something. You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying glass. To me that seems obvious. But to articulate it, I find myself going to words like cheftzah, which is a bit too technical to be appropriate language for relaying why I find it self-evident. The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. The magnifying glass compensates for the fact that water bears and other microscopic beasties are not in the realm of experience. We aren't getting the situation right, we are compensating for something with the cheftzah itself. To put it another way, maggot eggs do not have halachic existence. Do tiny crustaceans cease to exist and come back into existence if you flip the light off or on? (This is just different kind of appeal to cheftzah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 13:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:19:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha noted: > You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. < I omitted the blown lightbulb because IMHO the level of required light is a murky subject (poor attempt at humor :)). > I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying glass. < And I am disagreeing: you need an external tool to reach that inside area. Since you're pushing your "kasuv hashelishi", you also need to define what level of light is "normal" -- surely you're not saying that a bug which can only be 'seen' when the level of light exceeds *olam-hazeh* norms (e.g. the lumen level exceeds that of the sun at its strongest) qualifies as visible? > The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. < I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:46:32AM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: > : And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external > : magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an > : external tool is required in order to 'see' something. > > You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen > by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. > > I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing > the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying > glass. > > To me that seems obvious. But to articulate it, I find myself going > to words like cheftzah, which is a bit too technical to be appropriate > language for relaying why I find it self-evident. > > The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, > the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside > the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an > aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is > within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. > > The magnifying glass compensates for the fact that water bears and > other microscopic beasties are not in the realm of experience. We aren't > getting the situation right, we are compensating for something with the > cheftzah itself. > > To put it another way, maggot eggs do not have halachic existence. > Do tiny crustaceans cease to exist and come back into existence if > you flip the light off or on? (This is just different kind of appeal > to cheftzah.) > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole > micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." > http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, > Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 17:40:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:40:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911004049.GA29555@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 05:20:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> The recent court to allow conversion of under bar/bat mitzvah children is :> controversial. The bone of contention is whether it is considred a zechut :> for children to become Jewish when they grow up in a non-religious setting. I thought we dissuade geirim (non-qetanim) in part because this is not true. Alternatively: How do the meiqilim justify this practice, particularly in venues (Golden Age of Spain, much of the world today) where there is comparatively little antisemisim? Rashi (Yevamos 74a, "de'amar) is concerned about the sinning convert's influence on other Jews. This being R' Chelbo's "qasheh ... kesapachas". Tosafos understand R' Chelbo as referring to the extra issurim of mistreating a geir, or that they make us look bad. The Semag (Lav 116, quoted by the BY YD 268) says we dissuade the ger to make sure he knows exactly what he is accepting, avoiding a "meqach ta'us" (my term). On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:27:59PM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious : Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also : for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for : reasons of Nationalism. Or, that being a Jew in Israel is so much better that zakhin le'adam shelo befanav applies. IOW, not by reasons of nationalism, but by taking nationalism into account as part of the metzi'us. Similar to those who rule that we do not dissuade a non-halachic convert, since they will be living among the Jews and their children will quite likely marry Jews either way. And in the latest volume of IM (vol 9, EhE 14), RMF similarly tells a BD to be proactive in convertain someone who thought until now they were Jewish. He even invoked the case of Timna, saying that to not do so would be to be repeating the avos' mistake. So we do see that facts on the ground about whether it is beneficial for the life they will be leading do matter. The bigger problem I have is qabbalas ol mitzvos. RnCL and I argued at length about whether the following qualifies as QOM, but whatever you want to call it.... Upon reaching adulthood, the geir has to affirm their acceptance of the mitzvos. While people pictures this means coming to BD on their 12th or 13th birthday, that is impossible -- the affirmation would have to be tokh kedei dibur of growing shenei sa'aros. Instead, BD sees if during that span of their lives they were observant, and if they were, we consider the geirus affirmed. This din is real enough that the gemara asks about a giyores from when she was less than 3, who is married of to a kohein as a qetana may be given terumah. After all, she might annull the geirus, in which case should would retroactively not have been an eishes kohein! The gemara answers based on rov (most children do not choose to convert out of the religion they were raised with), not that the affirmation is optional. So, what's going to happen to these qetanim when they reach adulthood? How can they be said to have effectively accepted ol mitzvos? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 17:20:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:20:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan >>> Agreed. But there still has to be rules, logic, framework. My original post was a request for help in identifying those rules. (And for now, Rav Asher Weiss' explanation seems quite plausible.). Example: If the streets in my town are a reshus harabim, there's no way to carry on Shabbos without actual walls. If the streets are merely karmelis, then we can make a haarama to say that the area is surrounded by a series of doorways. But they have got to be real halachic doorways; if even one lechi has the string on the side instead of above, forget it. So too here. I don't mind being moser to beis din, if only I was clear on what it is that I'm giving them, and how that happens, and what it accomplishes. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:04:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:04:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911010426.GA12008@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 08:20:47PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I actually thought pruzbul only works because : ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan >>> : : Agreed. But there still has to be rules, logic, framework... I was mostly dismissing your mentioning the lack of qinyan sudar. We can make a shaliach without one, for a ha'aramah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:25:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:25:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> References: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150911012558.GA18449@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:37:41AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: :> The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without :> necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> : I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem's love for His people: "If you : sin, even if you're not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, : here's a "ticket" of sorts that I'm giving you now to show my love for : you, that if you 'remind' me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate : that you see yourselves as close to me, and I'll give you some measure : of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah." But spending time demonstracting our desire for or actual closeness to HQBH is itself arguably a measure of teshuvah. And in any case avoids my problem with ascribing power to a sequence of syllables in and of themselves. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:29:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:29:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:23:44PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job : 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and : 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). : R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs... He argues that it's an auroachs. Calling any identification of this sort a "demonstration" is overly confident. Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we can use mythical creatures as metaphors. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 20:00:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:00:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I was mostly dismissing your mentioning the lack of qinyan sudar. We can make a shaliach without one, for a ha'aramah. >>> I presume you mean like how I can make the rav my shaliach for mechiras chometz without any kinyan. (In practice we do make a kinyan, but only as a chumrah.) So I don't need a kinyan at pruzbul either, and I can make the beis din a shliach without any kinyan. Okay. But if so, then exactly what is it that I'm making the beis din my shaliach FOR? What are they doing on my behalf? If I am making them my shaliach to collect my loans on my behalf, then that sounds like Rav Asher Weiss' explanation. Sure, beis din is patur from lo yigos, but it was a big chidush to me that that's enough to exempt me from being m'shamet a loan that I still own. (But if one wants to go with the Collection Agency idea, then shlichus is irrelevant - beis din would need to own the loan.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 20:51:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:51:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: <1a9316.271c37fb.4323a9c7@aol.com> In a message dated 9/10/2015 9:29:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, micha at aishdas.org writes: Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. >>> That is a fascinating and insightful point! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 02:00:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:00:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha In-Reply-To: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> References: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > Please elaborate BTW The Jewish Action had a recent article on the popularity of MO neo-chassidut. I went to a wedding this week where the chatan learns in a yeshiva from Ofra. To my sight it looked like a Breslov Yeshiva. Big white kippot with extreme dancing. The boys mostly has long peyot. The Rosh Yeshiva/mesader kedushin put on a tallit for the chuppa which I had never seen. He stressed that the chatan's tallit had techelet and he should make a shecheyanu but no bracha on the tallit since it was night, etc However, this was a RZ wedding with a bracha for the soldiers etc. On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:02:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > : RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. > : I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear > as > : ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) > ... > > It's an intersting point, but relating it to RYBS's position just > confuses the matter. You're using the word "ceremony" in nearly > the opposite sense. And while you note that: > : I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview > it. > : Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not > : ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view > > This isnt' merely an answer, it's an indication that you're discussing > two different topics. There is no question, just a miscommunication. > > Anyway, the contrast between the usages of the word "ceremony" interested > me. > > You listed a number of cases where a halachic legality can be accomplished > through something the lay-person considers meaningless ritual: pruzbul, > mechiras chameitz, heter isqa, ha'aramos, etc.. > > RYBS made that statement about ceremony in the sense of ritual in which > the person finds meaning, but lacks halachic structure. > > The two examples that most readily leap to mind are (1) his disparaging > kiruv that focuses on white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos candelabra, > and (2) his modifying the minhagim of the Three Weeks and Nine Days > because leshitaso, the minhagim must follow the same forms as ones found > in hilkhos aveilus. I posted about this in Aug '08 at > . > > I also noted in 2011 that RYBS's position that minhag must mirror halachic > structure is in opposition to the Brisker Rav's (his uncle's) shitah. RYZS > holds that one makes berakhos on minhagim that have a cheftzah shel > mitzvah (eg lighting a Chanukah menorah in shul), and that the Rambam > and Rabbeinu Tam don't argue about that. What they do argue about is > whether Chatzi Hallel is close enough to Hallel to qualify for a berakhah. > > However, leshitas RYBS, there are no such minhagim that wouldn't require > a berakhah. If Chatzi Hallel didn't require a berakhah because it's not > close enough to the cheftzah shel mitzvah, it would be "ceremony", and not > a valid minhag. He therefore would have to reject his uncle's chiddush. > > Neo-Chassidus is basically a MO rebellion to this kind of Halakhic > Man approach to Yahadus. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, > micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just > http://www.aishdas.org beginning. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 09:03:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:03:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> I have been asking this question to various people, and several have suggested that the answer is somewhere in the range of "hefker bes din" and "amiraso legavoah kimsiraso lahedyot". IOW, beis din doesn't need to make a kinyan; its inherent power is sufficient to take possession of your loans as soon as you verbally relinquish them. -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 08:02:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:02:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony Message-ID: <> It would seem that RYBS's definition of a ceremony is almost a tautology. If it is anything of religious significance then its not a ceremony. Otherwise who cares. It is only modern customs that present a difficulty because we don't establish new categories. In the old days customs like lighting the menorah in shul or havdala in shul became invested with religious significance because they were public customs Question minyana d-yoma Is the custom of "simanim" on RH a ceremony? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:53:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:53:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911175305.GC18449@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 06:02:04PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : It would seem that RYBS's definition of a ceremony is almost a tautology. : If it is anything of religious significance then its not a ceremony. If a ritual is of halachic significance then it's not a ceremony (as RYBS used the word in coining the aphorism we're discussing). Now, to Halakhic Man, one can say there is no Yahadus except halakhah, and therefore ceremony is not part of Yahadus. So, RYBS's position on ceremony is a natural consequence of Halakhic Man, but they aren't a tautology according to other derakhim. To other hashkafos, white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos licht may not define Shabbos, but they can for many help foster the atmosphere hilkhos Shabbos create. Which is why I mentioned the spread of Chavaquq-like Judaism in YU. Because Chassidus is big on ritual. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 05:49:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:49:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. >>> R' Michael Poppers responded: <<< I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. >>> The lungs of a *dead* cow are easily accessible if one has a knife; no super-vision is needed there. It is only the lungs of a *living* cow where one would need super-vision (especially if I need the cow to stay alive for more milk next week). Hmmm... Do we consider the lungs of a living cow as visible like a large insect, or as nonexistent like beitzei kinim? The nafka mina is the kashrus of that cow's milk. I would *like* to say that the lungs are invisible and inconsequential. But IIRC we can drink the milk because of rov - most lungs are kosher. There is a real possibility that the lungs are treif, and we deal with that possibility in a manner *other* than "lo nitna Torah l'malachei hashareis". Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 09:47:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:47:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] asmachta Message-ID: see point 5 , on the idea that could asmachta be a talmudic example of , well let the reader decide http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/09/artscroll-and-more.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:23:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:23:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? Message-ID: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, but again whatever Hashem does is good.) Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 11:06:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:06:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150911180646.GE18449@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 01:23:04PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" : (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever : Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the : year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, : but again whatever Hashem does is good.) >From my blog post at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov :-)BBii! -Micha Shetir'u baTov The Bostoner Rebbe (of Boston) commented once on the expression "Shanah tovah umsuqah - a good and sweet new year", which is related to the famous custom of having apple and honey on Rosh haShanah.What does "umsuqah -- and sweet" add, beyond the notion of "tovah -- good"? As Rabbi Aqiva often said, "All that the All Merciful does, He does for the good". An echo of the words of one of his rabbeim, Nachum ish Gamzu, who would greet events that would disappoint or depress most of us with "Gam zu letovah -- this too is for the best." So actually, wishing one another a good year could be thought of as being redundant. Everything is good, how could this year be any different? However, not everything I was told was "for my own good" was particularly pleasant. Therefore, the rebbe teaches, we wish that the year not only be tovah, good, but also be mesuqah, sweet to our perception as well. Along the same lines, I had a thought about a phrase in Shabbos and Yom Tov davening : Our L-rd, and the L-rd of our fathers, sanctify us bemitzvosekha (through Your mitzvos), and put our portion beSorasekha (in Your Torah), satisfy us mituvekha (from Your Goodness), and make us (or: our souls qua living force) biyshuasekha (in Your salvation)... The predicate prefix has an oddity: it says bemitzvosekha, beSorasekha, and later, beyshu'asekha. But by goodness, the prefix is "mituvekha" -- "from", not "be-" ("in" or "through") like by the others. The reason, I believe, is because we are asking for something inherently different. We can ask G-d to make us more holy by allowing us to do more mitzvos, or give us the opportunity to learn more Torah, or make us happier by saving us more often. This is "be-", we are asking for more of a gift by asking for more of the vehicle He uses to give it to us. Since everything G-d does is good, we can't be asking for G-d to give us more good, and thereby make us more satisfied. There is no more good for us to get. Rather, we are asking for more satisfaction with the goodness He already provides. This is why the "mi-" prefix is used. This is also in contrast to Rebbe's words (Berakhos 50a) about benching, that a wise person says "uvtuvo chayinu -- and through His good we live", and a boor, "umituvo chayinu -- and from His good, we live". Rebbe says that "umituvo" is incorrect because it says that we live through some of His Good, implying that Hashem gives meagerly. Perhaps it's different here, when we ask for happiness, because the truth is that if we had a full realization of even a small part of His Good would be enough to satisfy. Like the piyut we sing at the seider. We list fifteen things Hashem did for us when taking us out of Egypt. But had He done any one of those 15 alone, "Dayeinu"! R Shelomo Wolbe^zt"l would part someone's company wishing him "shetir'u batov -- may you see the good!" Because the tense of "tir'u" is ambiguous, this is both a berakhah and a mussar shmuess. Taken in the future tense, "May you see", it becomes a blessing that Hashem allow him to see all that's good in his life. In the imperative, the same work becomes "Look", advice to the person to take the initiative and seek out the good of every situation. To aspire to the middah of Nachum ish Gamzu and Rabbi Aqiva of realizing the Hand of G-d in everything, and looking to see how even the tragedies in our lives are necessary steps to something bigger which He has in store for us. The two together yields a profound combined meaning. Live is the product of a partnership between myself and G-d. It is the sum of my free-willed decisions and the hand Hashem deals me. "Shetir'u beTov" addresses both at the same time, by praying that Hashem show the person good, and that the person look to find it. A greeting that recognizes the fundamental covenant by which man is redeemed. It's a beautiful greeting, one worth adopting. Wishing others could taste the sweetness. Shetir'u baTov! (With thanks to RYGB for helping me find the gemara.) Like this: Like Loading... Related You may also like... * [13]3 [14]The Devastating Power of Leitznus ? ???? ???? - December 28, 2006 * [15]0 [16]The Desire to Desire ?? ????? ???? - August 28, 2007 * [17]0 [18]Nine Qavim at the Buffet ?? ????? ???? - March 27, 2008 2 Responses * [19]Comments1 * [20]Pingbacks1 1. Anonymous says: [21]? ????? ???? - September 29, 2006 at 1:25pm Possibly related - stolen waters are described as sweet, which tells us something unpleasant about the human condition. Perhaps what we are requesting is not only an objectively good year, but the ability to appreciate that goodness, similar to the way in which we regrettably now enjoy the prohibited. - Moishe Potemkin [22]Reply 1. [23]Aspaqlaria ? Blog Archive ? ?? ???? ???"? ?? ????? ???? - September 5, 2007 [...] berakhos for a Shanah tovah umsuqah, as the Bostoner Rebbe put it, a year that is we not only conceptually know to be good, but has a sweetness we can taste and [...] And your thoughts...? [24]Cancel reply IFRAME: [25]jetpack_remote_comment Follow: * * * * * [26]Next story Sweet Charoses * [27]Previous story Nine Qavim at the Buffet ____________________ Subscribe Name: ____________________ email: ____________________ * [28]Entries * [29]Comments * [30]PodCast New & Popular * [31]Recent Posts * [32]Popular Posts * [33]Recent Comments * [34]My Life as a Pendulum ? ????? ???? - September 3, 2015 * [35]Copyright ?? ??? ???? - August 13, 2015 * [36]What does Hashem ask of you? ?? ??? ???? - August 7, 2015 * [37]?? ?????? ???? ? ??? ???? - July 23, 2015 * [38]Gratitude and Thankfulness ?? ????? ???? - July 16, 2015 * [39]Emunah Peshutah vs Machashavah ?? ????? ???? - November 30, 2004 * [40]Balancing Simplicity and Authenticity ? ????? ??? - July 1, 2010 * [41]The Kuzari Proof, part I ?? ???? ???? - December 22, 2004 * [42]What is Frumkeit? ? ???? ? ???? - February 9, 2014 * [43]The Curriculum at Volozhin ? ????? ???? - May 23, 2012 * David Zalkin says: [44]Regarding giving precedence to the Aruch HaShulchan over the MB, my... * Eliezer Eisenberg says: [45]Excellent. Thanks for sharing. * Ilana Sober Elzufon says: [46]Intriguing. I really value the all-women's spaces that Orthodox Judaism provides,... * micha says: [47]You're right. A poor choice of words. Correcting.Thank you. * Dr. Yitzchok Levine says: [48]You wrote, "Shul looks like a boy's club because it was... Aspaqlaria ? 2015. All Rights Reserved. Powered by [49]WordPress. Theme by [50]Alx. * * * * IFRAME: [51]likes-master %d bloggers like this: References Visible links 1. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/feed 2. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/comments/feed 3. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov/feed 4. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 5. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/sweet-charoses 6. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ 7. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/category/mussar/middos 8. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#comments 9. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/author/admin 10. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#stbt 11. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/01/vetaheir-libeinu.shtml 12. http://www.aishdas.org/rygb 13. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus#comments 14. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus 15. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire#comments 16. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire 17. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet#comments 18. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 19. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#commentlist-container 20. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#pinglist-container 21. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov/comment-page-1#comment-72 22. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov?replytocom=72#respond 23. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/09/%d7%9b%d7%92-%d7%90%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%9c-%d7%aa%d7%a9%d7%9e%d7%90.shtml 24. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#respond 25. http://jetpack.wordpress.com/jetpack-comment/?blogid=11004584&postid=134&comment_registration=0&require_name_email=1&stc_enabled=1&stb_enabled=1&show_avatars=1&avatar_default=identicon&greeting=And+your+thoughts...%3F&greeting_reply=Leave+a+Reply+to+%25s&color_scheme=light&lang=en-US&jetpack_version=3.7&sig=04e58004b358ee700890b798c328f7cfd8e7fee6#parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aishdas.org%2Fasp%2Ftireh-betov 26. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/sweet-charoses 27. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 28. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/feed 29. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/comments/feed 30. http://feeds.feedburner.com/AspPodCast 31. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-recent 32. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-popular 33. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-comments 34. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/my-life-as-pendulum 35. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/copyright 36. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask 37. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/%d7%91%d7%9f-%d7%97%d7%9e%d7%99%d7%a9%d7%99%d7%9d-%d7%9c%d7%a2%d7%a6%d7%94 38. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gratitude-thankfulness 39. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/emunah-peshutah-vs-machashavah 40. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/balancing-simplicity-and-authenticity 41. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/kuzari-proof-part-i 42. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-is-frumkeit 43. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-curriculum-at-volozhin 44. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/textualism-mb/comment-page-1#comment-60227 45. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask/comment-page-1#comment-60184 46. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60105 47. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60102 48. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60101 49. http://wordpress.org/ 50. http://alxmedia.se/ 51. http://widgets.wp.com/likes/master.html?ver=20141028#ver=20141028 Hidden links: 53. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus 54. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire 55. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 56. http://www.facebook.com/micha.berger 57. http://www.linkedin.com/in/rmsberger 58. https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MichaBerger 59. http://www.twitter.com/aishdas 60. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/textualism-mb/comment-page-1#comment-60227 61. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask/comment-page-1#comment-60184 62. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60105 63. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60102 64. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60101 65. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov 66. http://www.facebook.com/micha.berger 67. http://www.linkedin.com/in/rmsberger 68. https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MichaBerger 69. http://www.twitter.com/aishdas From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:01:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:01:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> Message-ID: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when shmitta is d'Orayta again? On 9/11/2015 7:03 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > I have been asking this question to various people, and several have > suggested that the answer is somewhere in the range of "hefker bes din" > and "amiraso legavoah kimsiraso lahedyot". IOW, beis din doesn't need > to make a kinyan; its inherent power is sufficient to take possession > of your loans as soon as you verbally relinquish them. > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:05:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:05:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F56682.4070005@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 04:01 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when > shmitta is d'Orayta again? Why wouldn't it? Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din declares it unethical. And I don't think that will happen, because such a declaration wouldn't stop it, it would just drive it to the disreputable batei din. Now that everyone knows about it you can't make people forget it; Hillel uncorked the idea and it can't be pushed back into the bottle. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:05:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:05:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> On 9/11/2015 4:29 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:23:44PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: > : According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job > : 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and > : 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). > > : R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs... > > He argues that it's an auroachs. Calling any identification of this sort a > "demonstration" is overly confident. Agreed. > Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever > sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim > who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we > can use mythical creatures as metaphors. How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty plural to me. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:02:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:02:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you won't experience that as a good thing. On 9/11/2015 8:23 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A > good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever > Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the > year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, > but again whatever Hashem does is good.) > > Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." > > Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. > > YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 02:22:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 05:22:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:02 AM 9/13/2015, you wrote: >On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But if >you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you won't >experience that as a good thing. Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries. If your injuries are not severe, and you collect a hefty sum from the driver's insurance company, then you may indeed view it as a good thing! All things have to be considered in context. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:57:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:57:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 05:22:08AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: :> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But :> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you :> won't experience that as a good thing. : Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries... We're getting off point. I believe Lisa's reponse was similar to my repeating the distinction between "shanah tovah" and "umsuqah", without leading to the problem of the "wrong" word being used in "Leshanah tovah tekhaseivu". We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- what ra? I thought there is no ra? It would seem we often speak of tov vara in terms of how they're experienced, rather than some abstract reality in which we know (or should know) "gam zu letovah". Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:57:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:57:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 05:22:08AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: :> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But :> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you :> won't experience that as a good thing. : Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries... We're getting off point. I believe Lisa's reponse was similar to my repeating the distinction between "shanah tovah" and "umsuqah", without leading to the problem of the "wrong" word being used in "Leshanah tovah tekhaseivu". We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- what ra? I thought there is no ra? It would seem we often speak of tov vara in terms of how they're experienced, rather than some abstract reality in which we know (or should know) "gam zu letovah". Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 06:39:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:39:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. In RM's opinion, shmitta won't be d'Orayata again until the Messiah comes. Ben On 9/13/2015 10:01 AM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when > shmitta is d'Orayta again? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:46:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:46:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: <<< Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din declares it unethical. >>> Perhaps. But I would think that the impropriety of using pruzbul in a d'Oraisa time was pretty implicit (perhaps even explicit) in how Hillel promoted it, and there is no need for a future beis din to point it out. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 06:41:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 09:41:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor Message-ID: <09a801d0ee29$ef34d030$cd9e7090$@com> The sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor is avail for free download at - http://hebrewbooks.org/53838 review of sefer - http://seforim.blogspot.ca/2015/09/review-of-dovid-bashevkins-sefer.html Review of Dovid Bashevkin's Sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor By Rabbi Yitzchok Oratz Rabbi Yitzchok Oratz, a musmach of Beth Medrash Govoha, is the Rabbi and Director of the Monmouth Torah Links community in Marlboro, NJ. God knows the nature of every generation, Rabbi Dovid Bashevkin has written a Sefer uniquely appropriate for the nature of ours[1]. Take a trip to your local Jewish bookseller during this time period, and you will find numerous seforim, old[2] and new[3], on the themes of sin and repentance. Although they certainly vary in style and quality, a common denominator among many is the heavy reliance on Rambam's Hilchos Teshuva and Sha'arey Teshuva of Rabbeinu Yonah of Gerondi[4]. And this is to be expected. Timeless classics, these works of the great Rishonim are unmatched in their systematic and detailed discussion of sin and punishment, free will[5] and repentance, and are a prerequisite study for any serious discussion of Teshuva. But therein lays the dilemma. For although Rabbeinu Yonah maps out the exalted levels of Teshuva that one should certainly strive for, they seem not to be for the faint of heart. Is our generation really up to the task of embracing the sorrow, suffering, and worry, the humbling and lowering oneself[6], without allowing for the concomitant sense of despair[7] and despondence[8]? And how many of us can honestly stand before the Creator, and proclaim that we will "never return" to our negative actions, to the extent that God Himself will testify that this is the case[9]? If confession without sincere commitment to change is worthless[10], does repeating last year's failed commitments not require choosing between giving up and fooling ourselves? This is where B'Rogez Rachem Tizkor comes in. Based heavily on the thought of Izbica in general, and Reb Tzadok ha-Kohen of Lublin in particular, it discusses the value of spiritual struggle, the interplay between determinism and free will, the redemptive potential of sin, and the status of those who have not yet arisen from their fall. Overall, the sefer is a good introduction to R' Tzadok for those who are not familiar with his thought, and offers many insightful and fascinating comments even for those who are. My main critiques are that some of the discussion of the more controversial statements of Izbica required more elaboration[14], the lack thereof leads to a seeming conflating of two similar, yet far from identical, concepts, and more contrasting and supporting texts (both from within Izbica and R' Tzadok's thought and without) would have made for a stronger case and deeper understanding. My hope is to fill in these gaps in some small measure. Hopefully it will further enlighten those whose appetite was whet by this fine work. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:05:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:05:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F59EAF.30104@sero.name> See Tanya chapter 26. There is really no such thing as bad; there is merely the good that we can see and the good that we can't see. But we'd much prefer the kind that we can see, and we ask Hashem to give us that kind of good rather than the other kind. http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7905/jewish/Chapter-26.htm -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:11:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:11:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F5A021.4040809@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 08:46 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The >> only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right >> to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when >> shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din >> declares it unethical. > > Perhaps. But I would think that the impropriety of using pruzbul in a > d'Oraisa time was pretty implicit (perhaps even explicit) in how > Hillel promoted it, and there is no need for a future beis din to > point it out. How so? He didn't say anything about it being improper when shmita is de'oraisa, he merely said here is a solution we can use. The question is why nobody did it before, and the answer is because batei din considered it unethical. Now when were these batei din considering it unethical? In the time of Bayit Rishon?! No, it was in Hillel's day, which is why he needed to make his takanah. And in his day it was already derabbanan. The only relevance of it being derabanan is that had it been deoraisa in Hillel's day, he would not have felt he had the right to promote a way around it, no matter how great the need he saw. But since it was derabanan, and he saw a problem that needed fixing, he was bold and publicised this trick, and declared that nobody should feel guilty about using it. There's no indication that he mentioned shmita's drabanan status at all. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 08:52:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:52:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In Avodah V33n123, RAkivaM responded to me: >> I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. << > The lungs of a *dead* cow are easily accessible if one has a knife; no super-vision is needed there. It is only the lungs of a *living* cow where one would need super-vision (especially if I need the cow to stay alive for more milk next week). < A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the human eye without opening it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 11:55:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:55:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150913185550.GC10636@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 08:57:35AM -0400, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: ::> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But ::> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you ::> won't experience that as a good thing. ... : We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- : what ra? I thought there is no ra? Addenda in response to private email: Well, I didn't mean to get all Izhbitz... I meant the evil we experience, the tragic, and not the evil that we do, the wrong.. But I did buy into more univeralistic models of hashgachah peratis, that at least every person's fate is subject to HP (pace the Rambam or Or haChaim), and thus the tragic has a point. If not itself tovsh, it is letovah. Which still leaves us with R/Prof Levine's original question sbout blessing others with shanah tovah. ... : Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be : experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even : that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) But even the evil that we do is more like a missed opposrtunity for good than a beryah. Much the way Yeshaiah pairs evil with darkness "yotzeir or uvorei choshekh ... uvorei es hara." Althouh it's possible that Yeshiah considered darkness to be a beryah, the way Chazal talk about the thick darkness of makas choshekh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 12:00:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:00:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:52:48AM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the : human eye without opening it. The sun is also an external tool. This is wh I think we need more nuance here. It might depend on whether a hollow inside the lung is judged as a lung that is defective in a way we can't see without a knife, or the hole is a mum that we could be able to see ourselves if the ourside of the lung weren't in the way. But in either case, I still csn't articulste what seems to me to be a obvious difference. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 07:07:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 10:07:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akeidah of the Mind Message-ID: <20150913140741.CE67A180E46@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from pages 588 - 590 of Rav Schwab on Chumash. Please note the words "Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave the human being a mind to understand Him. Whatever one studies in the world, be it science, history, economics, mathematics, or anything else, it is actually the study of the revelations of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Our mind is given to us to enable us to understand as much about C-d as is humanly possible. This is borne out in many places throughout Torah and Nach ... This means that we are not merely to accept that which our forefathers have taught us about C-d but we are to attempt to know, to understand as much as we can about Hashem ... The Rav (Rav Shimon Schwab, ZT"L) was firmly convinced that since Moshe emes v'Toraso emes, the Torah and our Rabbinic mesorah are inviolable and, one day, answers would be found answers these questions. He would say that sometimes one must offer his mind as an "akeidah" to Hakadosh Baruch Hu where human reasoning has not yet found answers to apparent contradictions between the inviolable eternal truth of the Torah, the truthful writing (Daniel 10:21), and historical or scientific finds which are subject to change. In his lectures on Iyov, he offered the following comments on this subject. "... By accepting C-d's command, Avraham Avinu had sacrificed his own mind to comply with the will of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. While Avraham attempts to understand C-d, nevertheless, when C-d1s command contradicts that understanding, Avraham sacrifices his mind to the will of C-d, just as one would forfeit his life if the halachah required it, rather than violate the three cardinal sins. "Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave the human being a mind to understand Him. Whatever one studies in the world, be it science, history, economics, mathematics, or anything else, it is actually the study of the revelations of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Our mind is given to us to enable us to understand as much about C-d as is humanly possible. This is borne out in many places throughout Torah and Nach ... This means that we are not merely to accept that which our forefathers have taught us about C-d but we are to attempt to know, to understand as much as we can about Hashem ... "... This is why the mitzvah of learning Torah is so important; in fact it is our most important mitzvah. When we learn Torah, we employ our mind in the service of Hakadosh Baruch Hu by studying C-d's will as revealed to us in the Torah. And if we have questions or contradictions, we must use our mind to the best of our capacity to attempt to resolve them within the parameters of Torah study. "... So, while we are encouraged to use our mind, as much as reason allows, to serve C-d, to understand Him, and to answer questions, nevertheless, when all reason fails us, and we cannot go any further with human understanding, when our mind is staggered, we must be prepared to I/sacrifice our mind/I to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. We must throw up our hands and say that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is right whether we understand it or not. One could call this 'the akeidah of the mind.' "When science poses questions which seemingly contradict our basic truths, we must make an effort to answer these questions. But if the answers are elusive, we must sacrifice our mind and subjugate it to the revealed truths of the Torah. Fortunately, baruch Hashem, as yet, I have not found any questions of this sort- for instance, regarding the age of the universe, evolution, ancient civilizations- for which I have not found possible answers. But it could happen, and one has to be ready for it. If suddenly a scientific discovery were to arise which clearly seems to contradict the Torah, we would then have to admit that the question is excellent but nevertheless, the Torah is right because it is the revealed wisdom of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. It is "Toras Emes, 11 absolute truth, all questions notwithstanding. Answers will no doubt eventually be found to such contradictions, but in the meantime, by accepting the veracity of the Torah without reservations, we will have offered our mind as an 'akeidah' to Hakadosh Baruch Hu.'' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 11:36:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:36:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? Message-ID: <1f9d87.3cc2b5a7.43271c34@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, but again whatever Hashem does is good.) Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. YL >>>>> When others wish you well you should wish them well too, mipnei darkei shalom. A long philosophical treatise about how even illness, accidents and financial losses are actually all good things will not endear you to anyone. Another answer to your question is: we wish our friends (and ourselves) brachos from the Ribono Shel Olam that are sweet and obvious even to our limited human eyes, and not the other kind. Certainly we appreciate that the dentist's drill or the surgeon's knife is doing us a favor and repairing what needs repairing, but we prefer not to have the cavity and not to need the surgery in the first place. However if you simply cannot bring yourself to utter a blessing that seems philosophically dubious to you, I would suggest that you overcome that feeling, bentsh your fellow Jews anyway, and may Hashem in turn overcome His philosophical doubts and bless you and all of us in kind. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 07:15:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (RCK via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 17:15:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty > plural to me. >Lisa Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book *Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew * [image: Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] [image: Academia.edu] [image: Google Scholar] [image: LinkedIN] [image: Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:00:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:00:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F59DB4.6080103@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 04:05 AM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >> Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever >> sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim >> who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we >> can use mythical creatures as metaphors. > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty > plural to me. Because Yosef is a shor, not a re'em, even if each of his horns is that of a re'em. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 12:29:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:29:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 10:15 AM, RCK via Avodah wrote: > Lisa wrote: >> How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty >> plural to me. > Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=11650&pgnum=227 I don't understand the Bachur's comment. Surely the Radak explicitly addressed his objection, so why does he still raise it? (Unless these notes were not written on the Shorashim at all, and some printer decided to mash them together at random.) -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 13:59:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 16:59:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> References: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha replied: > The sun is also an external tool. < Which is why I previously differentiated between the sun _or_ a substitute light source no brighter than it and between what I call "external tools." > This is wh I think we need more nuance here. < My theory is that anything we, a 6th-Day "creation", can see with the tools provided as part of the *b'riyah* (or, again, a fair substitute) is within our Halachic field of vision. Best wishes for a *shanah tovah umsuqah* from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:52:48AM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: > : A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the > : human eye without opening it. > > The sun is also an external tool. > > This is wh I think we need more nuance here. > > It might depend on whether a hollow inside the lung is judged as a lung > that is defective in a way we can't see without a knife, or the hole is > a mum that we could be able to see ourselves if the ourside of the lung > weren't in the way. > > But in either case, I still csn't articulste what seems to me to be > a obvious difference. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea > micha at aishdas.org of instincts. > http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter > Fax: (270) 514-1507 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 15 10:01:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (RCK via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:01:11 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> References: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> Message-ID: It's a good question, in fact, the Bayis HaGadol (also known as Biur) on Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer (end of ch. 19) asks this on HaBachur. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book *Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew * [image: Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] [image: Academia.edu] [image: Google Scholar] [image: LinkedIN] [image: Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/13/2015 10:15 AM, RCK via Avodah wrote: > >> Lisa wrote: >> > > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty >>> plural to me. >>> >> > Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. >> > > http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=11650&pgnum=227 > > I don't understand the Bachur's comment. Surely the Radak explicitly > addressed his objection, so why does he still raise it? (Unless these > notes were not written on the Shorashim at all, and some printer decided > to mash them together at random.) > > -- > Zev Sero KvChT > zev at sero.name > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 15 17:45:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:45:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150916004501.GA21666@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 04:59:29PM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: :> This is wh I think we need more nuance here. : My theory is that anything we, a 6th-Day "creation", can see with the tools : provided as part of the *b'riyah* (or, again, a fair substitute) is within : our Halachic field of vision. You mean, like a sharp rock? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 01:43:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:43:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: R' MYG wrote: "I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem?s love for His people: ?If you sin, even if you?re not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here?s a ?ticket? of sorts that I?m giving you _now_ to show my love for you, that if you ?remind? me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate that you see yourselves as close to me, and I?ll give you some measure of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah.? The best Mashal I could think of for this is a PBA placard ? you buy it and put it in your car, and when the cop pulls you over for speeding, you show it to him and he goes easy on you, because he sees that you?re really a friend of the police. NOT because you demonstrated regret for speeding, necessarily. Does that make sense?" Not really, Hashem is perfect and all knowing, you can't bribe him. Why should you need to remind him of anything? Hashem knows exactly who you are and how close you are to him. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 02:35:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:35:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916093543.GA10685@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:43:35AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Not really, Hashem is perfect and all knowing, you can't bribe him. Why : should you need to remind him of anything? Hashem knows exactly who you are : and how close you are to him. That's ust an inherent limitation in the mashal. (Any mashal where the nimshal is G-d, is going to be limited for the same reason you give.) Lemaaseh, He may Remember everything, but I don't. Going through the exercises keep my own beliefs more conscious and reinforces them. Setting up a pointless reminder to remind Him has function in that it reminds me. Which is how I understood RMYG's original answer: that reciting the 13 middoes is "more of a symbol of Hashem's love for His people: 'If you sin, even if you're not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here's a 'ticket' of sorts that I'm giving you _now_ to show my love for you...'" We need to remember the closeness, to keep it real in our minds, which then deepens our belief in it. Which is why I then said that this in itself is a minimal teshuvah, and not merely reciting words. IOW, if someone said the 13 Middos and didn't even think "these are G-d's 13 Middos of lovingkindness that He gave us", would they still be guaranteed not to leave empty-handed? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 01:58:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:58:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > There's no indication that he mentioned shmita's drabanan status at all. The simple reading of the Gemara in Gittin 36a-b which is the source of pruzbul says that pruzbul only works when shemitta is d'rabbanan and in fact this is how the Rambam understands the Gemara and how he paskens. The Gemara first states that Hillel was mesaken pruzbul and then asks how could Hillel be mesaken pruzbul and say that loans are not cancelled when the Torah says that they are? Abaye answers shemitta nowadays is derabban. The Gemara then asks how could the Chachamim be mesaken shemittas kesafim medrabban (and cancel loans) and Rava answers hefker beit din hefker. The simple reading of the Gemara is that the whole takana of pruzbul only works when shemitta is derabbanan. Rashi and the Raavad however understand the Gemara that Rava's answer also answers the first question of how could Hillel be mesaken pruzbul when the Torah cancels loans based on hefker beis din hefker and that pruzbul works even when shemmita is d'oraysa. [Email #2] R"n Lisa Liel asked: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when shmitta > is d'Orayta again? and R' Zev Sero asked why wouldn't it? Actually this is an explicit machlokes the Rambam and the Raavad and Rashi and Tosafos (Gittin 36a-b). The Rambam writes in Hilchos Shemitta V'Yovel (chapter 9) v'ein haprozbul moeel ela b'shmitas kesafim shehee midvrei sofrim aval shemitta shel torah ayn haprozbul moeel bo The Raavad there argues that prozbul will work even when shemmita is d'oraysa based on his understanding of Rava's answer of hefker beis din hefker (like Rashi in Gittin). From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 02:50:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:50:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916095007.GD14423@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:00:56PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : If I am making them my shaliach to collect my loans on my behalf, then that : sounds like Rav Asher Weiss' explanation. Sure, beis din is patur from lo : yigos, but it was a big chidush to me that that's enough to exempt me from : being m'shamet a loan that I still own. (But if one wants to go with the : Collection Agency idea, then shlichus is irrelevant - beis din would need : to own the loan.) The big problem is that the difference in sevaros may make a particular pruzbul text valid or not. For example, how does hefqer BD hefqer work today, when courts do not have a central Sanhedrin organizing them? I am giving the loan to three hedyotos. Which 3? The three I named? (Are we invoking Beis Shammai's notion that one can be mafqir only to a given person or set of people? [Ymi Pei'ah 6:1 19b]) Then how is it HBDH and not a simple matanah? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 03:09:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:09:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20150916100941.GE14423@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 03:39:14PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey : wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of : Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all : those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the : number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. : : In RM's opinion, shmitta won't be d'Orayata again until the Messiah comes. Also, the machloqes Rashi and Tosafos as to whether "kol yosheveha aleha" is by sheivet. I don't know what Tosafos do with the machloqes (Sanhedring 110b) about whether the lost shevatim will ever be restored. If they hold like R' Aqiva, this would have to refer to the descendents of those refugees from Malkhus Yisrael who fled to Malkhus Yehudah. Or, is that in itself enough reestablishment of the shevatim to contradict R' Aqiva? The masqanah of the gemara appears to be Rabba bb Chana (citing R' Yochanan) refuting R' Aqiva's position in favor of R' Eliezer -- that the missing shevatim will be restored (quoting Yirmiyahu 3:!2). Maybe they just consider the question closed. The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority of Benei Yisrael. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 05:08:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:08:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: from wikipedia Thus, if one would agree that shmita does not apply when Israelites are dispersed,[6] Hillel, great as he was, would not have changed a law of the Torah in order to fit the needs of his time. He and his beth din would have enacted a rabbinic exception to a rabbinic law. As the Rambam notes in Shmita V'Yovel chapter 9, when most Jews again live in the Land of Israel and the observance of the sabbatical and jubilee years are Toraitic commandments, the prozbul will no longer be able to be used. According to this theory, Prozbul, like `eruv , is a rabbinic exception to a rabbinic enactment. Prozbul cannot be used to get around the Torah commanded shmita and yovel, just as `eruv cannot be used to get around the fact that Torah prohibited carrying in the public domain. I recently saw the opposite question: There are many ways to avoid the problem of shmitta annulling laws without resorting to prozbul. One simple example is to make the loan end immediately after RH of this year. There are many other options. So the question is why the need for prozbul The only answer I saw was that the general population was not aware of the alternatives or else they were too cumbersome [Email #2] > In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench > that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the > true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people > who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is > much higher than we believe it to be. I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even for direct maternal descendants. i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. I would assume that a descendant of annusim would be Jewish since they kept their Jewish identification through various customs -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:40:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:40:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:36:20PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were :> exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on :> Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority :> of Benei Yisrael. : How do you know? (I assume you mean the reisha about yovel and therefore shemittah de'oraisa ending when eiver hayardein was conquered, not my last sentence.) Eirachin 32b Rambam, Hil Shemitah veYovel 10:8. GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 09:36:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:36:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> On 9/13/2015 4:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey > wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of > Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all > those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the > number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. On the contrary. The number of people who identify as "Jewish" in polls who are actually non-halakhic "converts" or children of non-Jewish mothers is vast, so the number of Jews is much *lower* than we believe it to be. [Email #2] On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were > exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on > Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority > of Benei Yisrael. How do you know? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:40:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:40:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F9A97D.2080405@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 08:08 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> >In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench >> >that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the >> >true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people >> >who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is >> >much higher than we believe it to be. > I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that > once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with > yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even > for direct maternal descendants. > > i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim > through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. That is an extreme daat yachid, with a very tenuous basis. Nobody else agrees with him, so there's no reason to expect R Melamed to take this view into account, or even to be aware of it. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:49:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:49:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Moderator Vacation Message-ID: <20150916174900.GC6146@aishdas.org> While Areivim has a team of mods, Avodah is still entirely dependent on me. Which makes me feel an obligation to forewarn y'all before I go on vacation. Tomorrow I will be leaving for 3 weeks in Yerushalayim ih"q. (Barring messianic intervention, to leave again the day after chutznik Simchas Torah.) I do not know what my internet access will be like, but it's quite likely moderation approval delays will increase. Please be patient. Yerushalayim crew: Avodah/Areivim Simchas Beis haSho'eivah anyone? Discussion on Areivim...) GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 11:30:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:30:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916183023.GD6146@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 03:08:53PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that : once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with : yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even : for direct maternal descendants. This was his famous teshuvah on the Brother Daniel case. That there are limits even on maternal descent. I found a nice summary by R/Dr Judah Goldberg : i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim : through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. >From there, RAL's meqoros in shas: In Yevamot 16b, Rav Assi states that if a gentile betroths a Jewess, we cannot dismiss the validity of the marriage, for perhaps he descends from one of the ten lost tribes. When Shmuel heard this ruling, however, he responded, "They did not move from that place until they made [the descendants of the lost tribes] into absolute gentiles, as it says, 'They have betrayed God, for they have begotten alien children' (Hoshea 5:7)" (17a). Similarly, Chullin 6a tells how Rav Ami and Rav Assi discovered that the Samaritan community, which had long been suspected of engaging in pagan worship, was no longer observing Jewish law at all. In response, They did not move from that place until they made [the Samaritans] into absolute gentiles. He cites three shitos from rishonim, although the Rambam's pesaq is as explacated by R' Chaim Brisker. 1- Rashba: The Samaritan's conversion was annulled, not that one can stop being a Jew. R Pinchas Horowitz (Sefer Ha-mikna) applies parallel reasoning to the 10 shevatim -- they didn't stop being Jews, they are just an ignorable mi'ut that only a derabbanan kept us from ignoring. And that was repealed. 2- A mi'ut hold that the geir who stops believing ceases being a geir, but we have to worry about what's really going on in his head, so lechumerah we have to acknowledge his marriage. 3- The Rambam as explained by RCB (contrasting Ishus 4:15 with peirush on Niddah 7:4, where he says a dead Samaritan is not metamei tum'as ohel) that someone who gives up his self-identity as a Jew and acts on it is But in either case, the hypothetical Ephramite is a machloqes amoraim. Unless you agree with the author of the Hafla'ah that it's just an issue of mi'ut, and therefore the one who could prove he is in the mi'ut would be Jewish. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless micha at aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 13:39:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:39:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Moderator Vacation In-Reply-To: <55F9B9EA.70600@sero.name> References: <20150916174900.GC6146@aishdas.org> <55F9B9EA.70600@sero.name> Message-ID: <43db8966934f6c727f16a67e6896f9cb@aishdas.org> It is much easier when my mechutan's work address is "1 Kotel Plaza" -- Yeshivat Netiv Aryeh. Thanks for the _berakhos_. _Gemar chasimah tovah_! On 2015-09-16 2:50 pm, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/16/2015 01:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > >> Tomorrow I will be leaving for 3 weeks in Yerushalayim ih"q. > > Mazal tov. Even if Moshiach doesn't come in the next week or so, > you can still fulfil a zecher to hakhel. I was there 14 years > ago at the "hakhel" rally at the kotel, but unfortunately I was > unable to be there 7 years ago, and barring either Moshiach (and > the real hakhel) or a lottery win I will not be able to be there > this year either. > > (Actually I'm not aware of any source that Moshiach will provide > transportation, so even if he comes today it may be impossible > for everyone to get there in time for hakhel.) _Tir'u baTov_! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 11:54:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:54:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> On 9/16/2015 8:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:36:20PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: > : On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were > :> exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on > :> Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority > :> of Benei Yisrael. > > : How do you know? > > (I assume you mean the reisha about yovel and therefore shemittah de'oraisa > ending when eiver hayardein was conquered, not my last sentence.) Actually, I meant your last sentence. How do you know that the area of the 2.5 shvatim didn't include a majority of Bnei Yisrael? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:47:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:47:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 09:54:59PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : Actually, I meant your last sentence. How do you know that the area : of the 2.5 shvatim didn't include a majority of Bnei Yisrael? Because the gemara has to explain why 2-1/2 shevatim needed as many arei miqlat as the rest of BY. And the answer is because those who settled for land on that side of the Yardein built a more careless culture. (See Rashi Bamidbar 35:14 which is based on Abayei Makos 10a, and the Maharal on the Rashi to explain that Rashi [and Abayei] assume that the number who need galus will be greater whent he number of murderers does.) Notice the answer was NOT "because HQBH knew there would be at least as many people Mei'eiver haYardein before bayis rishon ended". It would also take a notable statistical anomaly for the largest population to grow out of a small initial state, and yet never get a navi telling them anything, etc... GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your micha at aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender, Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:41:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:41:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question Message-ID: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: > Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking around at books and online. I see no > discussion whatsoever on whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, e.g. books > I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an > obligation to return a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? Thanks, Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:54:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:54:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F9E518.5090701@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 05:47 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Because the gemara has to explain why 2-1/2 shevatim needed as many arei > miqlat as the rest of BY. And the answer is because those who settled > for land on that side of the Yardein built a more careless culture. Do you understand that question and answer? How do the population *or* the number of manslaughterers affect the number of arei miklat needed? Surely the only determinant is geography. A manslaughterer has to cover the same distance regardless of how sparse the population, or how careful they are. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 12:37:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:37:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: I was asked to provide a list of (me-possible) mitzvaot which were considered kiyumit. Does anyone know of such a list? GCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 15:07:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:07:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 05:41 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: > >> Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking >> around at books and online. I see no discussion whatsoever on >> whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, >> e.g. books I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that >> addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an obligation to return >> a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? > I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? Shemita applies only to halva'ah, not to she'elah. English uses the same word, but they are very different transactions. It's actually strange that English, which is usually the most precise language, does not distinguish them. A book is a she'elah; the book remains her property, and she expects the borrower to return it. Thus it is not at all affected by shemita. It is also not subject to the prohibition on ribbis; not only is there absolutely nothing wrong with charging people to borrow your stuff, the Torah explicitly endorses it as one of the four forms of shemirah. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 15:29:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:29:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Li Nir'eh Message-ID: <20150916222914.GE26081@aishdas.org> In AhS YD 39:48, RYME draws a conclusion from the fact that the Rama in Darkhei Moshe says "nir'eh li" rather than "veli nir'eh". "Veli nir'eh" implies he is choleiq with the BY? Anyone hear before of a distinction between the two idioms? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 16:20:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:20:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:06:16AM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> I intend to write a post on the meaning of the word "mesorah" as developed :> in RYBS's and RHS's thought as the start of its own thread. See http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/what-does-masorah-mean : And this is where this slide from discussing one slice of the mesorah - what : to do in Yeshiva, to a much wider slice of the mesorah becomes problematic, : because of the implication you have just made which is that what is true of : the section applies to the whole... Well, that's sort of it, isn't it? You're making a distinction between learning in a semichah shiur and learning how to pasqen. I don't think RYBS would. IOW, his whole point about needing mesorah is because he denies your premise. Leshitaso, you pasqen more from lomdus than from codes; or to put it more clearly -- you need a Rashi and a Tosafos to teach you how to fill in between the data points of a Yad or SA. For that matter, this is clearly the AhS's approach to pesaq. And the entire school which runs from Gemara to Rambam vs Rosh (at al) to Tur, BY, SA, Rama, Shach, Taz (et al)... This is how pesaq comes to be. Not from deciding between codes but from using the flow of mesorah to decide between them. Otherwise, shu"t would read like surveys; and even ROY doesn't end with his survey. : RGS comments that he and his father tried to learn meseches Nedarim just : using the meforash, in the absence of Rashi, and were not able to do so : (they were then only able to do it using the Ran, a much later commentary) - : thus demonstrating the point of the post, which is, without Rashi, most of : the Talmud Bavli would be a closed book to most people of average, and even : above average, intelligence (like the Talmud Yerushalmi). Actually, RYBS said that. : This is unquestionably true. : : The Rambam was also aware of this problem (after all he learned all of : Talmud Bavli without Rashi and everybody he knew either did so or tried to : do so). His solution to RGS's problem was to tell RGS and his father, and : people like him, not to try and learn Talmud Bavli, but to learn his, the : Rambam's, Code instead... Not really. His code is mishnah, not gemara. He tells beginners to do their shelish bemiqra in his code. And then you should be able to graduate from it, and from the whole need to divide one's time into thirds. ... : Our mesorah is like Rashi in this regard and not the Rambam (except when it : comes to smicha students). We open up the Talmud Bavli even to children : using Rashi and hundreds of thousands are sitting in yeshiva following : Rashi. Huh? Rashi didn't expect kids to start with Tanakh? Where does this come into the whole discussion? : The problem is that people (it would appear including you) then generalise : from "how we learn" to "how we posken" - which is what really is involved in : the discussion regarding Open O and feminism. And they are not the same : thing at all. Indeed, the fact that smicha students (those that are being : set up to posken) are taught in a totally different way to the more general : way of learning in yeshiva, and one that owes far more to the Rambam than to : Rashi and Tosphos should alert you to that. I do not believe the closing sentence. RYBS was giving one shiur to cover both. But that's RYBS, not my own leanings. I do see lomdus, in which the goal is to justify every opinion, and pesaq, in which the goal is to decide which opinion is most justified, to be different. But again, one doesn't pasqen from codes without the tools learned from lomdus. For that matter, if it's a halakhah pesuqah, one isn't pasqening at all. : What Rashi did was to provide a clear and simple explanation of the words on : the page. : What Tosphos did ... And the Me'iri opened the gemara in a third way. That seems to be a pretty complete taxonomy of parshanim. Then there are codes. Then there is shu"t. And most recently, encyclopedias / collections. ... : On the other hand, RET is correct: :> Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against :> the concept. :> Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own :> interpretation and not rely or be bound by any text. : Although I would modify that statement not to say "and not be bound by any : text", as most at that point agreed that they should be bound by the gemora : (and the Tanach as understood by the mishna/gemora), just not beyond that. The Maharal's actual objection: To decide halakhic questions from the codes without knowing the logic of the ruling was not the intent of these authors [Rambam, Tur, SA, et al]. Had they known that their works would lead to the abandonment of Talmud, they would not have written them. It is better for one to decide on thebasis of the Talmud even though he might err, for a scholar must depend solely on his understanding. As such, he is beloved of God, and preferable tothe one who rules from a code but does not know thereason for the ruling; such a one walks like a blind person. See Nesivos Olam, Nesiv haTorah ch 15. (I invoked the above thought about shelish bemishnah only being for beginners [from Hil TT] and the MT only being a replacement for the hoi palloi to justify the Maharal's statement WRT the Rambam. See RMRabi's and my months-long discussion.) Actually, what I think won the day for the SA was that the SA stopped being a code when they started publishing everyone on the sides. That's what it seems from the Maharal. Presumably his brother, the Yam shel Shelomo, would agree. ... : And RMB replied: :> Actualy, it's only those who have an eye on common practice. After all, we :> discuss machloqesin between Rashi and the Rambam in halakhah lemasseh :> contexts all the time. And if Ashkenazim accepted Rashi's ruling, or one :> found in Tosafos, the Rama has no problem limiting his pesaq to that rather :> than that of the Rif, Rambam or Tur. And had there not been a Rama, then :> some shu"t or parshan could as well. : : But neither Rashi nor Tosphos gave us any method of limiting where psak : went, and indeed the Ri can hold one thing and Rabbanu Tam another within : the same Tosphos. The Codes are far less open... But they only cover specific cases. They don't teach how to extent beyond those cases. So in general, the codes are more open than Rashi, the Ri or Rabbeinu Tam who help you by providing a why that tells you how far to take the point. A code is way open except for the cases they covered. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 16:38:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:38:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: References: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150916233829.GA3601@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 08:01:11PM +0300, RCK via Avodah wrote: : It's a good question, in fact, the Bayis HaGadol (also known as Biur) on : Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer (end of ch. 19) asks this on HaBachur. Since you clearly saw it, and some of us are kind of busy (and about to take leave of my library), could you please summarize the discussion there? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 18:31:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:31:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55FA17E2.6020200@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 07:20 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > That's > what it seems from the Maharal. Presumably his brother, the Yam shel > Shelomo, would agree. The Maharshal was not a brother of the Maharal! AFAIK they were not related. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 19:19:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:19:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel quoted Wikipedia: > ...According to this theory, Prozbul, like > `eruv , is a rabbinic exception > to a rabbinic enactment. Prozbul cannot be used to get around the > Torah commanded shmita and yovel, just as `eruv cannot be used to get > around the fact that Torah prohibited carrying in the public domain. As few days ago, I was thinking about comparisons between Prozbul and Eruv, and it seems clear to me that while Eruv *is* an exception to an enactment, Prozbul is a whole 'nother thing. I think it makes no sense for Prozbul to be "an exception to an enactment", because "why bother?" If the agricultural Shemitta stops being d'Oraisa, then Chazal can certainly enact it on a d'rabanan level. But to do that for Shemitas Kesafim means to legislate the following three things simultaneously: 1) Enact a law requiring cancellation of loans 2) Loans are exempt from cancellation if Prozbul is done 3) For the benefit of both poor and wealthy, everyone should do a Prozbul Why enact such a set of laws? Wouldn't it be far simpler to just let Shmitas Kesafim lapse, and NOT be enacted on a d'rabanan level? Regardless of whether one holds Prozbul to work on a d'Oraisa level, I think everyone can agree that Prozbul was enacted specifically because (as the Torah feared) too many people refrained from lending money as Shmitta got near. Therefore, it seems clear to me that IF Shmitas Kesafim was enacted as a d'rabanan, THEN Prozbul was enacted LATER, and not at the same time. In sharp contrast, I understand that Eruvin was a real "exception to an enactment": Simultaneously to the new law which prohibited carrying in a karmelis, an exception was included exempting certain areas under certain condiitons, allowing the carrying there. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 20:25:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:25:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55FA328E.1080708@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 10:19 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > In sharp contrast, I understand that Eruvin was a real "exception to > an enactment": Simultaneously to the new law which prohibited > carrying in a karmelis, an exception was included exempting certain > areas under certain condiitons, allowing the carrying there. An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. I don't know who prohibited carrying in a karmelis, but there's no reason to suppose it was Shlomo. Shlomo prohibited carrying in a *reshus hayachid with multiple owners*, and instituted eruv as a way around that prohibition. (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 05:01:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:01:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and > thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. My language was not precise. I apologize. What I meant was that prior to the establishment of these d'rabanans, one was allowed to carry from an unwalled non-thoroughfare to either a walled area or to a major thoroughfare. But it was easy to get confused between the general outdoors and a main road, so the general outdoors was made into a Reshus Harabim D'rabanan, with the following exception: Whereas a Reshus Harabim d'Oraisa requires actual walls to allow carrying, for a Reshus Harabim d'Rabanan it is sufficient to surround an area with doorways (tzuras hapesach). > I don't know who prohibited carrying in a karmelis, > but there's no reason to suppose it was Shlomo. Shlomo > prohibited carrying in a *reshus hayachid with multiple > owners*, and instituted eruv as a way around that > prohibition. I'm fuzzy on the history too. The law as I described it above may or may not have been part of the same legislation that RZS described here. What we have here are two distinct - but easily and often confused - d'rabanans within the melacha of hotzaa. It doesn't really matter which came first, or if they came together. My point was that they are excellent examples of an exception being built into the law from the very beginning, as opposed to Prozbul, which (if shmitas kesafim is d'rabanan) was a separate enactment from shmitas kesafim (because if they were done at the same time, the goal of Prozbul could have been acheived even more easily by simply not enacting shmitas kesafim). > (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an > eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple > owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) I'm not sure if there is a rigorous definition of "loophole". (The wikipedia article is a great place to start.) I tend to think that it is a general pejorative to describe any leniency that one has an emotional objection to. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 05:17:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150917121734.GA8567@aishdas.org> Li nir'eh the difference is that by eruv, it was all done in one sitting of beis din -- when they assered a karmeelis, they also promulgated the idea of eruv. IOW, explicitly they only assured a karmelis that didn't have an eruv. (A conscious exemption more than a loophole, as I would use the terms.) Pruzbul was a loophole in an earlier taqanah and that was and promulgated by a later beis di GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 09:58:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:58:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55FAF148.5080904@sero.name> On 09/17/2015 08:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and >> thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. > My language was not precise. I apologize. > > What I meant was that prior to the establishment of these d'rabanans, > one was allowed to carry from an unwalled non-thoroughfare to either > a walled area or to a major thoroughfare. But it was easy to get > confused between the general outdoors and a main road, so the general > outdoors was made into a Reshus Harabim D'rabanan, with the following > exception: Whereas a Reshus Harabim d'Oraisa requires actual walls to > allow carrying, for a Reshus Harabim d'Rabanan it is sufficient to > surround an area with doorways (tzuras hapesach). Mid'oraisa a set of four tzuros hapesach works in reshus harabim too. It was the rabanan who said "ein me'arvim reshus harabim bekach", and only allowed it in a karmelis. Whether they did this at the same time that they forbade carrying in a karmelis, I don't know. My impression is that it was later, because the first we hear of it is in a braisa, and it's subject to machlokes, whereas the concept of karmelis is taken for granted by all. > My point was that they are excellent examples of an exception being > built into the law from the very beginning, as opposed to Prozbul, > which (if shmitas kesafim is d'rabanan) was a separate enactment from > shmitas kesafim Yes, this is clear. > (because if they were done at the same time, the goal of Prozbul > could have been acheived even more easily by simply not enacting > shmitas kesafim). You don't need to go there. It's obvious that shmitas kesafim midrabanan preceded Hillel, because if it hadn't then how could he have observed the problem that resulted? Clearly it long predated him, presumably all the way back to the end of shmita d'oraisa, or at least to the return from Bavel. But the *efficacy* of pruzbul is not Hillel's takana at all. It's de'oraisa (Sifri, quoted by Tosfos Gittin 36a dh Mi Ika Midi) >> (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an >> eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple >> owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) > I'm not sure if there is a rigorous definition of "loophole". > (The wikipedia article is a great place to start.) I tend to > think that it is a general pejorative to describe any leniency > that one has an emotional objection to. The WP article is seriously defective (WP:OR for one thing) and needs to extensive a rewrite for me to bother with. A loophole is built into a wall; it's *meant* to be there. There's nothing pejorative about it. An exception to a law is a case where the law doesn't apply; a loophole is where the law *does* apply, and this is how it applies. It's not that an eruv permits one to carry in a RHY with multiple owners, it's that an eruv turns it (for this purpose) into a RHY with a single owner. Similarly eruv techumin doesn't allow you to walk more than 2000 amos from your residence, it merely moves your residence. That's not an exception, it's a loophole. If you want an example of an exception, look to eruv tavshilin. The chachamim, whether because of kevod shabbos or kevod yomtov, forbade the ha'arama of cooking for guests whom you aren't really expecting, *unless* you make an eruv. The eruv is an exception built into the original takana. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 03:33:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 13:33:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "I think it makes no sense for Prozbul to be "an exception to an enactment", because "why bother?" If the agricultural Shemitta stops being d'Oraisa, then Chazal can certainly enact it on a d'rabanan level. But to do that for Shemitas Kesafim means to legislate the following three things simultaneously: 1) Enact a law requiring cancellation of loans 2) Loans are exempt from cancellation if Prozbul is done 3) For the benefit of both poor and wealthy, everyone should do a Prozbul Why enact such a set of laws? Wouldn't it be far simpler to just let Shmitas Kesafim lapse, and NOT be enacted on a d'rabanan level?" If you look at the sugya of pruzbul (Gittin 36a-b) these points are all addressed: The Gemara starts out with the fact that Hillel was mesaken pruzbul. Then the Gemara asks how could he do that if the Torah (shemitas kesafim) cancels the loan? Abaye answers that Hillel only made his takana of pruzbul when shemittas kesafim was derabbanon. The Gemara then asks how could the Chachamim be mesaken shemmitas kesafim derabbanon if min hatorah the lender has to pay back the loan? Rava answers hefker beis din hefker. We see clearly from the Gemara that the historical progression was 1. Shemmita ceased being min hatorah 2. Chachamim were mesaken shemitta miderabbonon including shemittas kesafim 3. After shemitta derabbonon was already established Hillel saw that people were not lending money and therefore was mesaken pruzbul In other words these things did not happen simultaneously, pruzbul was enacted after shemmitas kesafim was already established. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 06:03:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 09:03:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] An Important Clarification Regarding Some Relevant Halachos for Yom Kippur Message-ID: <20150921130412.485F3183A12@nexus.stevens.edu> [] Some Relevant Halachos for Yom Kippur: A Clarification The following is an excerpt from the article on selected halachos relative to Yom Kippur: "At the conclusion of Yom Kippur, one may not do melachah (labor prohibited on Shabbos/ Yom Kippur) until one recites (or hears) Havdalah over wine (or the equivalent) or recites A ttah Chonantanu in Ma'ariv, or says Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol. Although reciting any of these allows one to do melachah, one may not eat until after reciting (or hearing) Havdalah over wine (or the equivalent). Accordingly, married men should hurry home after Ma'ariv on Motza'ei Yom Kippur to recite Havdalah so that their wives will be able to eat." Clarification : Following the conclusion of Yom Kippur, after one recites Attah Chonantanu in Ma'ariv or says Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol, one may drink water even before reciting (or hearing) Havdalah. Thus (for example), a woman whose husband is delayed in coming home after Ma'ariv on Motza'ei Yom Kippur may recite Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol after nightfall and drink water before hearing Havdalah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 15:18:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 23:18:00 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> Message-ID: A summary of Pruzbul I have in front of me (written by Rabbi D Tugendhaft, London) says: "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" On 16 September 2015 at 23:07, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 09/16/2015 05:41 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > >> A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: >> >> Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking >>> around at books and online. I see no discussion whatsoever on >>> whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, >>> e.g. books I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that >>> addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an obligation to return >>> a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? >>> >> > I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? >> > > > Shemita applies only to halva'ah, not to she'elah. English uses the > same word, but they are very different transactions. It's actually > strange that English, which is usually the most precise language, does > not distinguish them. > > A book is a she'elah; the book remains her property, and she expects > the borrower to return it. Thus it is not at all affected by shemita. > It is also not subject to the prohibition on ribbis; not only is there > absolutely nothing wrong with charging people to borrow your stuff, > the Torah explicitly endorses it as one of the four forms of shemirah. > > -- > Zev Sero GChT > zev at sero.name > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 06:53:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:53:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Haqeil Message-ID: <55FC174B.6090900@zahav.net.il> Anyone here understand sound? Assuming best case scenarios (loud voices, no background noise, good hearing), how many people could possibly hear the king read at Haqeil? It would seem that there is no way the king could project his voice so that most could hear him (????). If few actually came to the tekes, OK, but if most people came how could it possibly work? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 07:57:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:57:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] From Medieval Ashkenaz Techinah Supplication to Iconic Segulah: The Chasidic Transformation of G-d of Abraham Message-ID: <20150918145828.8F30C183A9B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/pwg839c From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 10:20:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 20:20:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] vort on teshuvah Message-ID: 1) Rambam in hlichot teshuva (7:6) discusses the effect of teshuva yesterday (emesh) i was far from G-d hated ... and now I am beloved RYBS asks why the Rambam here uses such poetic language in particular using "emesh" instead of "etmol" . He asnwers that "etmol" indicates a 24 hour period while "emesh" can be a fraction of second between being hated by G-d and being loved by G-d 2) Someone who marries on a woman on condition that he is a Tzaddik the marriage is valid even if it is known that he is a rasha perhaps (shema) he did teshuva. Someone in the shiur noted that "shema" read backwards is "emesh" . Meaning that rasha who proposed marriage did teshuva a fraction of a second before the proposal -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 10:15:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 13:15:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reciting 100 Brochos Daily Message-ID: <20150918171648.24C57181A25@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/njmnbgn From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 15:12:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shmuel Weidberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:12:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? Message-ID: Hello everybody. I haven't been active on this list in a long time. I just had a look around the internet to see if there was anything new with the Kosher Switch, and I remembered an issue with it that I haven't seen discussed anywhere. The makers say that there is a certain amount of randomization involved in whether the light flashes into the detector and whether the detector detects the light. There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create random numbers. They create pseudo-random numbers which means they take a seed number and perform a complex calculation on it to get the next number, which looks like it bears no relation to the first number, but which in fact is completely determined by the first number. Computer can get real random numbers, by generating the seed by looking at actions that take place that the computer cannot predict such as when somebody presses a key on a keyboard, or when some other sensor is activated. Alternatively, they can get random numbers from a special piece of hardware that is designed to physically make random numbers. However, I believe such pieces of hardware are quite specialized and if there actually was one in the switch it would be advertised. In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. Regards, Shmuel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 10:59:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:59:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> Message-ID: <56004574.4040004@sero.name> On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour > because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in > its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to she'elah. Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 11:29:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:29:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. ------------------------------- Yes, much as a complete understanding of the physics involved would determine the roll of the dice as it left one?s hand. Yet we call this ?random? (and iirc statisticians can?t prove any set of numbers was truly random, only that they appear likely so. Gct 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 22:35:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 01:35:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <063901d0f4f8$8c2cd700$a4868500$@gmail.com> R? Shmuel Weidberg: The makers say that there is a certain amount of randomization involved in whether the light flashes into the detector and whether the detector detects the light. There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create random numbers. They create pseudo-random numbers which means they take a seed number and perform a complex calculation on it to get the next number, which looks like it bears no relation to the first number, but which in fact is completely determined by the first number. In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. --------------------------- Isn?t the lomdus of their approach that you, the person flicking the switch, doesn?t DO anything because you?re only covering a light pulse without knowing when it will come next? So it doesn?t really matter if it?s random, it matters that you don?t know when it will next illuminate. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 07:04:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:04:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56004574.4040004@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> Message-ID: <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. On 9/21/2015 8:59 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > >> "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour >> because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in >> its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" > > Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to > she'elah. > Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 11:00:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:00:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> Message-ID: <56019748.5060907@sero.name> On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 9/21/2015 8:59 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: >>> "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour >>> because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in >>> its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" >> Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to she'elah. >> Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. > But a book, you return the same one. Usually. Not usually, always. There are two utterly different kinds of transaction for which the English language uses the same words: loan, borrow, lend. This is surprising, since usually English is a more precise language than most, but it is so. She'elah: I give you my property, with permission to use it. It remains my property, and you must return it on the agreed-upon date, or when I ask for it, in reasonable shape given the time you had it and the use to which you put it. In other words, in slightly worse shape than when I gave it to you. I may do this as a favour, but there is no mitzvah for me to do so. I am entitled to charge you for it, in which case the transaction is called "sechirus", or in English, "rental". Shemitah does not apply to this transaction. Common examples: a book, a car, a tool, a pen. Halva'ah: I give you my property, and it becomes yours. I do not expect it back, ever. On the agreed-upon date, or when I ask, you must give me something exactly like what I gave you. Since you are a Jew, I have a mitzvah to do this as a favour for you, and am forbidden from charging you anything for it, and you are forbidden from paying me anything for it, in any form. Shemitah applies. Common examples: $100, a cup of sugar, a rubber band. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 12:48:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 22:48:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56019748.5060907@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> <56019748.5060907@sero.name> Message-ID: <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > >> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. > > Not usually, always. Several years ago, we borrowed a book from my brother-in-law. A while later, we wanted to return it, but we couldn't find it. So we bought another identical copy and returned that in its place. So I'm going to stick with "usually." Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 19:11:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 22:11:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> <56019748.5060907@sero.name> <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> Message-ID: <56035BCF.7000400@sero.name> On 09/23/2015 03:48 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> >>> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. >> >> Not usually, always. > > Several years ago, we borrowed a book from my brother-in-law. A while > later, we wanted to return it, but we couldn't find it. So we bought > another identical copy and returned that in its place. So I'm going > to stick with "usually." Your obligation was to return the exact same book. Once that became impossible, you became liable as a shomer; a shomer sachar and a socher are liable for geneiva va'aveida, so at that point you became liable to pay the value of the lost book, and that sum became a milveh, and thus subject to shemitah and ribbis. -- Zev Sero Gut Yomtov zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 12:09:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:09:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a > random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the > time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it > simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. Do you know whether the Star-K-certified "Sabbath mode" ovens use pseudo-random numbers or true random numbers? (Thermal noise would do fine; and many processors, even some embedded ones, have such a random number source.) --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 12:03:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 15:03:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150924190308.GA28981@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 06:12:07PM -0400, Shmuel Weidberg via Avodah wrote: : I just had a look around the internet to see if there was anything new with : the Kosher Switch... : There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't : computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create : random numbers... I don't think this particular distinction makes a halachic difference. The question is whether the person doing the action has a reasonable chance of predicting the outcome. Actual mathematical randomness might not be at issue. As long as I can't know what my flipping the switch would do, I would think it should all be the same. (Think of it as a first cousin to ignoring water bears and other zooplankton that can only be seen with a magnifying glass when drinking water.) ... : Computer can get real random numbers, by generating the seed by looking at : actions that take place that the computer cannot predict such as when : somebody presses a key on a keyboard, or when some other sensor is : activated... Actually, that's not really random, just less predictable because the seed generation is outside the machine. A specially designed can get truly random numbers by using quantum effects. Such as picking up on the brownian motion of molecules due to heat. But really, I don't think we have to worry about the difference between "random" and "not humanly predictable". Also a side note: I might point out that there are numerous hashkafos in which every event, or at least every event that impacts a human being, is subject to hashgachah peratis. And thus, nothing we ever experience is actually random. Or alternatively, that the word "random" needs a different translation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 14:20:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:20:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shemittah beyond Shemittah Message-ID: <20150924212050.B6B10182CED@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://cor.ca/view/720/shemittah_beyond_shemittah.html From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 14:37:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:37:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shemitta Sheilos: Using Arbah Minim of Sheviis - Parts I and II Message-ID: <20150924213723.28661183A0D@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://ohr.edu/6522 and http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6527 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 25 00:32:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:32:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Buying minim from a child Message-ID: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> When I was in yeshiva, we were told to refrain from buying any of the four minim from a child. If the product was stolen, a child can't take possession via shinu reshut or ma'aseh. Therefore the theft falls on the buyer and his minim are pasul. Thinking about during my jog, I had a few questions: 1) Is this a real chashash or simply are we trying to cover all halachik corners? Meaning, if I do buy from a child do I really have anything to worry about? And if it isn't a real concern, then why am I not being oveir on "chosheid b'kesheirim"? 2) If it is a real chashash (the presence of stolen minim in the market) than why buy from an adult? Buying stolen goods is also a sin. At the very least, one can only buy from a place with a heksher. 3) Or can one? Can we assume that the kashrut agencies really check were their minim come from? 4) Who determines if there is a significant presence of stolen goods in the market every year? I assume that the amount of stolen goods has to be above a certain minimum for there to be a real issue? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 21:44:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 00:44:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur Message-ID: In the case where an ill person is eating on Yom Kippur, the Magen Avraham 618:10 brings varying views on whether he needs Lechem Mishne, whether he includes Yaaleh V'yavo in bentching, and whether he must make Kiddush. Kaf Hachaim 618:60 repeats much of that, with some changes and additions, and in 618:61 he points out that the same would apply to children and women who have recently given birth. Similar things appear in the other nosei keilim on that se'if. I got the impression that the pros and cons on these questions were based mostly on practical and halachic concerns, such as whether or not these halachos were ever enacted for Yom Kippur. I'd like to know if the *historical* side is discussed anywhere. I'm focusing now specifically on Lechem Mishne, and I'm now ignoring Kiddush and Birkas Hamazon. Here are my questions of historical fact: During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the children eat? There are several possible answers I can think of: Perhaps mon fell on Yom Kippur, but only at the homes where where children or yoldos live. Perhaps mon did not fall on Yom Kippur, but those homes got a double portion on Erev Yom Kippur. Perhaps neither of the above happened, and the children and yoldos had to make do with whatever other food might have been available. (This possibility seems odd to me, as it throws a curve ball into the whole "40 years of miracles" idea: Exactly once each year, the children had no choice but to eat non-miraculous food, and the day for this chinuch was Yom Kippur.) I suppose I should also include another possibility, which is that everyone received their normal supply of mon on Yom Kippur just like on every other day, but that seems like quite a waste. Perhaps they ate it on Motzaei Yom Kippur. In which case I'd wonder if only a half-portion might have fallen that morning. I also question whether Hashem would have placed such a michshol at the doorways, leaving their mon in the reshus harabim. Does anyone know of any Midrashim or other sources that might talk about this? Akiva Miller (PS: I only asked about children and yoldos in the midbar, and I did not ask about other cholim. That's because I think that in the miraculous Midbar, no one was ever sick, and no one died except on the night of Tisha B'Av. If anyone wants to discuss this, please begin a new thread.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 20:33:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ken Bloom via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 23:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? Message-ID: Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in depth than Sefer HaToda'ah. Does anyone know of something analgous to how the Maharal's Gevurot Hashem explains Pesach, or have other recommendations about the holiday? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 22:19:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 01:19:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: : Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better : understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully : understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in : depth than Sefer HaToda'ah. Does anyone know of something analgous to how : the Maharal's Gevurot Hashem explains Pesach, or have other recommendations : about the holiday? RYHutner's Pachad Yitzchaq. (Although the volumes are arranged around Shabbos & YT, and thus would seem particular to those topics, I would consider it one of the canonical Jewish philoosphy works of the 20th cent. Not to be skipped by anyone serious about learning hashkafah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 30 12:53:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:53:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Whole Hallel on Sukkos Message-ID: <20150930195335.GA18194@aishdas.org> I just noticed something that is likely to be meaningful. We say whole Hallel every day of Sukkos because the qorban mussaf differs each day. The mussaf differs by the number of cows, which total 70 across the YT. The 70 cows are keneged the 70 nations. Among the things we would have otherwise skipped was "Lamah yomeru hagoyim..." So... Because we bring qorbanos on behalf of the 70 nations over the course of Sukkos, we pray for their abandonment of AZ on each day of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 30 13:03:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:03:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Buying minim from a child In-Reply-To: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> References: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <560C400E.6080206@sero.name> On 09/25/2015 03:32 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > When I was in yeshiva, we were told to refrain from buying any of the > four minim from a child. If the product was stolen, a child can't > take possession via shinu reshut or ma'aseh. Therefore the theft > falls on the buyer and his minim are pasul. > > Thinking about during my jog, I had a few questions: > > 1) Is this a real chashash or simply are we trying to cover all > halachik corners? Meaning, if I do buy from a child do I really have > anything to worry about? And if it isn't a real concern, then why am > I not being oveir on "chosheid b'kesheirim"? > > 2) If it is a real chashash (the presence of stolen minim in the > market) than why buy from an adult? Buying stolen goods is also a > sin. At the very least, one can only buy from a place with a heksher. > > 3) Or can one? Can we assume that the kashrut agencies really check > were their minim come from? > > 4) Who determines if there is a significant presence of stolen goods > in the market every year? I assume that the amount of stolen goods > has to be above a certain minimum for there to be a real issue? The chashash is not for actually stolen goods, but that the land on which the minim were grown was stolen hundreds or thousands of years ago, and since karka eina nigzeles it still belongs to the rightful heirs of the original owner. Thus the person who harvests the minim is technically the gazlan, ye'ush happened a long time ago, so we need a shinuy reshus, which happens when you buy from the "gazlan", but not if he's a katan. If he bought it from someone else then this problem doesn't exist, but there's another problem: it won't be shelachem, which it needs to be for the first day. This is also why one should not use minim one cut oneself, but rather sell those and buy ones that someone else cut. All of this only applies in countries where land title is uncertain; where it can be traced directly back to a valid kibush milchama, there is no problem. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 07:15:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 10:15:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <5593124A.2040905@sero.name> References: <20150630.152626.19374.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> <5593124A.2040905@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150701141526.GB24797@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 06:03:54PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/30/2015 03:26 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : >>From what I've seen, it is NOT said even if a minyan says Birkas Hamazon, : : Why would it? When a minyan says Birkhas haMazon, the zimun changes, it creates a minyan one may not break (by benching on their own or with a normal zimun), but no Qaddish. When a minyan says Pesuqei deZimra, nothing changes, there is no specific issur on leaving in the middle, and yet it is closed with Qaddish (even if you lose the minyan during PdZ). I think RAM's question why is quite fair. It would be nice to think the minhag follows some well-defined rule. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 05:35:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:35:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bio of RSRH Message-ID: <20150701123548.93E2D182CC3@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/p5h866u From this URL. When Rav Yisroel Salanter read a copy of The Nineteen Letters in 1873, he said that it should be translated into Russian and Hebrew. He also remarked, "Is there a Gan Eden big enough for Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch?" See the above URL for more. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 14:33:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:33:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakarat Hatov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 03:56:25PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Does Hakarat Hatov engender a measurable "liability" (e.g. require a : marginally greater action) between the recipient and the provider of the : "Tov", or is saying "Thank you, I appreciate it" the only requirement? Moshe isn't the trigger for the first makkos because he "owed" the Ye'or and the sand for saving him in the past. As Chazal put it (BQ 92b) WRT "velo sesaeiv Mitzri ki ger hayisa ve'artzo", it justified the common saying "bira deshasis mineih, lo tashdi beih kala" (into a well from which you once drank, don't throw clods of dirt). That said, I don't think reducing gratitude to *nothing more than* a favor-economics is healthy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness, micha at aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom. http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 14:37:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:37:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakarat Hatov In-Reply-To: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> References: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150701213753.GA24874@aishdas.org> PS: I started with the aggadic story and didn't say why I opened with a medrash rather than a gemara. The Nile and the sand wasn't actors. Moshe didn't really owe them anything. It's like "not embarassing" the challah by covering it. Apparently the notion of repaying a favor is so important, HQBH expects us to practice it for a middah exercise even when the other side isn't a real 2nd party. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 12:08:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 15:08:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish with mixed seating Message-ID: Following up upon my earlier post about the permissibility of saying the *kaddish *of a *siyyum* at a dinner with mixed seating. I spoke to RIETS RY last week and he said that we only require *mechitzah* in a *Shul*, based upon the *Gemara* in *Succos*, which requires separate seating at a *shul*. This is clear from the original textual source of mechitzah, the Gemara in the fifth perek of Succos, that the basis of *mechitzah* is the *Bais ha-Mikdash*. As our Synagogues are modeled after the Bais ha-Mikdash, we apply the principals underlying the *Gemara* in Succos to our Shuls. (Similarly, *Tosfos* justifies the practice of bringing children to Shul using the model of *Hakhel*.) As the Kaddish for a Siyyum has nothing do to with a Shul there is no need for separate seating. I also spoke to one of the Dayanim in our community he did not even think that saying *kaddish* with mixed seating was an issue as he thought that mixed seating was only an issue in a *Shul*. Others told me the same (i.e. that only a *shul* requires separation) in the name of Rav Schachter *shlit?a* . However, I saw Rav Herschel Schachter *shlit?a* at shacharis this week so I asked him my question. He responded that it would be better if they would have the *siyyum* before the dinner. I asked why and he responded ?*Davar She?bekedushah*?. I asked him so why do people recite *Kedushah* after a *siyyum* with mixed seating. And he responded, ?Nu, Nu?. (Which is a common response from Rav Schachter to questions of that sort.) Interestingly enough the Gemara in Succos brings a ?proof? for separation of men and women from a non-?*Davar She?bekedushah*? the funeral in *Zecharyah*. Of course we are not discussing whether a particular practice is good or bad or even ?best practices?, but rather whether it is required or not. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 08:32:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 11:32:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] From Succot to Moshiach Message-ID: Ma tovu ohalecha: ?Tents? are temporary and refer to olam hazeh ?.mishk?nosecha: ?Dwelling places? refers to olam haba. In other words, we are first in the antechamber, the temporary abode, which tents symbolize; then, once we leave our temporary homes, we hopefully ascend to our permanent ?dwelling place.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 14:44:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 17:44:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Historical Bil'am Message-ID: <20150703214448.GA32213@aishdas.org> H/T RYGB, see http://www.livius.org/source-content/deir-alla-inscription He asks on his blog: Why isn't this more widely known? The full article includes an image of the instription and a complete translation. This is just the opening. :-)BBii! -Micha Livius.org Articles on ancient history Deir 'Alla Inscription Deir 'Alla Inscription: inscription, found in the Iron Age town of Deir 'Alla, mentioning the Biblical prophet Balaam. Deir 'Alla is situated in western Jordan, about eight kilometers east of the river Jordan, and about a kilometer north of the Jabbok. The excavators found a very large Bronze Age sanctuary that had suffered in the period of wide-spread destruction in the thirteenth/twelfth centuries. Unlike other settlements, which were abandoned, Deir 'Alla remained in use well into the fifth century BCE. That is remarkable. Even more remarkable, however, was the discovery of a painted text that contained a prophecy by Balaam... (The site of Deir 'Alla is, technically, on the [11]Ammonite side of the river Jabbok.) The text refers to divine visions and signs of future destruction, in a language that is close to that of the Bible. For example, we read about the "Shaddai gods", an expression that is close to the Biblical El Shaddai, "God Almighty". On the other hand, the setting is not monotheistic: we read, for instance, about a gathering of a group of gods. The word elohim, which in the Bible (although plural) refers to one God, refers to more than one god in the Deir 'Alla text. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 15:16:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 18:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> In a recent blog post, R' Aryeh Klapper (Cc-ed) writes http://moderntoraleadership.wordpress.com/2015/07/03/chok-mishpat-and-obergefell Imagine pre-snake Adam and Eve walking into the Jewish camp. They would not praise the Jews for their modesty, and they would have no idea why the tents' openings did not face each other. For Bilaam to praise the Jews' virtue, even in the context of his deep and unremitting hatred, he had to be capable of understanding that modesty was a relevant evaluative category. What would it take for Bilaam to have this capacity? Unlike the prelapsarian original couple, he would have to be conscious of his own sexuality, and experientially aware that sexuality could be associated with shame. He might nonetheless choose exhibitionism for himself, and for his culture. He might decide that sexual shame is the root of neurosis and dedicate himself to its cultural eradication. But he would understand what he was eradicating. Perhaps there would even be moments when he regretted his victory. My tentative suggestion is that the Torah teaches us here that there is a value in making our moral premises intelligible even to our enemies; this is part of our mission to be the light of the nations. I want to be clear that this value is not pragmatic, and that we are not safer, or less likely to be hated, if we are understood. Like Bilaam, the world may use its understanding of our virtue to learn how best to undermine us. It is simply part of our job to enable as much as we can of humanity to make informed moral choices. I suggest further that perhaps we can understand the Seven Noachide Commandments as intended not to provide a formal code of behavior, but rather to identify a set of moral premises. Perhaps our mission is particularly to make those premises universally intelligible. Making premises intelligible is not accomplished through rational argumentation. Rational arguments depend on mutually intelligible premises. ... One core premise: let us identify it with the Noachide commandment against forbidden sexual relationships, or arayot -- that is no longer intelligible to many Americans is that sexuality can be evaluated in nonutilitarian terms, that a sexual act can be wrong even if no one gets hurt. We have replaced sexual morality with sexual ethics. Conversations on topics such as chastity, masturbation, and adultery are wholly changed from what they were even two decades ago, and tracts from back then can seem less contemporary than prehistoric cave art. There are many reasons that traditional rationales in the area of sexuality have moved rapidly from self-evident to unintelligible. Here are two: (1) Effective birth control and in vitro fertilization have broken the connection between intercourse and procreation. It is no longer self-evident to speak of intercourse as potential recreation, or as inevitably associated with the risk of pregnancy. (2) Many human beings with homosexual orientations have told compelling personal stories of pain and alienation. In the secular world, the natural reaction to a premise's social unintelligibility is the repeal of any laws that depend on it. In the Orthodox world, where immediate repeal is rarely a viable option, one reasonable reaction is what I call "chokification," or the declaration that laws that once depended on the now-unintelligible premise should be regarded as either beyond human comprehension or else as arbitrary rules intended to train us to obedience. Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. I utilized the following "Lonely Man of Faith" based idea to open "The Talk" with my sons.I wanted them to understand the sanctity of sex, so before getting into the mechanics of it, I tried to open by setting a religious context. As far as I can tell, the Torah gives two purposes for marriage: 1- In Genesis 1, the goal is to procreate and raise children. This is Adam I's drive "to fill the earth and conqure it", his place at the end of a sequence of creation -- above the animals, but more quatitatively than qualitatively. 2- In Genesis 2, the goal is to reunite the two halves, Adam and Eve, who were originally created as a single unit. Adam II seeks redemption through community. In this case, romantic love. Sex in its role of making a bond between people. And therefore a problem of premarital sex is that one thereby learns to minimize the bond thereby created. It weakens that function of sex, so it won't be as effective once you are married. Either alone -- procreation or the romantic reunification of the two halves of the original Adam (which again, I mean psychologically, not mystically) would be sufficient reason to justify sexual intimacy. But without either, it's the pursuit of our mamalian drives for insufficient reason. The objectification (or at least animalization) of the self. In order to buy into #2, one needs to believe that gender (as opposed to biological sex) is an innate set of existential and psychological differences, and not just a role imposed by convention. And therefore Adam and Eve are distinct and different halves of a whole. That this is an existential and deep-psychological truth, which will hold no matter how much society attempts to change those roles and bury gender differences. Notice that despite the social trends that brought the Supreme Court to conclude last week that traditional sexual morality (in contrast to sexual ethics) is irrational and thus prejudicial bias, the above implies that the Torah's ban on homosexuality can be explained in mishpat terms. On a different note, the shift from morality to ethics is typical for postmodernism. When all narratives are equally valid there is no way to insist there is an absolute moral code. Never mind determine what it contains. Therefore, one encourages a freedom to act as an end itself, rather than as a means to greatness. (Which is a logical progression from the American legal system, the concept of rights-based law taken to its extreme. It's notable that a society that values a "maavir al midosav" would not laud taking rights as far as all that. As a legal philosphy, though, it is the best we've come up with to avoid "ish es rei'eihu chaim bal'o", which is the central role of a secular gov't, no?) However, the lack of establishment of a common moral code is itself damaging to society. No one private violation of moral code, whatever the society holds it to be, will necessarily harm others. But living in a society that doesn't promote morality, that doesn't work toward aiming that autonomy toward some higher end, is harmful. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 15:20:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:20:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> References: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is the purpose to make things even worse? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 16:28:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 19:28:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> References: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150705232816.GA29598@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:20:08PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. : Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a : moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is : the purpose to make things even worse? As I quoted from RAK, because they classically were not considered chuqim. Until our contemporaries took the issue from sexual morality to sexual ethics, these truths were considered self-evident. It's the choqification of dinei arayos that's inauthentic. In any case, since one doesn't pasqen from taamei hamitzvos, the din is the same either way. Nothhing in such exploration can "make things even worse". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 15:57:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:57:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon Message-ID: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> In Pirkei Avot, Hillel HaZaken says: "Be among the talmidim of Aharon, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them close to the Torah." I don't get it. I honestly don't. If we see a bunch of Jews who don't know anything about Judaism, shouldn't we try and get them to keep the mitzvot? If you know that they're more likely to violate the mitzvot if they don't know, it's it our responsibility to teach them what God wants of them? The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this subject. I look at gay people and I see them overwhelmingly part of the nihilism of the left, but I don't think being gay automatically makes people like that. But what else are Jews supposed to do when they're being pushed away from the Torah? Jews have neshamas that were at Sinai. A Jew who was raised without Torah has an empty space inside that's just *begging* to be filled with Torah. But because of the wrongheaded idea that gay people have to either pretend they aren't gay, or they must be ostracized from the Torah community, they wind up filling that empty space with the even emptier slogans of the left. Because of the belief held by so many frum Jews that gay people who acknowledge themselves to be gay are simply *incapable* or unwilling to keep mitzvot, we, as a community *deliberately* withhold the Torah from them. It makes no sense to me. I mean, worst case, you tell someone gay, "There are things you aren't allowed to do according to Jewish law. Are you willing to abide by that?" But we aren't even doing that. We're assuming that the answer is going to be no, and by so assuming, we're *making that happen*. At 120, when you're standing before the Kisei HaKavod and you're asked why you pushed so many Jews away from His Torah, I wonder what you'll answer. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 17:34:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 20:34:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon In-Reply-To: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> References: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150706003423.GB14365@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:57:04PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: : In Pirkei Avot, Hillel HaZaken says: "Be among the talmidim of Aharon, : loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them close : to the Torah." : : I don't get it. I honestly don't. If we see a bunch of Jews who don't : know anything about Judaism, shouldn't we try and get them to keep the : mitzvot?... First, a minor correction. Hillel says "berios", or as in the tradition "loving people and bringing them..." IOW, not only kiruv, but bringing non-Jews to NNoachidism. : The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since : the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of : the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't : get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so : many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this : subject. I'm not so sure. The SCOTUS ruled in favor of a right that is based on the idea that believing the Torah's position about homosexuality is bigotry. But in any case, it's like any other rule of tochachah... You need to tell them what they're doing is wrong n a way that gets constructive change. The usual rule for when you should shut up is "mutav sheyihyu shogegim", but here nearly everyone involved know what we pasqen it's assur. So, you're not turning anyone into meizidim. : It makes no sense to me. I mean, worst case, you tell someone gay, : "There are things you aren't allowed to do according to Jewish law. : Are you willing to abide by that?" But we aren't even doing that. : We're assuming that the answer is going to be no, and by so assuming, : we're *making that happen*. But the US law in question is itself to permit something you aren't allowed to do in Jewish law, and in the Minchas Chinukh's opinion -- nor in Noachide law. The general problem of people hating the sinner rather than the sin isn't limited to this one. Perhaps here things are more extreme because the accusers do not attempt to separate an instinctive loathing from actual halachic concerns. Either we should be getting similar bile when discussing business cheats, or we should be getting quiet on both fronts. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 18:46:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 01:46:19 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Alternate texts for the Prayer for the Government Message-ID: <20150705.214619.1506.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> R' Mordechai Harris wrote: > Here's the one I shard last time from the De Sola Pool Siddur. > www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/deSolaPoolPrayerForGovernment.pdf R' Simon Montagu asked: > Can you also share the publication details and/or title page of > this siddur? What I know as the De Sola Pool Siddur is not the > same as in this link. I have ... RMH's link was for "The Traditional Prayer Book for Sabbath and Festivals", the official siddur of the RCA, published in 1960. A very different, longer version appears in many other siddurim, with rather minor differences: The Hirsch Siddur, published by Feldheim The Authorized Daily Prayer Book by Chief Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz The Daily Prayer Book by Philip Birnbaum The Koren Siddur by Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks and in the new Nehalel beShabbat by Michael Haruni (website and free sample at nehalel.com) I was going to remark that I have found this prayer only in siddurim that have an English translation, but is not correct. First, it would seem to appear in whichever siddur the Hirsch was adapted from. But moreover, this same tefila also appears in my copy of "Siddur Eishei Yisrael al pi daas Maran HaGra." (I know there are many siddurim with similar names; all I can tell about this is that the title page lists no publisher, only "Yerushalayim 5735".) The Nehalel siddur is worth noting for this thread. I have not seen this siddur to be too widespread or popular (yet - it's only from 2013), but I'd like to point out that it has TWO versions of this prayer. The version which is very similar to the others is on a page marked "In the United States of America:". But the following page is marked "In the United Kingdom and Commonwealth:", and is markedly different -- but not nearly as different as the De Sola Pool version. This makes me stop, and wonder, and consider the fact that although my Hertz siddur and my Sacks siddur are both of British authorship, they both used American publishers (Bloch and OU Press respectively), and were possibly designed for an American audience. Which leads me to ask those of the chevra who currently reside in the Commonwealth: What version (if any) is said in your shuls? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5599de50e59b55e504270st04vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 06:29:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:29:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VBM-SICHOT75 - 41: The Philosophical Principles of Inheritance Message-ID: <20150706132902.GB31051@aishdas.org> Just because taamei hamitzvos is supposed to be one of the core topics of this email group's host organization.... BTW, my grandfather a"h was named Pinechas after this week's sedra, his bar mitzvah parashah. When it was time to name my oldest, I checked with my uncle how his name appeared on their kesuvah, as their mesader qiddushin was a key rav in my grandfather's life. (R/Dr Mirsky zt"l met two teenage boys coming off the boat and took them under his wing. My grandfather and great-uncle then earned enough to bribe the rest of the family's way out of Litta before the Nazis came to power.) Anyway, it seems R/Dr Mirsky held my grandfather's name was Pinechas, pei-yud-nun-ches-samekh, as it is spelled in the chumash (ignoring the size of the yud as usually written in the beginning of the parashah). And thus the sheva is na, Pinechas - not Pinchas. If you want to make a derashah out of a Mitzri name, it's Pi Nachas, not Pen Chas. Reason for this tangent... I would have expected "Gushies" to get the sheva in the parashah name right. After all, they have the patach under the reish in Parashat. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov VBM-SICHOT75 - 41: Parashat Pinchas Sicha of HaRav Mosheh Lichtenstein Adapted by Motti Guttman Translated by David Strauss Yeshivat Har Etzion "In Place of Your Fathers Shall Be Your Children": The Philosophical Principles of Inheritance The concept of inheritance arises in a number of contexts in the Torah, most prominently in Parashat Pinchas. It is also the central topic of the eighth chapter of Massekhet Bava Batra, Yesh Nochalin. Naturally, the discussion of the laws of inheritance focuses largely on the financial matters at issue among the heirs, leading to the discussion and clarification of a number of fundamental questions regarding monetary law. For that reason, chapter Yesh Nochalin has an important place in the world of Choshen Mishpat. However, the issue of inheritance is not merely monetary. The yerusha (inheritance) is not simply money that we have to decide what to do with. Of course, it is preferable to award the estate of the deceased to his surviving relatives, and not to the state or the income tax authorities; the gemara itself notes, "Should the town collector be the heir?" (Bava Batra 110b). This, however, is not the essence of the laws of inheritance. Inheritance -- Breaching the Boundaries of the Present At the heart of the concept of inheritance lies a significant principle: that of permanence and continuity. When Avraham Avinu entered the Land, he was forced to pitch his tent in different places and live the life of a wanderer. In contrast, the idea of inheritance establishes that a person should not live a life of impermanence. Moshe expresses the desire for a state of permanence in his words to Israel at the plains of Moav: "For you are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance" (Devarim 12:9). This verse was also expounded as referring to the Temple. The idea of inheritance, in this context, creates existential permanence, which is reflected in Halakha. From the time that Jerusalem was selected, it became the permanent site of the Temple, and from that point on, offering sacrifices on bamot was forbidden due to the damage that this would cause to the idea of the Temple as the chosen inheritance. Inheritance constitutes permanence and it creates continuity because it allows the individual to breach the boundaries of the present. From the time of creation, reality dictates that "One generation passes away and another generation comes, but the earth abides forever" (Kohelet 1:4). Man's days are numbered, and sooner or later he will disappear from the world. By his very definition, he is temporary -- like the flower that fades, the shadow that passes, the dust that floats, and the dream that flies away. He is here today and in the grave tomorrow. In contrast, his inheritance remains and affords him continuity. From parent to child and from child to grandchild and great-grandchild, the chain continues and death does not sever it. To a certain extent, this allows one to overcome death and oblivion. Ownership of property and land in itself does not preventing transience or create continuity; it is the identification of inheritance with the family and its heritage in the past and the present that creates the permanence and continuity. A central concept in Jewish law is the concept of the "house," which denotes a family that constitutes a unit of common heritage -- "After their families, by the house of their fathers." We are familiar with this concept from various realms of Halakha. For example, a man whose brother died without children marries the widow through yibum, levirate marriage, in order to continue the family, and he is thereby able to perpetuate the name of the deceased, since they belong to a common "house." Because of the great importance that the Torah attributes to perpetuating the name of the deceased and continuing his legacy, it established the mechanism of levirate marriage despite the personal, familial and halakhic difficulties entailed in marriage to one's brother's wife. Indeed, the mitzva of yibum takes precedence over the mitzva of chalitza because of the mission of perpetuating the brother's name.[1] The language of the text itself creates a connection between yibum and inheritance, as the purpose of the mitzva is defined as "to perpetuate the name of the deceased on his inheritance." The principle of continuity and its importance in a person's life is further reflected in the statement of Chazal (Nedarim 64b) that includes one who does not have any children among those who are considered as if they were dead. While continuity expresses itself on the concrete level through the transmission of property, much more important, of course, is ensuring continuity on the level of values, goals, and existential aspirations, which constitute the true heritage that a person leaves behind. The prophet Yeshaya emphasized how a person's eternal heritage endures: For thus says the Lord to the eunuchs who keep My Sabbath, and choose the things that please Me, and take hold of My covenant. And to them will I give in My house and within My walls a memorial better that sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. (Yeshaya 56:4-5) Indeed, there is more than one plane on which a person achieves inheritance and continuity. Inheritance is part of the system that turns the transition between generations into something permanent and stable, allowing family identity to be transmitted across the generations. In this light, we can understand Chazal's critique of a person who leaves no inheritance. As we read in a mishna in Yesh Nochalin (Bava Batra 133b): If a person gives his estate in writing to strangers and leaves out his children, his arrangements are legally valid, but the spirit of the Sages finds no delight in him. The reference here is not to a person who did not leave an inheritance due to poverty or distress, but rather to a person who decided to give away his estate for other purposes, as positive as they may be,[2] or based on the perception that his children should fend for themselves. The idea behind this mishna is the need to leave a legacy for future generations. The principle of passing down to the next generation is of central importance. Know From Whence You Come! This perception of inheritance is rooted in a general and comprehensive idea that pervades all of Jewish life -- namely, that we do not live only in the present. Judaism rejects a horizontal perspective on man, according to which man is connected only to his current environment. Our relationship is not only with this generation. Rather, our sights are at all times directed at "the one who stands here with us this day before the Lord our God, and also with the one who is not here with us this day" (Devarim 29:14). The hope is to establish a relationship of shared destiny with the past, on both the national and the personal level. This is why we mourn to this day various historical events that happened to our ancestors. We do not say, "What happened, happened." The sense of pain and tragedy that Jewish law demands of a person indicates that it expects one to experience these things in unmediated fashion, as if they occurred to people he knows, and not only that he relate to them as events of the distant past for the purpose of learning a lesson from history. "In every generation one must see himself as if he went out from Egypt." Just as a Jew is expected to feel the pain of his Jewish brothers injured in terrorist attacks in Argentina, Turkey, Paris, or Afula, regardless of the geographical distance between them, because all of Israel are responsible for and close to one another, he is similarly expected to feel pain over events that took place a long time ago. The ability to draw from our heritage and know what happened to our ancestors is important in itself. The actions of our forefathers interest us, regardless of the spiritual insights that can be derived from them, because of the feeling of existential partnership between us and our ancestors. Avraham and Sara, Yitzchak and Rivka, Yaakov, Rachel and Leah, are not only the nation's patriarchs and matriarchs, but also our forefathers. They are not only lofty figures, but also Grandpa and Grandma -- and for this reason the Torah shared their lives with us. Just as a grandson is interested in hearing from his grandfather or his grandmother about life in Eastern Europe or North Africa a century ago, we want to know what happened in Mesopotamia during the time of Avraham and Sara. A person's life in the present is intertwined with the history of his forefathers in the past. One is intricately connected to his past; one does not grow up in a vacuum. Models of Inheritance The first mishna in Yesh Nochalin presents us with a number of possible models for those who inherit and those who transmit inheritance: Some [relatives] inherit [from] and transmit [to each other]; some inherit but do not transmit; some transmit but do not inherit; some neither inherit nor transmit. Clearly, the ideal is that a person should inherit and transmit inheritance, that he should be numbered among those who are "nochalin u-manchilin." As stated above, the inheritance is not simply property for the heir, but rather constitutes a familial plot filled with existential significance. He inherits -- deciding to connect himself to his past and to his heritage. And he is interested in transmitting inheritance -- adding his contribution to the heritage, the personal layer that he adds to the inheritance and passes down to the next generation. In contrast, there are those who inherit but do not transmit, "nochalin ve-lo manchilin" -- who draw from the past and connect to it, but are not capable of passing their heritage on. Perhaps this is because they do not consider this stage important, or perhaps they lack the capacity to give their heritage over to others and to connect to the next generation. Such a person does not know how to take from the past and interpret it for his children in the future. He is familiar with the world of the past, but he lacks the tools to apply the past and its heritage to the challenges of the present and the future. The reverse case also exists -- "yesh manchilin ve-einam nochalin," there are those who transmit but who do not inherit. They wish to pass on their personal legacy, but they are cut off from the past, or so they imagine. In their eyes, everything began in their generation. Previous generations erred or were weak; there is no need to receive their inheritance, laden with the outdated baggage of Diaspora life. This heir is not prepared to connect to the past or to recognize that he is dependent upon it. Blinded by his present achievements, he is alienated from the past and the weight of tradition. The most tragic group neither inherits nor transmits inheritance, "lo nochalin ve-lo manchilin." They are cut off from every bit of the past. They live only in the present and are utterly devoid of worry about the future -- "After me, the deluge." The concept of inheritance serves as a bridge between the past and the future. In this context, the individual is merely another link in a chain. If we consider the chain of tradition recorded by the Rambam in his introduction to the Mishneh Torah, more important than any particular Sage is the very chain of tradition itself. The value of each link lies in the fact that it allows the chain to continue. This is the connection and bridge between all the generations, from Avraham Avinu until the Mashiach. Spiritual Heritage through Physical Means As noted above, the transmission takes place through tangible means as well. It is obvious to us that it is values and ideas, Torah and mitzvot, that constitute the heritage that passes from one generation to the next. It is easy to understand the statement: "Moshe commanded us the Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov" (Devarim 33:4). It is more difficult to grasp that the Torah also attaches great importance to tangible inheritance, to the transmission of physical property. Chazal teach us that "monuments are not built for the righteous; their words are their memorials" (Bereishit Rabba 82). We do not set up statues or tombstones for the righteous, for it is their spiritual legacy that serves as their memorial. Nevertheless, the ability to touch the past by way of some object bestows additional meaning on that heritage. Touching the physical possession of a deceased relative gives a person the sense of an unmediated encounter with the past. One generation passes away and another generation comes, but an object that remains provides a connection to the earlier period. Man is a physical creature, and contact with material objects is meaningful to him as a reminder of and bridge to the past. Not only is it meaningful to transmit the life story of the deceased to future generations and to talk about his values, but it is also important to be able to connect with him on the most basic level. When a person comes across an object that belonged to his relative, it is important to him even if it lacks monetary value or is in no way unique. The tangible item turns the past into something immediate on a level that cannot be achieved by any other means. A number of years ago, a Torah scroll that belonged to the Ran and a seal that was reportedly that of the Ramban were displayed in an exhibition devoted to Spanish Jewry before the expulsion. It is difficult to describe the thrill that I felt when I understood that this seal was once held by the Ramban himself and that the Ran had once used this Torah scroll. I also remember the feeling of immediacy that I felt when someone showed me an etrog box that had once belonged to R. Akiva Eiger. We are physical beings who come from the dust, and physical things therefore speak to us. Paradoxically, it is precisely material objects, which are essentially transient, that maintain their permanence for centuries, creating a bridge between the past and the future. The need for connection through objects, which is natural and self-evident given that we are humans of flesh and blood, also underlies the Torah and the practical mitzvot. Judaism is not built exclusively on vague and abstract values. In response to the human need for concreteness, a system of practical commandments was created in order to express a system of ideas. The performance of mitzvot creates a channel for religious experience and opens the way for a connection between man and God. The experience associated with taking a lulav or eating matza reflects how much an object plays a role in the human religious experience. In a person's private life, intimate family connections are not based exclusively on profound conversations about noble values, but are rather manifest in shared day-to-day experiences, including the trivial problems that engage an ordinary family in everyday conduct, such as who will wash the dishes or fold the laundry. Similarly, this component of activity that is ongoing but not uplifting plays a role in our observance of the mitzvot. Just as a family lives closely together and creates connections even through banal activities, the mitzvot create a common religious experience with God among all those observing them. Thus, objects can provide existential meaning, but this depends upon the eye of the beholder. A person who relates to an inheritance merely as a set of objects and not as a means to continue the past will not see any unique significance in those objects. The Uniqueness of the Firstborn Thus far, we have discussed the idea of heirs and inheritance in general, the concept of personal and national heritage in the sense of "You are the children of the Lord your God" (Devarim 14:1). We have not discussed any unique status of any of the heirs. This indeed follows the model of the first half of Yesh Nochalin. At this point, we must move on to the second half of the chapter and to the concept of the birthright, the special privileges bestowed upon a firstborn. In addition to the passage dealing with inheritance in Sefer Bamidbar, a passage in Sefer Devarim assigns special status to a firstborn son. The concept of the bechora, primogeniture, is not merely factual but rather value-laden. This is reflected in the gemara's emphasis on the idea of "recognizing" the firstborn (based on the word "yakir" in the verse). The birthright expresses an interpersonal relationship unique to the parent and firstborn; it assumes a certain connection between them. Therefore, a firstborn only inherits a double portion if he was alive during his father's lifetime (Bava Batra 142b) and the father recognizes him as his firstborn son (127a).[3] For this reason, we also maintain that "the Torah calls it [the firstborn's double portion] a gift." In Halakha, a gift is not merely a certain type of acquisition, but rather an expression of intimacy. The firstborn inherits as one who receives a gift, directly from the father and not through the house or family. All of a person's strengths are reflected first and foremost in his firstborn. A father is supposed to feel a partnership with his sons, and the firstborn is the first child with whom this closeness is created. The Concept of Birthright in the Bible The birthright is referred to prominently in three contexts in the Bible: the struggle over the birthright between Yaakov and Esav; the story of Yaakov's two firstborn sons, Reuven and Yosef; and the description of Israel as "My son, My firstborn" (Shemot 4:22). These models point to the importance attached to the firstborn, as well as to the dangers that this status creates. Concerning the opportunity and the danger posed by the birthright, it is appropriate to cite two midrashim from Avot De-Rabbi Natan: Israel were called "sons," as it is stated: "You are the sons of the Lord your God" (Devarim 14:1), and the ministering angels are called "sons," as it is stated: "The sons of God came" (Iyov 1:6), and you do not know which are more loved. When it says: "Israel is My son, My firstborn," [it makes clear that] you are more precious to me than the ministering angels. (44a) The firstborn is perceived here as a clear expression of endearment and special closeness. Another midrash in Avot De-Rabbi Natan speaks in a different tone, recognizing that not every firstborn is dearly loved: Israel is precious, for in His time of anger they are called "sons." In His time of anger they are called sons, and even at a time when the verse says: "Not His is the corruption, but the blemish of His sons" (Devarim 32:5) -- sons in whom I have no trust, corrupt sons. Therefore, the Sages taught that they are called sons of God... But not every firstborn is precious and dear. There is a firstborn who is precious and dear, and there is also a firstborn who is not precious and dear. (8a) This midrash points to the problematic nature of the firstborn. It is simple to speak of the beauty and loftiness of the idea of Israel being "My son, My firstborn." But this does not necessarily reflect reality, as we find in the stories dealing with the birthright in the book of Bereishit. Yaakov vs. Esav -- Values vs. Money Esav views inheritance as a way to acquire property: "Behold, I am at the point of death, and what profit shall this birthright be to me?" (Bereishit 25:32). Ostensibly, the opposite is actually true! It is precisely at the point of death that the birthright acquires greater importance, for through it Esav could be counted as part of the line of the house of Avraham and as a link that transmits the heritage of the past to the coming generations. In this way, his memory would be preserved for generations, even after he dies. But Esav understands that he will derive no monetary gain from the inheritance, as he is about to die, and he is therefore prepared to sell his birthright for a pot of lentils. The commentators discuss the manner in which Yaakov took the birthright from Esav, and the Rishonim deal with the legal question of how Yaakov could acquire the birthright even though it was something that had not yet come into existence ("davar she-lo ba le-olam"). Many explanations have been offered, but it is possible to suggest one very simple answer. Esav did not sell the birthright to Yaakov; he lost it because his actions proved that he was not worthy of it. His very readiness to sell his birthright for a pot of lentils attested to his attitude toward the birthright and to his alienation from the world of Yitzchak. Anyone who scorns the birthright demonstrates that he does not understand its significance, and thus forfeits it. Sometimes, a child relates to his parents as an infinite source of rights. He wishes only to receive benefits and service from his parents; he is not prepared to accept the burden of transferring the legacy of previous generations. It is not for naught that the midrash (Bereishit Rabba 67:8; 75:9) describes Esav as ready to arrange for the murder of Yaakov and Yishmael in order to inherit the entire inheritance of Avraham. When the birthright is perceived not as a responsibility and sacred mission, but as an opportunity to profit at the expense of others, when the attitude toward inheritance is like that toward any monetary matter, it is not surprising to find that a violent man would be prepared to kill the other heirs and to employ a variety of schemes in order to inherit more assets. Yaakov, in contrast, views the birthright not only as a right, but as a mission. He wants to perpetuate Avraham's blessing in the world, and he sees the birthright as a destiny that will confer that mission upon him. It is not by chance that Chazal saw the pot of lentils as a dish denoting mourning over Avraham's passing, for it is around this event that the debate focuses. The test is whether to view this as an opportunity for profit -- on the tangible level, through the eating of the beans, and on the symbolic level, through benefit from the property of the deceased -- or as a call to assume responsibility and accept the authority of the firstborn. Reuven vs. Yosef -- Competition vs. Continuity Another pair of brothers who compete over the birthright presents us with a different model that is problematic for a different reason. On the one hand, "Reuven, you are my firstborn, my might and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity and the excellency of power" (Bereishit 49:3). It is upon Reuven that Yaakov pins his entire future and all of his hopes. On the other hand, "Unstable as water, you shall not excel; because you went up to your father's bed; then you did defile it: he went up to my couch" (ibid. 49:4), and in Divrei Ha-Yamim: "Now the sons of Reuven the firstborn of Israel -- for he was the firstborn, but since he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Yosef the son of Yisrael" (I Divrei Ha-Yamim 5:1). Because he defiled his father's bed, the birthright was taken away from Reuven. Esav was indifferent to the birthright and to the past; he sought in his inheritance only monetary gain. Reuven suffers from the opposite problem -- he sees himself as competing with his father and contending against him. No matter how we understand the specifics of Reuven's sin when he defiled his father's bed, the implication is the same -- it was an attempt to push his father aside and take his place during his lifetime. Reuven challenged his father's standing as head of the family. He rejected Yaakov's authority, and by doing so he impaired his own standing. The way of the world is that at some stage in a person's life, there is a reversal of roles. The strong parent, the firm rock, turns into a frail old man, at which point the sons must help the parent. Sometimes, they are even compelled to make decisions for the parent. Indeed, at the end of Yaakov's life, when he arrived in Egypt a broken and ill man, Yosef made various decisions for him. All this is possible and appropriate when the father is old and weak, when there is no other way, but not when the father is at the height of his strength and is fit to stand on his own two feet. The firstborn is meant to be the continuation of his father, but not his replacement who is in competition with him. The father bestows the birthright -- "The Torah calls it a gift." A son may not take the birthright by force. The similarity between Reuven and Yaakov could have prepared Reuven to be his father's successor. However, when that similarity is interpreted as competition, the firstborn's reward is cancelled out by his loss. Yosef was also similar to Yaakov, but he knew how to actualize that similarity at the proper time and not to replace him while he was still alive. The birthright was thus taken from Reuven, as from Esav, because he was unsuited for it. The transfer of property from an unfit son is the subject of a dispute between the Sages and R. Shimon ben Gamliel (133b), and we rule that property should not be transferred even from a wicked son to a good son. But in such a case, we are not dealing with an impairment in the firstborn's functioning as a firstborn, but rather with a general problem, and we therefore do not want to cancel the birthright. However, when the son sets himself in competition with his father, when he defiles his father's bed, the birthright is removed from him. The Actions of the Fathers are a Sign for the Sons The relationship between God and Israel should be examined in a similar manner. As stated to Moshe, Israel is "My son, My firstborn" (Shemot 22:4). What this means is that on a certain level, all the nations are God's children; the birthright does not negate the standing of the other brothers, but rather bestows a certain advantage on the firstborn while recognizing the others as sons.[4] But how are we to understand our relationship to God as His firstborn? Are we more precious to God than the ministering angels, as is stated in the first midrash cited above? Or are we perhaps like the firstborn who is not cherished and dear, as he appears in the second midrash? Will we be alienated from God? Will we be like a firstborn who is first among his brothers, but aware of his place? Or perhaps, God forbid, we will view ourselves in competition with God? Of course, the desired model is a permanent and meaningful relationship in which the individual feels the presence of the Shekhina, one in which he does not view the relationship between man and God as an interesting idea but nothing more. A child feels the presence of his parent and maintains a strong relationship with him, despite the differences in standing between them; this is also true of the relationship between Israel and their Father in Heaven. This is the challenge with which we are faced. A person who feels the responsibility of being a fitting firstborn to God justifies his birthright, but also assumes responsibility. The greater and deeper the responsibility and purpose, the greater the spiritual achievement. However, the spiritual danger is also greater. The same things that create obstacles in the relationship between a son and his parents are liable to ruin the relationship between man and his Maker. One can encounter a problem in the form of what we saw regarding Esav; a person recognizes the existence of God, but views the connection between him and his Father in Heaven as a means of satisfying his own pleasures and fulfilling his needs. In such a case, his heritage interests him only for the purpose of generating profits, and nothing more. He does not see his heritage as an obligation or mission, but rather as "a spade for digging," a source of personal gain. Alternatively, there is the situation of Reuven, which is reflected in the feeling that God is "strangling" him, leaving him with insufficient leeway due to the Shekhina's presence in the world. Just like a child rebels when he feels constrained by a parent or when he senses that the parent with his power and status overshadows him and his capabilities, a person's feelings about God may be similar. The proper situation, both with respect to the parent-child relationship and with respect to the relationship between man and God, is that man should find his place within a framework of existing laws and recognize that there are factors above him. Within these boundaries, he will be able to find his uniqueness and express his personal development. A firstborn like Reuven, who feels that he cannot exercise his strengths together with the strengths of God, is a firstborn who lacks the appropriate "recognition." Let us move from the People of Israel to the Land of Israel. The Land was also given to us as an inheritance and a heritage. Here, too, the aim is to see it as God's inheritance and to reach the realization of "You shall bring them in and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance" (Shemot 15:17), with the physical land serving as an expression of the spiritual connection and relationship between God and His people. Here, too, however, there is the danger of being caught up in the perspective of profitability and materialism, which views the Land exclusively as a place of leisure and profits. As opposed to "the mountain of Your inheritance," Datan and Aviram view the Land as "an inheritance of fields and vineyards" (Bamidbar 16:14), and nothing more. The children of Reuven and Gad preferred to receive their inheritance on the east bank of the Jordan, as that was advantageous for their animals and business. They did not ask themselves about the effect that their step would have on their inheritance as a sacred place or as the land of their forefathers. In opposition to "an inheritance of fields and vineyards" stands "the mountain of Your inheritance." Furthermore, since the inheritance is not land but rather a heritage, it exists, under certain condition, even without land. Not only is there the mountain of Your inheritance, but God is also the inheritance of the priests and Levites, substituting for the inheritance of land. We not only have God's intention "to give it to you for a heritage" (Shemot 6:8), but also "Moshe commanded us the Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov" (Devarim 33:4). Needless to say, the fitting situation for the ordinary person is the realization of the two inheritances, both of the Land and of the Torah. At times, however, it is one heritage that sustains us, while the other is missing. This was the case throughout the long years of exile, when the heritage of the Torah allowed Israel to survive in the lands of their dispersion. Similarly, in recent generations, the secular Zionist movement adopted for itself the heritage of the Land without a Torah heritage. Indeed, the core challenge facing secular Zionism and the State of Israel in this regard is viewing the country's heritage as an ancestral heritage and an expression of Jewish identity that is connected to the people of Israel throughout the generations, and not only as an inheritance of fields and vineyards. "A Ladder Set upon the Earth, and the Top of it Reached to Heaven" The chapter of Yesh Nochalin presents a sublime model of a system of inheritance that depends on the values that we have discussed. Very often, however, reality slaps us in the face. Inheritance disputes are a common and painful phenomenon. Unfortunately, these struggles are widespread and they destroy families. Values and ideals of great importance are shattered against the rocks of family disputes; instead of attaining achievements, they engage in conflict. Instead of the past serving as an inspiration and guide for the future, a person can destroy his future and fill it with conflicts from the past. Instead of the "house" inheriting the deceased and passing the family heritage down to the other members of the house, the house is split and destroyed in the storms of dispute. One should not make the mistake of thinking that such disputes are driven solely by profits. Often, the conflicts are grounded in what appears to be holiness. Struggles arise around the question of who will be a better successor, who will more faithfully represent the heritage and values of the deceased. Each side is convinced that he alone can express the family truth, while the other side will betray it. He therefore enters into battle against his brothers and sisters, without realizing that he is thereby destroying the family and defying the wishes of the deceased. These "holy fights" create the antithesis of the concept of inheritance. The challenge of inheritance and creating a heritage is indeed great, and it therefore often leads to tension. Nevertheless, Yesh Nochalin presents us with a meaningful model on the existential level, both with respect to the family and the past and with respect to our lives with God. May we merit to meet these challenges. (This sicha was delivered in summer 5767 [2007]. The original Hebrew adaptation was reviewed by Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein.) -- [1] This is true on the fundamental level, as is stated in the mishna in Bekhorot. In this context, we will not consider the dispute between Abba Shaul and the Sages. [2] Most authorities are uncomfortable even with one who donates all of his property to charity. [3] As a result, someone whose status is in doubt is excluded from the law of the birthright: "A son and not a tumtum [a person of undetermined gender]; a firstborn, and not a doubtful firstborn." This is also the basis for the law of "recognition," which according to many authorities is not based on credibility, but on the creation of a connection between father and son, credibility being the byproduct. [4] See the commentators ad loc., especially Ibn Ezra and Seforno. Rashi apparently understood differently and deliberately chose to deviate from the plain meaning of the birthright. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 13:31:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:31:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Defining Tzeis Message-ID: <20150706203135.GA12889@aishdas.org> I wrote the following to FB. If anyone can add or make corrections before the thread there dies, I would appreciate it. I think I summed up the highlights of the sugya as I understood it from previous conversations here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha [Someone asked what the sources in question were, so I replied:] Shabbos 34b-35a, 35b; Pesachim 94a. As Tosafos on Pesachim note, in Shabbos (34b) R' Yehudah is quoted as saying bein hashemashot (sunset to the stars coming out) is 3/4 mil (or 2/3 mil, depending on which amora's version of R' Yehudah you're using, but we hold 3/4), but in Pesachim he says a person can walk 4 mil after sunset before the stars emerge. Rabbeinu Tam notes a slight difference in language. It takes 4 mil "misheqi'as hachamah," in Pesachim, but 3/4 mil from "mishetishqeh hachamah." RT therefore resolves the two gemaros by saying sunset takes 3-1/4 mil. So, 4 mil from the beginning of sunset will take you to 3/4 mil after sunset, which is R' Yehudah's tzeis. The Vilna Gaon's resolution of the confliciting gemaros (OC 235 and 261) is not to split sunset into a beginning an end, but to split tzeis. The halachic tzeis is 3/4 mil after sunset. The gemara in Pesachim is using the term colloquially, not halachically, and simply refers to "all the stars" rather the standard 3. The Re'eim (R' Eliezer of Metz, Seifer Yerei'im, written in the 1170s) splits both -- the two gemaras are discussing different sunsets AND different tzeis. To him, the gemara in Shabbos is saying sheqi'ah (which we usually translate "sunset") is 3/4 mil BEFORE the sun hits the horizon, and tzeis is when the sun is at the horizon. Whereas the gemara in Pesachim then measures how much after the sun is below the horizon that the sky is fully dark. Note that both the Vilna Gaon and the Re'eim assume the gemara in Pesachim is using at least one of the idioms differently than the gemara in Shabbos, and therefore it has no bearing on halakhah. ... [Material in response to what someone else wrote, ellided.] BUT... The Vilna Gaon understands the defining feature to be the emergence of stars, not the fixed time R' Yehudah gives. And therefore inflates the 3/4 mil to adjust from Usha (R' Yehudah's home town) to Vilna. Which brings us to the third topic, on the other side of the page on Shabbos (35b). Again it's R' Yehudah, quoting Shemu'el's prescription of which stars to watch for: [If you see] 1 star, it is day; 2 -- bein hashemashos; 3 -- night. Rabbi Yosi said, "Not large stars that are visible in the day, nor small stars that are only visible at night, but medium stars..." 35b cannot describe 3/4 mil after sunset. Even in Usha or Nehardaa (Shemuel's home town, today's Anbar, central Iraq, on the Euphrates), you will not see 3 middle sized stars 18 min after sunset. R Michl Tukaczinsky and R' Dovid Spitzer did the observations in Jerusalem, and found it takes 31-43 min or 28-40 min, respectively. (Use the smaller end of the range for rabbinic fasts, like the OP, and the larger for Torah laws like Shabbos. Jerusalem is closer to the equator than either city, not that I think it's by enough to matter much.) Rav Moshe Feinstein similarly gave 50 min for Shabbos, 31 for rabbinic fasts -- but then, NY's days vary more in length, so a "never later than" will be more minutes after sunset. With a computer, we could translate all these numbers into degrees below the horizon, as that would tell us how dark it would be outside, and therefore how many stars could be seen, if we weren't bathed in artificial lighting. And even then you get into questions about which stars. The western horizon (the side with the glow of sunset) will show stars well after the east. Three stars seen at once (near each-other) or total when scanning the whole sky? Etc... Rather than decide whether we follow Shabbos 34a or 35a, even those who do not use Pesachim to shed light on 34a pad the 3/4 mil to plausibly allow for people to see three medium sized stars. Given the fact that it's this measure which actually gives the landmark on our clock its name, assuming it is less definitional than a fixed time delay is difficult. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 13:39:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:39:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dan leKaf Zekhus Message-ID: <20150706203931.GB12889@aishdas.org> When I got on the subway this morning, there was a pregnant woman already standing holding on to the poll nearest the door I just came in through. So, feeling all heroic, I asked her quite loudly and pointedly, "Do you need me to embarass someone into getting up for you?" She replied, "No, thank you. A number of people offered when I just got on, but I was more comfortable standing than on the train's benches." I blushed, and sheepishly muttered apologies to those around us. As I said: Dan lekaf zekhus. Not just the law, a good idea. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 14:45:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 17:45:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah and Poverty In-Reply-To: <20150706202632.A741518370D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150706202632.A741518370D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150706214552.GE12889@aishdas.org> On 7/3/2015 3:16 AM, RnTK wrote to Areivim: : But our mishna does describe this as the "way of the Torah." : True Torah scholars will live contentedly under conditions of : denial and poverty. The beraisa (Avos "6":4) says that darkah shel Torah is not to quit learning even if you have to live off bread, salt and water you have to ration, sleep on the ground and otherwise suffer. Not that this is their normal condition, or even one they should desire. There is still the take on the chatas of someone ending nezirus (Rabbeinu Bachya, in contrast to the Ramban) that it's for forgoing permissable pleasure while a nazir. And the Y-mi (Qiddushin 4:12, vilna 48b, the end of the mesechta) in which Rav is quoted as saying "A person will have to give a din vecheshbon on anything his eye saw but he didn't eat. R' Leizer [Elazar? Eliezer?] was chosheish for this, and would use Shabbos to enjoy one such pleasure. This is on the mishnah where R' Nera'i promises to only teach his son Torah, to the exclusion of a profession. But the Y-mi understands this to mean that keeping the Torah (not learning in particular) will provide wealth. Whereas a profession leaves you stuck in your old age, or if one otherwise become unable to work. But it's "vekhein atah motzei be'avinu Avraham *sheshimer* es haTorah" and was wealthy. However, the Bavli famously reports that this was tried experimentally and it generally doesn't work. Okay for a R' Shimon bar Yochai, but not R' Yishmael and the like. (Which could be a difference in kind or quantitative.) No one today would qualify as either a Rashbi or a R' Yishmael, so I don't think the Y-mi's promise should be counted on. And neither gemara lauds poverty. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 17:12:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 20:12:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon Message-ID: From: Lisa Liel via Avodah The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this subject. Lisa >>>> I have seen none of that "vitriol" or "viciousness," either in the past few days or in the last few years, or ever. On the contrary, all I see is an almost desperate attempt to be conciliatory, a desperate if hopeless wish not to be the *victims* of liberal, anti-religious vitriol. See for example "A Letter by Reb Ahron Feldman to a Gay Baal Teshuva" https://guardyoureyes.com/resources/ssa/item/a-letter-by-reb-ahron-feldman-to-a-gay-baal-teshuva Also see Agudath Israel's statement on the recent Supreme Court gay-marriage decision http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2015/06/28/agudath-israel-statement-o n-supreme-court-marriage-ruling/ It reads, in part, "we are deeply concerned that, as a result of today?s ruling, and as the dissenting Justices have pointed out, members and institutions of traditional communities like the Orthodox Jewish community we represent may incur moral opprobrium and risk tangible negative consequence if they refuse to transgress their beliefs, and even if they simply teach and express their religious views publicly." I might add that Lisa's post, being an emotional cri de coeur, really belongs on Areivim. However, since she has posted it to Avodah, I will add my own comments previously posted on Cross-Currents: Here, for the record, is what our ancient Torah heritage has to say about homosexual marriage: The nations are allowed to continue in existence only because they keep a minimum of three mitzvos. These are: not writing marriage documents for the union of two males, not selling human flesh in the market place, and giving honor to the Torah?which in practice means, not persecuting the people of the Torah, the Jewish people. In one of his prophetic visions, the Navi (prophet) Zechariah took thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the Temple treasury in Jerusalem (Zechariah 11:13). The Rabbis of the Talmud had varying interpretations of what this vision symbolized. According to Rabbi Ulla (Talmud Chullin 92B), the thirty pieces of silver symbolized the thirty mitzvos that the Bnei Noach accepted upon themselves. These thirty mitzvos include not worshipping idols, not consulting witchcraft and sorcery, refraining from illicit sexual relationships, and so on. (Bnei Noach are the Sons of Noah, also called Noahides? i.e., the nations of the world.) Rabbi Ulla says that the world continues to exist because the nations accepted these thirty mitzvos. However, he adds, the nations do not keep all the mitzvos they accepted. They keep only three, and one of the three is: ? They do not write a marriage contract for males.? Rashi comments that the nations do engage in forbidden homosexual relations, but they at least acknowledge that such relations are illicit by not formalizing those relations in legal documents. The other two commandments that they keep are that they do not sell human flesh in the market place, and that they give honor to the Torah (Talmud Chullin 92B). Elsewhere the Rabbis of old stated that the final decree of destruction, the Great Flood, was sealed against the generation of Noach because they wrote marriage documents for males. ?Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Yosef, ?The generation of the Flood was not wiped out until they wrote marriage documents for the union of a man to a male or to an animal ? ? (Genesis Rabbah 26:5; Leviticus Rabbah 23:9). Implicit is the assumption that if the nations do not abide by at least the aforementioned three mitzvos, they may forfeit the very right to exist. Hence, these three?not writing marriage documents for males, not selling human flesh in the marketplace, and honoring the Torah?may be considered the Three Conditions for the continued existence of mankind. So you see, the idea of gay marriage is not new, not a fresh idea that represents the ultimate development, enlightenment and evolution of mankind. No, the formal marriage of two men is a very ancient idea that represents the degradation of mankind. http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2011/07/28/4524/ I will add a further point to what I wrote in 2011: The reason the gay pride movement adopted rainbow colors as their symbol is that the rainbow is the sign of Hashem?s promise not to wipe out the entire world again in one big flood. They wave the rainbow flag in defiance of Him, as if to say, ?Ha ha, You can?t touch us!? The message of the rainbow flag is, ?We are major sinners, like the generation of the Flood.? But they are whistling in the dark if they think there won?t be consequences. May Hashem protect His people, those who are chassidei umos ha?olam as well as us, Klal Yisrael. Read more: http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2015/06/29/scotus-on-same-gender-what-it-means-what-it-doesnt/#ixzz3f9x0mazM --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 18:14:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 01:14:59 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> I noted about Kaddish Yasom > From what I've seen, it is NOT said even if a minyan says Birkas > Hamazon, R' Zev Sero asked: > Why would it? Well, I guess my original post should have had a longer introduction. I know that Kaddish Tiskabel has a very clear rule, namely that it follows every Amidah, and the only exception is that it also follows Selichos. Kaddish D'rabanan always follows group learning (though I've never figured out exactly what learning counts and what doesn't). And now I'm trying to figure out the rule for Kaddish Yasom. It SEEMS to be a sort of "congregational prayer", where "prayer" is something *other* than the Amidah, but I can't define it any more precisely than that. For a long time I thought it was connected to Tehillim, but when I noticed it after the megilos on Yom Tov, someone suggested that it's not specifically Sefer Tehillim, but *any* part of Kesuvim, not that we had any idea why Kesuvim would get this distinction over Neviim or Torah. I wrote: > but it IS said when a minyan says Kiddush Levana. RZS suggested: > Probably because people are used to saying it after Alenu. Maybe, and maybe not. I have a suspicion that Alenu was added *because of* the Kaddish, and not the other way around. Here are some data points: The Hirsch siddur has Tehillim 67 as the last paragraph of Kiddush Levana, with nothing at all after it. My Minchas Yerushalayim, and Birnbaum too, end with Tehillim 67 which is then followed by Kaddish Yasom, without Alenu. Is it possible that Alenu is a recent addition to the Kiddush Levana? I wrote: > It is NOT said when a minyan says Tehillim even as an organized > group, RZS asked: > Where have you seen it not being said then? I'm surprised that > this is your experience. In my current community, and also from my memories of yeshiva. When there was some sort of tzara that we said Tehillim for -- whether for a choleh, or some military or political problem -- we would say the Tehillim deemed appropriate by the leaders, and this would be followed by tefillos such as Acheinu and/or Mi Sheberach(s). I don't recall Kaddish ever being part of this. I have to admit that a big part of my asking this question is a pet peeve that I've been nursing, regarding Kiddush Levana in particular. It seems to me that Kiddush Levana -- the way it is done in just about every situation I've ever seen -- cannot be called a Tefilas Tzibur in any sense. It is a group of yechidim who happen to be saying the same thing, but in a totally disorganized fashion. The first one out of shul begins as soon as he finds a good location, and the last one out of shul also begins when he finds a good location. No attempt whatsoever is made to get this group to be on the same page, let alone in the same paragraph. There is no leader (like we have in Hallel and Pesukei Dzimra and everywhere else) who lets everyone know what the group is up to, so that they might end in unison. Rather, one person ends Alenu out loud, and that's when the yesomim say kaddish, regardless of whether they are only halfway though, or already finished before. So that's one of the reasons why I'm wondering why Kiddush Levana gets a kaddish. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/559b2834173228336fdfst03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 23:16:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 02:16:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kiddush levana In-Reply-To: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <559B6EB4.3010400@sero.name> On 07/06/2015 09:14 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: > So that's one of the reasons why I'm wondering why Kiddush Levana gets a kaddish. Well, I found what may be the source for this kaddish. The Shelah says "There is a nice minhag in the kingdom of EY and its surroundings, to say various pesukim and maamarim after kiddush levana, and then say kaddish derabanan [...] and the meaning of this kaddish is that [the Name] should be magnified and sanctified, a Great Name, a full Name, and then the moon's light will be as the sun's light". http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=45685&pgnum=287 > I have a suspicion that Alenu was added > *because of* the Kaddish, and not the other way around. Here are > some data points: The Hirsch siddur has Tehillim 67 as the last > paragraph of Kiddush Levana, with nothing at all after it. My Minchas > Yerushalayim, and Birnbaum too, end with Tehillim 67 which is then > followed by Kaddish Yasom, without Alenu. Is it possible that Alenu > is a recent addition to the Kiddush Levana? Taamei Haminhagim gives a reason for saying Alenu, because it was written by Yehoshua, whose face is compared to the moon (Bava Basra 75a). According to this reason there would seem to be no reason to say it after birkas hachama. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=216 But the footnote to Kuntres Acharon on the next page gives a different reason: Because kiddush levana looks like a pagan ritual, we say Alenu to declare that we worship only Hashem, and this is the same reason that after Hoshanos, which also seems a bit pagan, we declare "Lema'an daas kol amei ha'aretz ki Hashem hu haElokim, ein od". This reason applies equally to birkas hachama. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=217 I remember hearing that the same reason is why we say Alenu after a bris, but I can't find a source for this. Taamei Haminhagim cites Yaavetz that the reason is to include the baby among the "us" who are declaring our loyalty to Hashem. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=404 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 03:41:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 13:41:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Pinechas vs Pinchas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> R' Micha points out that his grandfather's name was Pinechas. He proves it first by the yud after the pei which, by the rules of dikduk, makes the following sheva a na'. In addition, the name is an Egyptian one, Pi-nechas, pi being a common prefix in Egyptian names. In case you haven't been convinced yet, there is a meteg in the pei which, by the rules, makes the chirik malei and the sheva na' There is, however, one small point that makes me wonder. R' Aharon ben Asher who, for the last thousand years, has been called the accepted decision maker on correct spelling in Tana"kh seems to disagree. In perek 11 of his book Dikdukei Hat'amim he describes the sh'vaim before the otyot g'roniot inside a word, when they are na' and when nach. Included in his list of words where they are nach are laqkhu, barchu, Pinchas, zar'u, etc. IIRC, not all manuscripts have all the words and Pinchas might be omitted in some. It is possible that copiers of the words lists added or omitted. On the Mesorah sub-list it is known that I am anti-dikduk because it opens the way to change the fine points on Torah pronunciation to match its rules. Among these "improvements" was the changing of many internal sh'vaim in words from nach to na'. What enabled this to happen was the brilliant invention by R' Yosef Kimchi of the ten vowel, five pairs of malei and chaseir. This led to the rule that after malei the sh'va is na' and after chaseir it is nach. Ben Asher, in perek 10 notes that there are seven vowels in Hebrew. All of the masoretes also state this. If there aren't pairs of malei and chaseir, we've just lost the rule about the following sh'vaim. All this is not something new. Heidenheim in his comments on the Ein Hakorei of RYHB"Y (Shemini, just before sh'lishi) states that in the times of the kadmonim many sh'vaim that are now na'im were then nachim. He quotes (from Ibn Ezra?) that kol sh'va b'ot rafah shekadam lo echad mishiv'at ham'lakhim hu nach ki halashon ha-ivrit kasha la r'difat shalosh t'nu'ot...except for double letters and some words with groniot. So how should I lein on Shabbos? Oh, no problem, I'm not the bal-koire. bivrakha, David From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 05:21:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:21:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kesher Message-ID: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little farfetched 1) knot 2) connection 3) conspiracy -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 06:18:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 09:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> In various places in dovening, kaddish etc we find the loshon - ..v'imru amen. Simply understood this is something only said by a sh'ztibur, as an announcement by the sh'ztibur that the congregation sh answer amen. In some cases, a yachid says it (ie Kiddush hachodesh, etc) probably bc we are saying something that originally was said by the sh'ztibur. What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? Who are we saying v'imru amen to? And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). Because the silent SE is not a carbon copy of the sh'ztibur version (for instance - no elokai netzor, SE of fast days are diff, etc) Mordechai Cohen mcohen at touchlogic.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:09:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 10:09:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper : connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little : farfetched : 1) knot : 2) connection : 3) conspiracy Interestingly, the noun doesn't show in chumash. As an adjective, we have hamuqsharos/im, to describe which of the tzon Yaaqov received (30:41-42). Rashi quotes the Targum, "habechiros" and cites two pesuqim in Shemuel II pereq 15. To round out the list: About Yaaqov (again) and Yoseif, "venafsho qesurah benafsho." Also the string tied on Zarach's hand, and tefillin (x2). Those are all the occurances of the shoresh. BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. Conspiracy comes up in #2, "league together, conspire". It would seem they conjecture the word comes from the collaboration, and less so what they're connecting to eachother to plan against something. They also cite "vatiqasheir kol-hachimah" in Nechemiah 3:35, where one would not readily picture "tying together" parts as a metaphor. I understand why Rashi thought the translation in Bereishis 30 is unique enough to require comment, but not how it fits altogether. (Rashi says it does, not how.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:08:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 14:08:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Pinechas vs Pinchas In-Reply-To: <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> References: , <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1436278092269.69769@ou.org> It should be noted that how Pinechas was read according to the Masorah is not really relevant to the way it was pronounced as a name. Pinchas is a Yiddish name (to be sure, with its roots in Hebrew), and is pronounced without a het and without a sh'wa. Its pronunciation in Hebrew is no more relevant than is the proper pronunciation of the word gannav (theif) in the T'NaKh to the pronunciation of the Yiddish word ganef. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union 11 Broadway, New York, NY 10004 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:22:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 17:22:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> References: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper >: connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little >: farfetched >: 1) knot >: 2) connection >: 3) conspiracy ... > BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary > meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. and what is the connection to a knot (the origin of the question was a dvar torah on the knots of tsizit) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 09:03:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:03:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: References: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150707160302.GA10745@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 05:22:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :>: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings... : ... :> BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary :> meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. : and what is the connection to a knot : (the origin of the question was a dvar torah on the knots of tsizit) Well, tzitzis knots less so, but knots generally bind two strings or two ends of a string together, no? Tzitzis knots are somewhat more like the example from Nechemiah. If qesher includes "batiqashar kol-hachomah", perhaps it also it includes binding pesilim into a gedil. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 14:44:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 17:44:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam, Moreh Nevuchim (2:29), A Strange Passage about Miracles Message-ID: <559C4830.9030705@gmail.com> In Moreh Nevuchim, 2:29, the Rambam seems to disparage a talmudical position about miracles that he had endorsed in his prior works (Commentary on Avos 5:6 and Shmoneh Perakim chapter 8). This, despite the fact that in the Moreh, he refers the reader to these former works to understand his position about miracles. And to further confuse matters, in the Moreh itself, within just a few sentences, he goes on to laud the proponent of that very positionfor maintaining it! The position is that already during the Creation week, G-d instilled, in objects and forces of nature, the potential for the aberrant behaviors that He would unleash when appropriate. (I.e. the aberrant behaviors were not changes G-d first decided upon, created and imposed upon things at the time the miracles were witnessed.) The Moreh Nevuchim introduces the concept with the words: "Our Sages said things zarrim m'od as regards miracles." "zarrim m'od" is Ibn Tibbon's Hebrew translation. Narboni and Schwartz use the similar "muzarrim, and likewise, Friedlander and Pines, in their English translations, translate, "very strange." KPCH translates, "temuhim" (astonishing). They all seem to indicate that the Rambam shunned the idea. Yet, as I noted, just a few sentences later, the Rambam lauds the Tanna who expressed the thought: [T]his text...demonstrates the [high] level of the speaker, and its being very difficult in his eyes that Nature could change after Creation, or that G-d's Will would change after it had been established. He therefore reasons, for example, that G-d instilled, in the nature of Water, the [property of] sticking together and always flowing in a downward direction, except for that time in which the Egyptians would drown in them; those specific waters would split. I have already enlightened you as to the main idea of the [talmudic] statement [KPCH in a footnote sees this as a reference to the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah and Shemoneh Perakim], and that it is all meant to flee from [the idea that, after Creation, G-d would bring about] the new creation of anything. It says there: R. Yonathan said, G-d placed stipulations on the sea, that it should divide before the Israelites. Thus it says, "And the sea returned, when the morning appeared, l'ay-sa-no [to its strength, or to its stipulated nature]"(Sh'mos 14:27). R. Yiremiyah ben Elazar said: Not only with the sea did the Holy One, blessed be He, place stipulations, but with all that has been created in the six days of Creation. "My hands stretched out the heavens, and all their hosts I commanded" (Yishayahu 45:12): I commanded the sea that it will divide, the fire that it should not harm Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, and the lions that they should not harm Daniel, and the fish that it should spit out Jonah." The same is to be applied to all the other miracles. The surprising solution to this problem is really quite simple. I noticed that in Moreh 1:70 (p. 106 in the classic version, line 2), Pines translates a certain phrase as "strange but true."But both Ibn Tibbon and Schwartz translate it, "ha-inyanim ha-mufla-os ha-n'chonos, ("matters wondrous but true/correct"). Hmmm. One Arabic scholar translates a word as "strange," while others translate it as "wondrous." I began to sense how the same word could be used both ways, and I suspected it might also be the same word as in our passage in 2:29. Without mentioning my problem about the Rambam's self-contradiction (to keep the issue unbiased), I asked R. Yakov Wincelberg, translator of Avraham ben HaRambam's Sefer HaMaspik from Arabic to English, what the actual Arabic word there is, and if it's the same word in our passage in 2:29. Here is his reply: In both cases, the word griva is used. It doesn't mean specifically "weird," but something that stands out. It could be: extraordinary, wondrous, amazing, rare, peculiar, uncommon, obscure, etc. It even is used for emigrating from one's country, as one is separating from the people. In other words, the word means "outstanding." So, true, one tends to understand the translation "zar" or "strange" to be meant in the sense of "weird," or "foreign," indicating that in the Moreh the Rambam considered the "front-loaded" miracle an idea to be shunned--contra the Gemora, his Avos commentary, and his Shemoneh Perakim. But the simpler truth is that the Rambam consistently endorsed this view, and considered it to be an outstanding one. One need only realize that Ibn Tibbon titles his dictionary of unfamiliar philosophical terms,appended to his Moreh Nevuchim translation, "Payrush Me'Hamillot Zarot," The word Zar indicates something unfamiliar, but not necessarily "strange" in the sense of "weird." And it can also mean something that is wondrous and true. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 17:01:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 20:01:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher Message-ID: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little farfetched 1) knot 2) connection 3) conspiracy -- Eli Turkel >>>> The deeper connection is -- connection! All the words formed from this shoresh are words that have "connecting" as their basic meaning. In Edward Horowitz's fascinating and entertaining book, "How the Hebrew Language Grew," he has a chapter on how sounds made in the same part of the mouth sometimes interchange to form words with similar or closely related meanings. One example he gives is the word kesher, and the related word gesher -- a bridge, which connects two places, two sides of a river, two sides of a road and so on. Keshes, a rainbow, is something like a bridge connecting two parts of the sky. Another example of these interconnected words (this one I've also seen in the Hirsch commentary on Chumash) is the word "tsachak" to laugh, to which a number of other words are related in a phonetic way: Change the ches to an ayin and you get "tsa'ak." Both tsachak and tsa'ak involve emitting loud sounds -- sounds of mirth or of alarm or distress. (Ches and ayin are both formed in the back of the throat.) Change the tsadi to a sin and instead of "tsachak" to laugh you get "sachak" to be happy, to rejoice. (Tsadi and sin are both sibilants.) Going back to the word tsa'ak, if you now change the tsadi to a zayin you again get a closely related word, "za'ak." And if you take the word "tsa'ir" (young) and change the tsadi to a zayin you get "za'ir" small. Change the sin of saraf to a tsadi and instead of burning (saraf) you get refining (tsaraf) gold or silver -- which is done through heat. Change the zayin of "zahav" to a tsadi and instead of gold you get "tzahov," the color yellow. Horowitz points out that these kinds of phonetic relationships can also be found in English, Latin and other languages, but nevertheless I find it especially fascinating to trace these connections in Lashon Hakodesh. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 02:42:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 09:42:27 GMT Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen Message-ID: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. > Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? > Who are we saying v'imru amen to? > > And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the > same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end of Birkas Hamazon. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett???s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren???t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/559cf0b42988970b45addst03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 02:09:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 02:09:57 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:18 AM, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: > In various places in dovening, kaddish etc we find the loshon - ..v'imru > amen. .. > What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. > Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? > Who are we saying v'imru amen to? I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish. SE took on the whole paragraph "Oseh Shalom ... ve'imru amen" from the end of Kaddish, and Kaddish took on the three steps backwards from the end of SE (which makes sense for the STz's Kaddish Titkabbal at the end of the repetition, but not so much in all other kaddishim) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 06:30:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 09:30:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <559D2610.8060803@sero.name> On 07/08/2015 05:42 AM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > >> What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. >> Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? >> Who are we saying v'imru amen to? >> >> And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the >> same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). > > The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end of Birkas Hamazon. Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even when there's a zimun. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 08:04:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:04:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> References: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150708150424.GA8908@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 08:01:24PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : In Edward Horowitz's fascinating and entertaining book, "How the Hebrew : Language Grew," he has a chapter on how sounds made in the same part of the : mouth sometimes interchange to form words with similar or closely related : meanings... Also in RSRH's fascinating and entertaining commentary on the Pentateuch and a couple of places in CW and elsewhere. : Another example of these interconnected words (this one I've also seen in : the Hirsch commentary on Chumash)... See https://books.google.com/books?id=eVAAfn6Itb4C (The real one; the google preview skips all of your examples.) Etymological Dictionary of Biblcal Hebrew: Based on the Commentaries of Samson Raphael Hirsch by Matityahu Clark This is a central part of RSRH's exegesis. I once went through much of Bereishis and Shemos documenting which letters RSRH considers related enough to qualify as likely to be part of the same phonetic meta-root. I ended up with the following chart (readable only in fixed-width-font, eg Courier): geroniot velar dental dento-lingual labial h,ch q | s,sh tes | alef k | tz tav | b ayin g | z d | p n ------------- m r --------------------------------- l y ------------------------------------- v Letters in the same column are phonetically related (eg hei and aleg) Vertical lines separate into pairs (eg zayin and dalet, but not dalet and pei nor tzadi and dalet [paired coumns, different rows]). The pairs are lingual/velar (use tongue) vs not. Horizontal lines connect the nasals (mem and nun), the approximants (lamd and reish) and the semivowels (yud and vav). The unvoiced letters are all in the top two rows. Notice how hei-ches and shin/sin-samech fall into parallel positions, and bege"d kefe"t into the same two rows. I stopped my analysis when I had gone dozens of peraqim without needing to change the chart any. Lost interest. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 08:12:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:12:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> Message-ID: <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:09:57AM -0700, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, : but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence : between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish... You might have seen it on-list in Apr or Dec 2006, offered by RPMinden. RSBA offered a different explanation: > Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, Likutei Maharich, RS Schwab, Boruch She'omar all > say that we are whispering to the Malochim - that accompany a person all > the time. [Maybe 'oseh sholom BIMEROMOV' indicates this?] The earliest > source seems to be Mateh Moshe - which some cite. > The OH also brings a nusach - IIRC - Machzor [or Siddur] Roma - that > indeed does not include the 'Ve'imru Omein' at the end of SE. RPM believes it was a post-facto explanation, giving meaning to a pratice that really originated in error. See the subject line at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=T#TO%20WHOM%20ARE%20WE%20WHISPERING%20 and the 3 starting with http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=V#VIMRU%20AMEN in the archive index. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 11:33:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 14:33:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: In Avodah V33n96, RAM referred repeatedly to "Kaddish Yasom" -- I think at least some of his questions might be answered once we understand that (a) what he called "Kaddish Yasom" is actually the Qaddish (Shaleim, but without the "tisqaba[i]l" phrase) said by the SHaTZ at the end of davening, at some point in our history given over to children (eventually/or to *y'somim*) who could not be SHaTZ (see http://www.beureihatefila.com/files/Introduction_to_Mourners_Kaddish.pdf); and that (b) Qaddish is said after the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim or other K'suvim. As for Kiddush L'vana (KL), indeed Minhag Ashk'naz did not include "Aleinu" -- as was noted, the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim at the end of KL (similar to doing so after Shacharis and after [Mincha/]Ma'ariv, and similar to when a *seifer* from K'suvim was read) was followed by Qaddish (in the Roedelheim, those chapters are 121, 150, and 67, not just 67) -- and KL not being a *t'filas tzibbur* does not impact upon the saying of Qaddish (although obviously, a *minyan* is required for any *davar shebiq'dusha*). HTH :). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 02:40:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 02:40:50 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:09:57AM -0700, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > : I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, > : but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence > : between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish... > > You might have seen it on-list in Apr or Dec 2006, offered by RPMinden. > My memory was correct as to the attribution, though I garbled the content a bit. It's on page 48 of the Birnbaum siddur, in the notes to the Kaddish deRabbanan after Korbanot: "/Oseh Shalom/, which repeats in Hebrew the thought expressed in the preceding Aramaic paragraph, seems to have been added from the meditation recited at the end of the /Shemoneh Esreh/. The same sentence is also added at the end of the grace recited after meals. The three steps backwards, which formed the respectful manner of retiring from a superior, were likewise transferred from the concluding sentence of the /Shemoneh Esreh/. On the other hand, the phrase "and say Amen", added at the end of the silent meditation after the /Shemoneh Esreh/, must have been borrowed from the Kaddish which is always recited in the hearing of no fewer than ten men." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 08:53:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:53:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reciting a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time Message-ID: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> http://tinyurl.com/o6rxcdf according to those that say you do NOT recite a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time (ie bar mitzvah), why is it different than all the places where we DO recite a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah not done in a long time? (ie lulav, shofar, megila, etc) Thanks, mc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 13:27:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 20:27:55 GMT Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen Message-ID: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> I wrote: > The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end > of Birkas Hamazon. R' Zev Sero responded: > Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, > with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively > recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even > when there's a zimun. But we've *always* benched as individuals when there *isn't* a zimun. But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that originally, Oseh Shalom was part of benching only when a zimun was present, and then for some reason came to be said even by individuals. If that is indeed what happened, I can't help but speculate that there was an even earlier time, when benching with a zimun would include Oseh Shalom at that point, but benching with a *minyan* would include Kaddish at that point! Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55a02add2581a2add0f3dst01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 16:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <55A05668.1080404@sero.name> On 07/10/2015 04:27 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: >> >Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, >> >with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively >> >recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even >> >when there's a zimun. > But we've*always* benched as individuals when there*isn't* a zimun. Benching is designed for a zimun. It's normal to eat in a group. But even when there were only two eating, or when a family ate together, I think the usual thing was for one person to bench and the other person (or the wife and children) to listen and say amen. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 08:42:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush L'vana (was "Kaddish Yasom") Message-ID: In Avodah v33n97, I wrote: > As for Kiddush L'vana (KL), indeed Minhag Ashk'naz did not include "Aleinu" -- as was noted, the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim at the end of KL...was followed by Qaddish...-- and KL not being a *t'filas tzibbur* does not impact upon the saying of Qaddish.... < Just wanted to add that (a) For the record, I don't recall Qaddish being said at the end of KL at KAJ/"Breuer's" (and the MMA Siddur Tefilas Yeshurun instructs not to say either "Aleinu" or Qaddish at the end of Bircas haL'vana), even when there was evidently more than a quorum of men (gathered to be *m'qabeil p'nei haShchina b'rov-am*) on the front steps or sidewalk of the Shul -- whether or not Qaddish should be said (and what the precise parameters are) in that circumstance (not a *t'filas tzibbur*; not in a *maqom t'fila*) was not central to the overall points I was trying to make; and (b) for consistency, it's QL, not KL :). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 11:30:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:30:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pinchas Message-ID: > > > BTW, my grandfather a"h was named Pinechas after this week's sedra, > his bar mitzvah parashah. When it was time to name my oldest, I checked > with my uncle how his name appeared on their kesuvah, as their mesader > qiddushin was a key rav in my grandfather's life. (R/Dr Mirsky zt"l met > two teenage boys coming off the boat and took them under his wing. My > grandfather and great-uncle then earned enough to bribe the rest of the > family's way out of Litta before the Nazis came to power.) > > Anyway, it seems R/Dr Mirsky held my grandfather's name was Pinechas, > pei-yud-nun-ches-samekh, as it is spelled in the chumash (ignoring the > size of the yud as usually written in the beginning of the parashah). > And thus the sheva is na, Pinechas - not Pinchas. > > If you want to make a derashah out of a Mitzri name, it's Pi Nachas, > not Pen Chas. > > Reason for this tangent... I would have expected "Gushies" to get the > sheva in the parashah name right. After all, they have the patach under > the reish in Parashat. > > Way behind in reading. However, Aharon Ben Asher, in Dikduke Hate'amim, specifically lists the sheva in Pinchas (with a yud) as being a sheva nach, so the "Gushies" have on whom to rely.. Meir Shinnar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 11:39:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:39:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: > On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:20:08PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: > : On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. > > : Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a > : moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is > : the purpose to make things even worse? > > As I quoted from RAK, because they classically were not considered > chuqim. Until our contemporaries took the issue from sexual morality > to sexual ethics, these truths were considered self-evident. It's the > choqification of dinei arayos that's inauthentic. > > In any case, since one doesn't pasqen from taamei hamitzvos, the din > is the same either way. Nothhing in such exploration can "make things > even worse". > > In Shmona prakim, the rambam seems to take the opposite view - trying to reconcile the view that having a desire to sin is a sign of moral failing, and that the overcoming of desire is a sign o f greatness - he argues that to desire to sin is problematic in hamefursamot - but NOT in those forbidden only for religious reasons - and he specifically applies that to arayot - and needs to apply it to arayot, because the sugyot that deal with kol hagadol mechavero yitzro gadol mimenu - specifically apply to arayot. One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT self evident or even mefursamot Meir Shinnar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 11:10:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 20:10:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out Message-ID: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> In SA OH 272:1 the Mechabeir writes that one shouldn't use wine left out for kiddush (or any type of mitzvah adds the Aruch HaShulchan). The problem isn't gi'loi'im but the pasuk in Malachi 1:8 which teaches us not to use Grade B products for mitzvot. The assumption is that wine left out goes bad (or gets worse) and therefore it can't be used for qiddush. My question is what does one do if you thinking allowing wine to breath for hours improves the taste? That's been my experience for years. If I open a bottle Friday evening, the wine definitely tastes better Saturday morning. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 12:14:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 15:14:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> On 07/13/2015 02:10 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > In SA OH 272:1 the Mechabeir writes that one shouldn't use wine left out for kiddush (or any type of mitzvah adds the Aruch HaShulchan). The problem isn't gi'loi'im but the pasuk in Malachi 1:8 which teaches us not to use Grade B products for mitzvot. The assumption is that wine left out goes bad (or gets worse) and therefore it can't be used for qiddush. > > My question is what does one do if you thinking allowing wine to breath for hours improves the taste? That's been my experience for years. If I open a bottle Friday evening, the wine definitely tastes better Saturday morning. It depends what kind of wine. Some wines definitely improve with a few hours' breathing. The criterion is "hakriveihu no lefechasecho"; *would* you serve this to an honoured guest who is used to drinking quality wine? If it's a wine that needs the time to aerate then you certainly would, and in fact you wouldn't think of serving it to him *without* that time. OTOH this would preclude making kiddush at all on Manishewitz, no matter how "fresh" it is. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 20:18:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 05:18:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> Message-ID: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? Did they not know that allowing wine to breath improves the taste, at least for a decent red wine (which is the type of wine they think we should be drinking)? Ben On 7/13/2015 9:14 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > It depends what kind of wine. Some wines definitely improve with a > few hours' breathing. The criterion is "hakriveihu no lefechasecho"; > *would* you serve this to an honoured guest who is used to drinking > quality wine? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 19:34:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 22:34:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20150714023419.GA18963@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 05:18:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and : others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? Because Shapiro's wine is "So thick you could cut it with a knife" as that billboard we'd pass driving to Boro Park used to advertise. Whereas you're talkng about a finer wine as vitners and frenchmen measure. Different products with totally different definitions of what is "good". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 21:48:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:48:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55A4949B.8090308@sero.name> On 07/13/2015 11:18 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and > others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? > Did they not know that allowing wine to breath improves the taste, at > least for a decent red wine (which is the type of wine they think we > should be drinking)? First of all, most good wines shouldn't breathe for very long. Second, their wine was generally pretty awful by our standards; bad enough that it needed watering to make it palatable. They used wild yeast, they had no pasteurization, and it was all they could do to stop it all turning into vinegar. I wonder how much damage could exposure possibly do to wine that bad, but I seriously doubt it could improve it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 14:11:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 17:11:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Timely Notes for the Summer Message-ID: <20150714211025.9203118356A@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from an article by Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer, ZT"L, that appeared in the Mitteilungen, Vol. 2, June 1941 Timely Notes for the Summer Can the heat of summer be termed ?oppressive?? That is surely something that is individual. If we think of the terribly oppressive times a large number of our brethren are going through, we will gladly tolerate the discomforts of summer and rather bless our good fortune to be spared such pain. Many of our newly immigrated brothers and sisters are struggling with heavy economic burdens, and only the few can afford the much desired relaxing rest. We are pleased for those who can afford a vacation and expect that they will carefully select, as far as the trustworthiness of its kashrus, the place where they plan to spend their vacation. Obviously, they will not want to take a vacation from the ?yoke of the Law.? They want to return home, hale and hearty, and not with a feeling of unease for having risked their moral values in exchange for physical wellbeing. The heat of summer calls for changes in clothing and appearance. The conscientious Jew will carefully keep to certain limits, which he will not overstep. Our Divine Law cautions us to have a sense of shame, and that applies to summer as well. The Jewish custom ?according to the Talmud ?requires men and boys to cover their heads outdoors. God gave the first garment to man when he forfeited his special standing by disregarding the Will of God.Modest covering of his body is to be a steady reminder of the higher calling of man. Jewish men were given the adornment of tzitzis to admonish them to wear their clothes as proper Jews. Even in the summer heat, our requirements for covering can easily be heeded with lighter clothing. Comfort will not cause us to shirk our duty. A soldier?s helmet is uncomfortably heavy, but he wears it because it is required; God?s requirement should not be heeded? As for the Jewish woman, Jewish law requires her to cover her hair. The true Jewish woman will proudly do so, for it is a sign of her willingness to adhere to God?s Will as the guide in her life. A woman unworthy of this sign will have it removed forcibly by the priest (Bemidbar 5:18). Covering one?s hair is merely a sign if a woman does not conduct herself otherwise in the properly Jewish manner. Similarly, there are Jewish men who bear the Milah-sign on their bodies but sully their bodies in other ways. Not covering one?s hair is probably ? we are sorry to say ? a matter of ignorance, and perhaps such a Jewish woman was not brought up to understand the importance of covering her hair. Many women may carefully observe their Jewish duties in other areas, and we would so much like to adorn them with this special crown also. For the fact remains: covering of the hair for the Jewish woman is a must. The proud Jewish woman will conduct herself Jewishly in her clothing and in covering her hair. The word Tznius is a Jewish concept that is hard to translate exactly. It does not only denote a ?quietly humble way of living? (Michah 6:8), but everything else that our people has so valued and esteemed in their Jewish women at all times. ?quietly humble way of living? (Michah 6:8), but everything else that our people has so valued and esteemed in their Jewish women at all times. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 02:01:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 05:01:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Star-K on the Heter Mechira Message-ID: <20150715090047.2F7EB1824C9@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-shmitta-5775.htm Who Owns The Land? There is a difference of opinion among the poskim as to whether produce grown on land owned by a non-Jew living in the Land of Israel is considered produce of sheviis. The custom in Yerushalayim is not to consider it produce of sheviis, while the custom in Bnei Brak is to consider it produce of sheviis. Selling The Land: The Heter Mechira was formulated and instituted by many very prominent rabbanim (including the Gadol Hador, Harav Yitzchok Elchanan Spector) in the year 1887. There was a great deal of controversy among other prominent rabbanim surrounding the heter, the foremost of whom was the Netziv (Harav Naftoli Zvi Yehuda Berlin) of Volozin. Most of the controversy centered around the problem regarding the Torah prohibition of selling any part of the Land of Israel to non-Jews. Those who proposed the heter claimed that the situation in the Land of Israel was so precarious that not working the land for an entire year would put the entire Jewish settlement in danger, thus warranting this drastic measure. Others claimed that the prohibition of selling the land was worse than the prohibition of working the land. Since then, every Shmitta there have been rabbanim who have sold the land. Harav Avraham Yitzchok Kook institutionalized the sale (although he, too, agreed it was to be done only under grave duress). Since it's inception, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel has sold the land every Shmitta. However, there are presently many rabbanim who question whether the current situation in Israel warrants this type of sale. Furthermore, there is another more serious problem the consumer faces. The produce that is sold in the regular stores during the year of Shmitta predominantly comes from non-religious kibbutzim and moshavim, who would never agree to sell their land. This is compounded by the fact that the non-religious kibbutzim do not observe those prohibitions which Harav Kook instituted, and Harav Kook never permitted their current practices. Certainly, a tourist who is not knowledgeable concerning the dinim of Shmitta should buy produce only from stores that do not rely upon the heter mechira. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 03:18:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 06:18:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. Whether MZ is well known or not aside, even "kemaaseh Eretz Mitzrayim" (at least the male half of it) is described in the gemara as pretty well known -- it's on Ulla's list of 3 dinim of the 30 mitzvos Benei Noach (which rishonim map to subcategories of the usual 7) that Benei Noach generally observe -- "she'in kosevin kesuvah lezekharim". In any case, I will leave the Rambam as a tzarikh iyun that only affects the lives of those who agree with him that understanding theology and/or metaphysics is the perfection we strive for in life, above perfection of virtue. (Moreh, conclusion, worthy of its own thread.) For that matter, most of us also diagree with the Rambam on whether a person is judged by the level reached or by the distance covered. Without agreeing on either of those two points, it's likely one wouldn't agree with the Rambam's pesaq here. His view of the role of of bringing one's desire in line with a mitzvah will necessarily come from a different place. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 03:32:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 06:32:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Herzl In-Reply-To: <17e71f.7a1031b7.42d6e65d@aol.com> References: <17e71f.7a1031b7.42d6e65d@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150715103208.GD4654@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 06:25:33PM -0400, RnTK wrote on Areivim: : My comment was facetious -- a little dig at those MO who apparently do : believe that Herzl, Golda Meir and Ben Gurion were gedolim. R' AE Kaplan wrote very highly of Theodore Herzl. RAEK predeceased the accompilshments of the other two. To quote RYGB's translation (from BeIqvos haYir'ah pg 85): He [Herzl] did not teach us Torah... because he was never taught Torah... He taught us, rather, to say two words [four words in English] on occasions that until he came we had neither dared nor been able to utter: "I am a Jew [Ivri]!" We were always able to recite these words in the Beis Medrash next to our shtenders, we were even capable of reading and writing them... We could declare ourselves a nation in any place we wanted, except in that one place where the nations of the world were... to be found - in the international political arena. There we were seen as wandering sheep, like one Telzer (Yehuda Leib Gordon [22]) once put it: "Not a nation, not a congregation, rather a flock." Not like sheep that are petted and fed, but like those that are shorn or slaughtered. When a European ruler asked a Jew: "Who are you?" Would he respond simply: "I am a Jew" - without any qualifications or explanations? He would answer: I am a Jew - but also German, also French, also English, etc. Along came Herzl, the first from among us to reach that international political arena that serves as a world court, and responded, openly, freely, effortlessly and guilelessly: "I am a Jew." Moreover: "I was stolen from the land of the Jews [Eretz HaIvrim], and here I have done nothing, for they placed me in the pit" [Bereishis 40:15]. The Jewish nation is a nation unto itself, like all other nations, indeed, it is special, and it possesses a unique life force that sustains it... Do you not sense the hidden workings of divine providence? I know that just as the rejuvenation of Jewish national spirit had to come, so will finally come, in the unseen future, the rejuvenation of our Torah spirit... We do not see the paths, we do not see the footsteps, but I know... that I must strive toward this. And G-d who returns to Tziyon [Zion] will return us also to Torah MiTziyon... [23] [22] The most prominent Hebrew poet of the nineteenth century and a notorious Maskil, Gordon was generally known by his acronym, YaLaG, that, in a play on words, would be pronounced by Orthodox Jews as "yil'ag," the Hebrew word for "scoffer." [23] Besides his essays on Hashkafa, Reb Avraham Elya also left many "Reshimos," short notes on topics in Mussar, Machashava, and Avodas Hashem, some of which are beautiful vignettes of life lived in a Torah true and Mussar suffused way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 02:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 05:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Secular Studies: Are They for Everyone? Message-ID: <20150715092755.A05BB1824E7@nexus.stevens.edu> From the article by Rabbi Mordechai Willig at http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/%2FTU1_Willig.pdf Are secular studies permissible for everyone when they are necessary to provide for a livelihood? The answer is: for almost everyone. To summarize, then, for purpose of parnasah, secular studies are allowed for almost everyone. If it is not for parnasah, it is permissible, and sometimes even a mitzvah to learn various disciplines, providing that such study is considered of secondary importance, both in terms of time and value for, above all, Torah must always be the Ekir. Please see the above URL for the entire article. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 07:56:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:56:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Confronting sexual abuse in the Jewish community Message-ID: <> Can you give a place in shas or SA where the punishment of a crime accounts for the pain to the family If someone deserves the death penalty (there is no jail in halacha) as far as I know the bet din does not take into account that the family who are innocent will also be punished. If someone is sent to "ir miklat" the yeshiva goes with him, we don't remove the punishment because it affects the whole community -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:33:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian Message-ID: During a recent discussion with a friend the following two questions came up and I am curious what the fellows of Avodah think. 1) Can one count someone who denies the historicity of *matan torah* and *yetzias mitzrayim* but is other completely *shomer torah u-mitzvos* for a *minyan*? There is an halakhic category of *mumar l?hachis* who cannot count for a *minyan* according to many *poskim*. But that is on the assumption that they are violating *halakhah*. If they are not violating halakhah, can they be counted in a *minyan*? 2) Does one fulfill their shofer blowing from hearing the shofar be blown by someone denies the historicity of *matan torah* and *yetzias mitzrayim*? We assume that *mitzvos tzerichos kavvanah*. So this individual intends to fulfill the mitzvah of blowing the shofar on Rosh ha-Shanah. However, his conception of the nature of *mitzvos* and commandedness is extremely untraditional. Personally, I am inclined to include this individual in a minyan and assume that one fulfills the mitzvah of shofar with his blowing. But my conception of halakha flows from R. Dr. Walter Wurzburger?s *zy?a* belief that halakhah is a floor and not a ceiling. In other words, we do not make the bar for basic fulfillment of halakhah obligations higher if one could avoid it. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:32:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:32:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> References: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 6:18 AM Micha Berger wrote: > Lo zakhisi lehavin: > It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss > aren't mefursamot. > > Whether MZ is well known or not aside, even "kemaaseh Eretz Mitzrayim"... > In any case, I will leave the Rambam as a tzarikh iyun that only affects > the lives of those who agree with him that understanding theology and/or > metaphysics is the perfection we strive for in life, above perfection > of virtue. (Moreh, conclusion, worthy of its own thread.) ... You are assuming the shmona prakim see relevant only to those who fully accept Rambam's philosophy -- and that is a very unique position. I think shmona prakim is studied by those who would never open the moreh Rambam argues that a lust to steal or murder is a character flaw -- the should be overcome -- but a lust for hazir or arayot is not a character flaw -- although it too should be overcome. Why that is dependent on his notions of the ultimate good, effort versus achievement, or mitzvot bne noach I don't see -- nor do I think most others me that connection.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:55:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:55:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150715155517.GC31352@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 03:32:08PM +0000, Meir Shinnar wrote: : You are assuming the shmona prakim see relevant only to those who fully : accept Rambam's philosophy -- and that is a very unique position... Nah, I'm just surmising that the two may be linked. If your notion of redemption revolves around ideas and the thirst for knowledge, then developing something like like-vs-dislike is a different topic than if your notion of personal redemption is "sheyehei adir cheftzeinu leheitiv im zulaseinu... bedemus haBorei, keveyakhol." (Bonus points for the first person to identify the reference. ) So not that 8 Peraqim are only relevent to followers of the Rambam's point, just that this particular point, and perhaps a couple to a few others, may be of limited utility to the rest of us. (8 Peraqim, BTW, is one of my more heavily used resources when teaching for The Mussar Institute.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 12:49:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:49:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55A6B95E.6090302@starways.net> On 7/15/2015 10:33 AM, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: > 1)Can one count someone who denies the historicity of /matan > torah/ and /yetzias mitzrayim/ but is other completely /shomer > torah u-mitzvos/ for a /minyan/? I think there's a difference between someone who denies Matan Torah and someone who expresses doubts. The former, I'd treat no differently than someone who denies God, because for the purposes of Judaism, they're not separable. We asked our mesader kiddushin (years ago) what we should do about those family members who didn't believe in God. He said that if they'd openly denied God's existence, we could not give them sheva brachot, because we couldn't be yotzei on a bracha by someone who doesn't believe in God. He didn't say anything at all about observance. A lot of people focus on Rambam's ikkarim, and whether or not we're bound by them, but the concept of being kofer ba-ikkar predates Rambam by centuries. The existence of God and the historical fact of Matan Torah are, by any reasonable assessment, the most basic ikkarim of Judaism. Absent either of these, what's left isn't Judaism. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 19:47:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:47:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150716024705.GE13610@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:33:13AM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : 1) Can one count someone who denies the historicity of *matan torah* : and *yetzias mitzrayim* but is other completely *shomer torah u-mitzvos* : for a *minyan*? : : There is an halakhic category of *mumar l'hachis* who cannot count for a : *minyan* according to many *poskim*. But that is on the assumption that : they are violating *halakhah*. If they are not violating halakhah, can they : be counted in a *minyan*? I don't know if we hold like the Rambam, but Hil' Teshuvah ch. 3 is the only discussion of the categories of heresy I know of. A min is an atheist or polytheist, a trinitarian, etc... (3:7) An apiqoreis, the category in the title, is defined with a list of theological errors. It's someone who, like Epicurus, denies that Hashem runs the world. A Deist, someone who denies prophecy, or that He doesn't know man's actions. (3:8) Leshitaso, someone who doesn't believe in the historicity of Torah miSinai would be a kofer baTorah. (ibid) A mumar is a consistent sinner (ledavar achas, lekhol haTorah kulah), not a heretic. {3.9) Then the machti'ei rabbim (10), poreish midarkei hatzibur (11), moserim (12), and one who terrorizes the community -- not lehsim shamayim (13). That list -- 3 kinds of heretic and 5 kinds of sinners -- lose their olam haba, if they die without teshuvah (3:14). And then he says there are also smaller ones that still carry a similar price. Anyway, R' Aharon Soloveitchik held that "nebich an apiqoreis" (not using the term in the Rambam's technical sense) can be counted for a minyan. As long as his beliefs include those ideas that make tefillah meaningful. So a min couldn't, nor an apiqoreis who believes G-d doesn't know every little thing going on down here. (This was a common idea among Artistotilian, although obviosuly not among ours. Since facts change with time, and the Creator does not, how could the Creator know such facts? Would that mean His knowledge changes?) But a tinoq shenishba (by which RAL intentionally includes Jews not raised O) who doesn't believe in Sinai, but does believe that there is One G-d Who Listens to prayer and is Mashgiach, should be countable. Not because their heresy makes them heretics and thus michutz lamachaneh. But because they are incapable of prayer. RAS didn't discuss the person who isn't a tinoq shenishba, but also not a rebal. Someone who grew up in a Torah setting, but in his studies reached the wrong conclusion. The Tashbetz and the Radbaz (eearly 16th cent CE, not the Ridbaz who wrote on the Y-mi) famously hold that such people are not heetics even if they believe heresy. (As least on the list list it's famous, anyeay.) I just can't assume RAS agrees without proof. RAL also doesn't discuss a Deist who believes G-d Hears prayers, but won't act any differently. Can he make a brikhas hoda'ah, but not a baqashah? Since prayer is not al menas leqabel peras, do we even make baqashos for the sake of gettin a "yes", or just to have a moment with Him talking about what is bothering you? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 16 07:01:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:01:37 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Confronting sexual abuse in the Jewish community Message-ID: <20150716.100137.31633.0@webmail13.vgs.untd.com> I wrote on Areivim: > Of course it is important to protect future victims, but that is > not the only consideration here. What about the fallout to the > family of the victim, to the family of the perpetrator, and to > the community as a whole? (For those who have not been following on Areivim: Personally, I am all in favor of protecting the victims, but I know that my opinions might be heavily influenced by the society in which I live. My suggestion is that our chachamim are the only ones qualified to decide on any particular case, whether it might be better to whitewash an incident, so that the family and/or community are not hurt by the publicity.) R' Eli Turkel responded here on Avodah: > Can you give a place in shas or SA where the punishment of a > crime accounts for the pain to the family > If someone deserves the death penalty (there is no jail in > halacha) as far as I know the bet din does not take into > account that the family who are innocent will also be > punished. > If someone is sent to "ir miklat" the yeshiva goes with him, > we don't remove the punishment because it affects the whole > community These are excellent points. But then I must ask: Haven't there been times and situations when legitimate gedolim have paskened to hush things up because of other considerations? Would someone say that all such cases come from gedolim whose outlook is NOT Torah-based? I wish I could cite specific examples for discussion. Unfortunately, my knowledge of such things is far too limited. But surely this attitude must have come from somewhere, and did not materialize from nothingness. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett???s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren???t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55a7b984d1f883984538est04vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 18 13:49:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 22:49:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on Exercise Message-ID: <55AABBF3.2070100@zahav.net.il> Rav Kook's opinion about exercise and sport had been brought up here before. I quoted him as saying that physical activity helps the tzaddikim in their avodah. In the class I go to on Orot, we discussed the following piece by R Kook, which goes way further than that. Keep in mind that this was written before there was an IDF, so he isn't talking about any sort of physical protection. Orot, Orot Hatechiya, 34: Exercise, (which young Israel is getting involved in, in Eretz Yisrael, to strengthen their bodies in order to be vigorous for the nation), improves the spiritual strength of the greatest tzaddikim, those who involve themselves in "the unification of God's names" (my translation of a phrase which I admit I don't get), and increases the transmission of God's light in the world, because there is no revelation at all of light without all components being present. Turns out that (according to Rav Kook) not only does Talmud Torah increase the merits to the army/state/people, but just having people trying to be healthy, active, in shape, improves Talmud Torah, as long as both sides are doing this for the nation. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 18 17:09:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 03:09:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tefach Thick Soft Spongy Matza Message-ID: Many mistakenly think that we now have an accepted Halachic tradition, recorded in the Shulchan Aruch [460:5] to no longer bake Tefach thick Matza [10 - 12 cm] as in Talmudic times. This is untrue. The ShAruch records that Tefach thick Matza must not be Pesach. There is no problem whatsoever to produce such Matza Pesach and eat them during Pesach. The reason for this is quite simple; if one makes Chamets during Pesach, no matter that it was unintentional, one has transgressed the very serious violation of having Chamets - Bal YeRaEh and Bal YeMaTzeh. When making Tefach thick Matza the risk of inadvertently making Chamets because some dough in the Matza will remain unbaked, is [became] intolerable. However, baking the same thickness Matza before Pesach poses no concern. If it is Chamets, as can be discerned by tearing the Matza and checking for doughy stringy threads, then either eat it before Pesach or get rid of it. Whatever is fully baked however, is fine for Pesach. Compare the Mechabers expression, Seif 4 and 5, not to make images on the Matza; and not to make thick Matza - it is not done - ??? ?????; to his expression Seif 6, not to make dough filled with meat and veg - one ought not be lenient - ??? ????. One ought not be lenient - ??? ???? sounds more strict, as is supported by the MBerurah [18] suggesting that it is prohibited even after the fact, - whereas it is not done - ??? ????? implies it should not be done but after the fact, if it not Chamets it is Kosher and may be eaten during Pesach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 17 07:19:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 10:19:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Guten Chodesh (Though sad, still hope...) Message-ID: <0F8B8D71-82A7-4DB7-AFF4-740FDDA46D37@cox.net> The gematria for ?Rosh Chodesh" is 813. (reish:200, aleph:1, shin:300; ches:8, dalet:4, shin:300 ? Total=813) In the whole of tanach there is only one verse with the gematria of 813 which occurs in B?reishis, Chapter 1, verse 3: ?Vayomer Elohim ohr; vay?hi ohr? ?And God said: Let there be light and there was light.? May our mourning be turned into dancing (Ps.30:12) and may we live to see the light. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 00:55:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 10:55:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: heter mechira In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <> There are many inaccuracies in their statement and much is outdated. "The produce that is sold in the regular stores during the year of Shmitta predominantly comes from non-religious kibbutzim and moshavim, who would never agree to sell their land. " I have no idea what this statement means. They in fact do sell their land. The current situation in Israel is that the chief rabbinate sends people to each of these kibbutzim etc to explain to them what the heter mechira means and what are the other options. No one is forced to participate. "However, there are presently many rabbanim who question whether the current situation in Israel warrants this type of sale" The figures I have heard is that 85% of Israeli produce is exported (mainly to Europe). Without the heter mechira one would have to close down almost the entire agricultural development in Israel. In addition one is forbidden to sell produce with kedushat sheviit to nonJews. That would mean having guards at supermarkets checking that only Jews buy the produce "This is compounded by the fact that the non-religious kibbutzim do not observe those prohibitions which Harav Kook instituted, and Harav Kook never permitted their current practices." The current chief rabbinate tries to enforce whatever Rav Kook instituted. In fact most agricultural workers in Israel regardless of shemita are Arabs. -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 18:33:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:33:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish with mixed seating In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720013343.GC4548@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 03:08:58PM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : Interestingly enough the Gemara in Succos brings a "proof" for separation : of men and women from a non-"Davar She'bekedushah" the funeral in : Zecharyah. The other example is Simchas Beis haSho'eivah. Notice that one is extreme joy, and the other extreme sadness. Neither was tefillah betzibbur. Should the fact that chazal thought it was natural to apply these precedents to tefillah be taken to mean that -- "thanks to my knees for bowing at modim" aside -- Chazal found such extremes of emotion common during davening? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 18:57:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:57:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150720015718.GD4548@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 01:14:59AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : Well, I guess my original post should have had a longer introduction. I : know that Kaddish Tiskabel has a very clear rule, namely that it : follows every Amidah, and the only exception is that it also follows : Selichos. Kaddish D'rabanan always follows group learning (though I've : never figured out exactly what learning counts and what doesn't). Qaddish Tisqabel is said after zelosehon (the Amidah) uVa'us-hon (tachanun or selichos. That the request that they be accepted. : And now I'm trying to figure out the rule for Kaddish Yasom. It SEEMS : to be a sort of "congregational prayer", where "prayer" is something : *other* than the Amidah, but I can't define it any more precisely than : that. For a long time I thought it was connected to Tehillim, but when : I noticed it after the megilos on Yom Tov, someone suggested that it's : not specifically Sefer Tehillim, but *any* part of Kesuvim, not that we : had any idea why Kesuvim would get this distinction over Neviim or Torah. Accordng to R' de Sola Pool's monograph "Kaddish", Qaddish originated as being post-derashah -- the role Qaddish deRabbanan still serves. So perhaps non-concidentally, the format for sermons through the geonic era was to start with a pasuq from one of the sidrei EMa"S (Iyov, Mishlei, Tefillim) and wrap up by applying the resulting an idea to a pasuq from he sedra. ... : I have to admit that a big part of my asking this question is a pet : peeve that I've been nursing, regarding Kiddush Levana in particular. It : seems to me that Kiddush Levana -- the way it is done in just about : every situation I've ever seen -- cannot be called a Tefilas Tzibur in : any sense. It is a group of yechidim who happen to be saying the same : thing, but in a totally disorganized fashion... Perhaps that's it exactly. Like "Shalom Aleikhem", we make a cpoint of socially unifying those yechidim as part of qiddush levanah. Perhaps not in the sense of tefillah betzibbur or tefillas hatzibur, but then, neither is a shiur. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 09:45:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:45:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reciting a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time In-Reply-To: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> References: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> Message-ID: <20150720164528.GA10632@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:53:34AM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : http://tinyurl.com/o6rxcdf : according to those that say you do NOT recite a shehechiyanu when performing : a mitzvah for the first time (ie bar mitzvah), Who are they? All I know of is the Chasam Sofer (OC 55) -- well I guess I also know of the Peri To'ar, his maqor -- who says that the berakhah when putting on tefillin on one's bar mitzvah is supposed to be made with all the rest of the mitzvos in mind. The Radvaz says a ger says shehechiyanu when they emerge from the miqvah. I am less clear when a girl becoming a bas mitzvah would make her shechiyanu. The Ben Ish Chai says the girl should have in mind ol mitzvos when making shehechiyanu on her celebratory dress. Paralleling what we do by eating a new fruit on the 2nd evening of RH. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 09:51:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefach Thick Soft Spongy Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720165119.GB10632@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 03:09:13AM +0300, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Many mistakenly think that we now have an accepted Halachic tradition, : recorded in the Shulchan Aruch [460:5] to no longer bake Tefach thick Matza : [10 - 12 cm] as in Talmudic times. This is untrue... Unless we are holding like the "veyeish la'asos" in the Rama se'if 4. Neither the se'if nor the explanation "ki ein hareqiqin memaharin lehachmitz" make a distinction about when the matzah was made. -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:19:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on Exercise In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720211930.2A235182421@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:53 PM 7/20/2015, R. Ben Waxman wrote: >Orot, Orot Hatechiya, 34: > >Exercise, (which young Israel is getting involved in, in Eretz Yisrael, >to strengthen their bodies in order to be vigorous for the nation), >improves the spiritual strength of the greatest tzaddikim, those who >involve themselves in "the unification of God's names" (my translation >of a phrase which I admit I don't get), and increases the transmission >of God's light in the world, because there is no revelation at all of >light without all components being present. > >Turns out that (according to Rav Kook) not only does Talmud Torah >increase the merits to the army/state/people, but just having people >trying to be healthy, active, in shape, improves Talmud Torah, as long >as both sides are doing this for the nation. See "Exercise, Torah Learning and the Chofetz Chaim" http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/exercise_torah_cc_v2.pdf Reb Yaakov Kamenetsky was an avid swimmer all of his life. I recall when he came to Monroe to spend a Shabbos with his son Avraham. He was in his 80s I believe. Well, he put on his bathing suit, a robe and went to the pool. He then proceeded to jump into the pool and swim laps. This spread like wildfire in the 3 colonies in Monroe. People could not stop talking about it. It eventually got back to Reb Yaakov who quipped, "I wish they are as excited about my learning as they are about my swimming!" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 15:03:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> Re: Micha's questioning kadish yasom(KY) after kidush levana, the Vilna Gaon has a shortened version(doesn't he always?) that starts with the bracha and ends with siman tov. There is no Aleinu, hence no KY. He also holds that "sh'ain l'harbos b'k'dashim shelo l'tzorech, hence,there is only once KY per tefila. After the Yom by shachris and after Aleinu by mincha & maariv. Minhag Ashkenaz is not to say kadish d'rabonan during/after tefila but only after limud agada. The chasidim adopted the custom of saying it from the Seforadim and that's how it entered their ritual. I remember davening once at the Boro Park nusach HaGra k'vosikin minyan way back and was struck by the number of KYs that were said. The gabbai's answer was that it was too difficult to stop the "kadish zogers" from having their way. B"H, at our Flatbush Nusach HaGra k'vosikin minyan (Young Israel of Ave K, East 29th and K) under Rav Aryeh Ralbag guidance, we are have not had to compromise the Nusach HaGra way of davening. Shachris is 45 minutes before HaNetz every shabos and YT. -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com http://www.schnurassociates.com/joels-corner/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 15:46:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:46:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> References: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> Message-ID: <20150720224608.GB21161@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 06:03:46PM -0400, Joel Schnur via Avodah wrote: : I remember davening once at the Boro Park nusach HaGra k'vosikin : minyan way back and was struck by the number of KYs that were said. : The gabbai's answer was that it was too difficult to stop the : "kadish zogers" from having their way... REMT said something that makes me wonder... He suggested that our (non-Yekke) current practice of every avel saying qaddish is to make it condusive for aveilim to feel they're discharging their duty. Many men first started attending minyan regularly during aveileus and kept on doing so for the rest of their lives. Do you really want to discourage that with "Ah, why bother, I probably wouldn't get a turn this time anyway!"? A similar argument would change the priorities the Gra assumes about making extraneous opportunities for Qaddish. The AhS OC 55:4 gives this explanation for the creation of a 2nd opportunity for Qaddish Yasom at the end of Shacharis. He also writes that the Qadmonim only said 7 qaddeisim a day: Shacharis, after each of Yishtabach, Tachanun and UVa leTzion Minchah, after Ashrei and Tachanuun, and Arvis -- before and after Shemoneh Esrei. He quotes the Roqeiach invoking the pasuq "sheva bayom haleltikha" to explain that 7 was an intentional, significant, number. The AhS continues that three more were added when Aleinu was appended to the end of each tefillah. For the sake of yesomim who didn't get the amud. And significance was found for that, by reading Tzadi"q as an acronym, and each letter a gematria. Each day a tzadiq would say 90 times amein, (tzadi) 4 qedushos, (dalet) 10 qadeihim, and (yud) 100 berakhos (quf). (Citing the NMA.) Then he discusses leining adding one. "Veyoseir ein maqom laqadeishim", and still we added after Shir shel Yom because there were more yesomim, but more than that -- the AhS does not permit. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot RMB responded: Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. ============= My two cents: Adultery (eishis ish) is technically taking from another man that which belongs exclusively to him. So that itself puts it within the category of issurim that are mefursamos. The Rambam (MN 2:49) describes all sexuality as something that even when natural, should be limited. Homosexuality and bestiality, however, he describes as obvious deviations from the natural order that should be abhorred. I think that would place these two activities, as well, in the mefursamos category. The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely forbidden. Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: MN 3:49 As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure alone be eschewed. All illicit unions with females have one thing in common: namely, that in the majority of cases these females are constantly in the company of the male in his house, and that they are easy of access for him, and can be easily controlled by him - there being no difficulty in making them come into his presence; and no judge could blame the male I for their being with him. Consequently if the status of the women with whom union is illicit were that of any unmarried woman, I mean to say that if it were possible to marry them and that the prohibition with regard to them were only due to their not being the man's wives, most people would have constantly succumbed and fornicated with them. However, as it is absolutely forbidden to have intercourse with them, the strongest deterrents making us avoid this - I mean by this a sentence of death by order of a court of law and the threat of being cut off--so that there is no way to have intercourse with these women, men are safe from seeking to approach them and their thoughts are turned away from them. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot RMB responded: > Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate > family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. My two cents: Adultery (eishis ish) should be categorized under issurim mefursomos simply on the basis that it involves taking lves taking liberties with another man's wife, an intimacy that belongs to the husband. A form of theft! So that itself puts it within the category of issurim that are mefursamos. The Rambam (MN 2:49) describes all sexuality as something that even when natural, should be limited. Homosexuality and bestiality, however, he describes as obvious deviations from the natural order that should be abhorred. I think that would place these two activities, as well, in the mefursamos category. The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely forbidden. Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: MN 3:49 As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure alone be eschewed. All illicit unions with females have one thing in common: namely, that in the majority of cases these females are constantly in the company of the male in his house, and that they are easy of access for him, and can be easily controlled by him - there being no difficulty in making them come into his presence; and no judge could blame the male I for their being with him. Consequently if the status of the women with whom union is illicit were that of any unmarried woman, I mean to say that if it were possible to marry them and that the prohibition with regard to them were only due to their not being the man's wives, most people would have constantly succumbed and fornicated with them. However, as it is absolutely forbidden to have intercourse with them, the strongest deterrents making us avoid this - I mean by this a sentence of death by order of a court of law and the threat of being cut off--so that there is no way to have intercourse with these women, men are safe from seeking to approach them and their thoughts are turned away from them. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 16:02:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:02:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: (Sorry for approving both versions of that post! It was a quick typo in what was until-then going so smoothly! -micha) On 2015-07-20 5:34 pm, RZ Lampel wrote: > RMB responded: "Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest > within > the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot." > Adultery (eishis ish) is technically taking from another man that > which > belongs exclusively to him. So that itself puts it within the > category of > issurim that are mefursamos. > The Rambam (MN 2:49) ... Yes. But our problem is with Shemoneh Peraqim, where the Rambam distinguishes between mitzvos mefusamot, for which a person should develop a desire that is in line with the mitzvah (or a distaste in line with the issur), and other mitzvos where one should simply refrain out of submission to ol mitzvos. And among his mitzvos which are NOT mefursamos are arayos. R/Dr Meir Shinnar writes: > he specifically applies that > to > arayot - and needs to apply it to arayot, because the sugyot that > deal with > kol hagadol mechavero yitzro gadol mimenu - specifically apply to > arayot. > One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all > dine > arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not > sure > on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are > NOT > self evident or even mefursamot So regardless of how he categorizes them in the Moreh, the chiluq the Rambam makes in 8P requires our considering these issurim to not be self-evident. (Which I still don't get.) -micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 20:09:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 23:09:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah REMT said something that makes me wonder... He suggested that our (non-Yekke) current practice of every avel saying qaddish is to make it condusive for aveilim to feel they're discharging their duty. Micha Berger >>>> You are mainly talking about adults saying kaddish, but I remember one tragic year when there were seven yesomim under bar mitzva age saying kaddish, from three different families. Two families had lost their mothers, one family their father. Who was going to tell these children, who came to shul faithfully every day, sometimes getting to school late or skipping outings with their friends, "You can't say kaddish for your Ima or your Abba today, someone else has kadima"? Correct me if I am mistaken but my impression is that kaddish yasom is really mainly for genuine yesomim, i.e., those who lose their parents while they are still children. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 23:56:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:56:00 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Dr Shapiro's book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I found the most disturbing part of Dr Shapiro's book the last chapter. This is a halachid discussion of lying. My conclusion from this is that lying is perfectly permissible if there is a good reason. Basically the ends justifies the means. We are not talking about white lies as praising the bride for her beauty. In particular it is permissible to quote a psak from a gadol even though he never said it as long as you are sure that it is correct and he probably would have said it. There is no problem with making up stories about a gadol as long as the intention is to either glorify the gadol or else show why some idea is important. He claims that there are groups that actively make up stories about CI. The Chatam Sofer says that in order to prevent sins one can make the problem appear to be more serious than it really is such as turning a rabbinic prohibition into a biblical one. The problem with false attribution (besides the seemingly moral one) is that the result one cannot believe anything that is not written by the gadol himself. One never knows if the citation of the gadol was deliberately changed, However as seen in the rest of the book even the written words of the author are not always authoritative as in many cases they are tampered with to protect some "higher interest". Even the SA has been tampered with for this purpose. One can lie in order to avoid embarrassment to oneself. R Papa seems to have issued an incorrect halacha to avoid shame. A poor man can make believe he is blind or crippled in order to get more charity. One can claim that the monet is going for a poor bride when in fact it will be used for some other charity. Finally there is the heter of mental reservation or reinterpreting ones words made famous by the story of Yaakov "lying" To Isaac that he is Esav. Shapiro gives the example of Clinton making all sorts of "false" statements about Lewinsky and later justified it by saying that his words had another meaning than what people thought. Note this is sometimes permitted even in monetary cases. As stated about one can lie for educational purposes "Noble Lie" of Plato. Rav Dessler defines "truth" as the value that gives a positive result and is independent of observation and evidence. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 19:10:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 21:10:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: > Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: > MN 3:49 > As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are > directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling > disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The > reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against > intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is > natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more > should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure > alone be eschewed. So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 21:55:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:55:23 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9105E0A4-E59B-4E23-ADAA-7FCACD74F424@gmail.com> This is tangentially related only, but may be of interest in the context. I asked Rav Hershel Schachter, Shlita, what to do if someone who acts as a functionary at a Shira Chadasha (partnership) style service wants to do likewise in a mainstream Orthodox Congregation. His answer was, that such a person can be counted towards a Minyan, but no Kibbudim should be afforded to them. We have one here in Melbourne, which isn't like the one in Israel, but the strong word is that one of Rabbi Avi Weiss's Maharatos (Rabba/Rabbis) will be hired to lead that congregation. She was recently interviewed and claimed she was non denominational because she wanted to break down boundaries. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 03:08:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:08:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] thick matza Message-ID: For those interested a thorough discussion on thick matazot see the article of Ari Zivotofsky in Hakirah www.hakirah.org/Vol17Zivotofsky.pdf -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 06:54:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 06:54:49 -- 0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> Message-ID: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> On 7/20/2015 7:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > ... our problem is with Shemoneh Peraqim, where the Rambam distinguishes > between mitzvos mefusamot, for which a person should develop a desire > that is in line with the mitzvah (or a distaste in line with the issur), > and other mitzvos where one should simply refrain out of submission to > ol mitzvos. > And among his mitzvos which are NOT mefursamos are arayos....the chiluq > the Rambam makes in 8P requires our considering these issurim to not > be self-evident. And that's precisely what I addressed in my 3rd paragraph. After citing the Moreh Nevuchim's description of homosexuality and bestiality as obviously deviant practices (i.e. mefursamos), I cited its description of arayos (outside of eishis ish) as being not mefursomos, but issurim Hashem instituted as a preventative, a gedder, against unrestrained licentiousness in a situation (viz. family) where the temptation for it would otherwise be too hard to control. To repeat what I wrote: >> The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and >> commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because >> allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than >> his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would >> lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest >> intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, >> it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound >> to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely >> forbidden." Perhaps the mention of "commanded that it, too, be considered >> abhorrent" causes confusion. This would seem to put incest back into >> the category of mefursomos, along with murder and stealing, etc., about >> which a normal person is expected to harbor revulsion. So Rambam would be >> self-contradicting. But the elephant in the room is that the Torah itself >> commands us to treat eating non-kosher creatures with disgust. So how >> can Chazal tell us the right attitude is "efshi"? Evidently, Chazal and, >> naturally, Rambam, do not consider "efshi" to be at odds with "shekketz >> yih'yu lachem/teshak'tsu."My surmise is that they understand the Torah's >> command to treat with disgust the eating of non-kosher creatures and >> other acts that are not intrinsically objectionable (such as, per Rambam, >> incest, vs. murder, stealing, homosexuality and bestiality), as an imposed >> artificial behavior/attitude for these non-mefusamos issurim. Regarding >> your definition of issurim mefursamim, the Shemoneh Perakim does not >> say a tsaddik should /develop/ a revulsion, but that such revulsion is >> natural in born in all people. The tsaddik retains these feelings and >> does not allow them to be tainted. [Email #2.] On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: >> MN 3:49 >> As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are >> directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling >> disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom... On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and > should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of > Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what > possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 07:36:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:36:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Dr Shapiro's book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AE5907.7010503@optimum.net> RET: << A poor man can make believe he is blind or crippled in order to get more charity. >> How does this fit with Peah 8:9? Which book are we talking about? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 17:48:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 20:48:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> Message-ID: <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> I think one has to be careful, as I find it difficult to reconcile the position of the MN and that of the SP, and think they represent two distinct aspects (?stages) in the rambam Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions I) in hazal -- that continued desire for some forbidden actions is compatible with a high spiritual state -- issue is control of the desire -- NOT its presence II) Aristotelian ethics -- a high spiritual state does not desire for forbidden -- the desire is a sign of a flaw. SP resolves by differentiating between mefursamot -- whose desire is problematic and a flaw -- and religious law -- where desire is not a flaw -- and applies this specifically to arayot -- as examples in Talmud of Rabbanit with desire are of arayot, It is difficult for me to reconcile this position with the MN -- if our proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is " to instil disgust" -- how can desire still remaining not be a flaw???? In the MN, there is a conceptual framework to distinguish homosexuality and bestiality from regular sexuality -- but they are ALL viewed as things that should repulse us -- just some more than others. It is by no means clear that this framework and distinction can be read into the SP, and would think that One would need good evidence .hat it does not include ALL arayot... Meir Shinnar > It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah > attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress > during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan > Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a > marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. > Zvi Lampel > On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and >> should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of >> Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what >> possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? >> On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: >>> Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: >>> MN 3:49 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 08:06:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:06:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Message-ID: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why ? What changed in the afternoon? (especially since some pple fast both the 9th and 10th( Mordechai cohen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 06:18:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:18:26 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150722.091826.10442.1@webmail10.vgs.untd.com> The Moreh Nevuchim was quoted: > As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are > directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling > disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. R"n Lisa Liel wrote what I had wanted to write: > So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty > and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something > out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, > but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? R' Zvi Lampel answered: > It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah > attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt > duress during the marital process (you can find this in the > Kitzur Shulchan Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the > Rambam when it comes to a marital setting. I was taught we hold > like the Ramban. My guess is that you're referring to R' Eliezer from Nedarim 20b, referenced at the end of Kitzur 150:1. But from what I have seen, not for nothing is it called "Kitzur Shulchan Aruch", because this seems to be the attitude of all the standard poskim. The Kitzur is not a standalone machmir here; from what I can tell, he's merely quoting the Mechaber in Orach Chayim 240:8. Mishneh Brurah 240:35 (who refers us to Magen Avraham 240:21), Aruch Hashulchan 240:14, and Kaf Hachaim 240:59 all seem to advocate a strong reluctance towards intercourse, which is not quite as extreme as the Rambam's "disgust", but that might merely reflect their choice of words. For purposes of Talmud Torah, where is this Ramban who "strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting"? And for purposes of Halacha, which Acharonim hold like the Ramban, over the Mechaber, KSA, MB, and KH? (I recall hearing that the Siddur HaYaavetz might be the answer here, but there seem to be several different versions. If anyone can post a link to a specific version on SeforimOnline or HebrewBooks.org, and a page citation, I'd appreciate that very much.) Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett?s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren?t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55af9846b9a261846362est02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 07:13:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:13:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel asked: "The idea that sex is something dirty and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude?" See the Gemara in Nedarim (20a) about kafuhu shed. Also see RAL's article OF MARRIAGE: RELATIONSHIP AND RELATIONS ( http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf ) where he discusses this question and brings many of the sources. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:25:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:25:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 06:54:49AM +0000, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: :> So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and :> should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of :> Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what :> possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? : It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah : attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress : during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan : Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to : a marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. But the most famous Ramban does speak of perushim tihyu and how perishus is the key to holiness. (R' Shimon Shkop explains the Ramban as saying it is a primary means to hoiness, because "qedoshim tihyu qi Qadosh Ani" would be absurd if referring to Hashem practicing perishus. What temptations would He need to avoid?) And his first example is yema'eit bemishgal, like (Berakhos 22) "that TC not be found by their wives like roosters" and that tashmish should be limited to "kefi hatzeikh beqiyum hamitzvah mimenu". I presume, in an unXian sense, the Rambam refers to onah, not "only" piryah verivyah. Perishus and neqi'us come up a lot in lower-case-m mussar literature, even among anti-Maimonidians like Rabbeinu Yonah. To quote Mesilas Yesharim ch 13 (tr. from http://www.shechem.org/torah/mesyesh/13.htm I think it's the old Feldheim ed, by R' Shraga Simmons): There is no question as to the permissibility of cohabitation with one's wife, but still, ablutions were instituted for those who had had seminal emissions, so that Scholars should not be steadily with their wives, like roosters. Even though the act itself is permissible it implants in a person a lust for it which might draw him on to what is forbidden; as our Sages of blessed memory have said (Sukkah 526), "There is a small organ in a man which, when it is satiated, hungers and which, when it is made to hunger, is sated." And they said about R. Eleazar (Nedarim 20b) that even in the proper hour and the correct time he would expose a handbreadth and conceal two hand-breadths and imagine that a demon was compelling him, in order to cancel out the feeling of pleasure. And ch. 14: THERE ARE THREE principal divisions of Separation, involving pleasures, laws, and conduct respectively. Separation in relation to pleasures, which we spoke of in the previous chapter, consists in one's taking from the world only what is essential to him. This type of Separation encompasses anything which provides pleasure to any one of the senses, whether the pleasure be gained through food, cohabitation, clothing, strolls, conversation or similar means, exceptions obtaining only at such times when deriving pleasure through these means is a mitzvah. Separation in relation to laws ... Separation in relation to conduct ... Which also limits marital intimacy to what is necessary to fulfill piryah verivyah and onah. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:36:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:36:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55AFD49B.4070904@gmail.com> On 7/21/2015 8:48 PM, Meir Shinnar wrote: > Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions > I) in hazal - that continued desire for some forbidden actions is > compatible with a high spiritual state - issue is control of the > desire - NOT its presence > I) Aristotelian ethics - a high spiritual state does not desire for > forbidden - the desire is a sign of a flaw. > SP resolves by differentiating between mefursamot - whose desire is > problematic and a flaw - and religious law - where desire is not a > flaw - and applies this specifically to arayot - as examples in Talmud > of Rabbanit with desire are of arayot, > It is difficult for me to reconcile this position with the MN - if our > proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is " to instil > disgust" - how can desire still remaining not be a flaw???? > In the MN, there is a conceptual framework to distinguish > homosexuality and bestiality from regular sexuality - but they are ALL > viewed as things that should repulse us - just some more than others. > It is by no means clear that this framework and distinction can be > read into the SP, and would think that One would need good evidence > that it does not include ALL arayot... The Moreh Nevuchim III:35 explicitly states that his view about this matter is the same as his view in Shemoneh Perakim: The fourteenth class comprises the commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain sexual unions. They are those that we have enumerated in the Book of Women [/Sepher Nashim/] and in Laws concerning Prohibited Sexual Relations [/Hilkhoth Issurei Bi'ah/. The interbreeding of beasts belongs to this class. The purpose of this ... is to bring about a decrease of sexual intercourse and to diminish the desire for mating as far as possible, so that it should not be taken as an end, as is done by the ignorant, *according to what we have explained in the Commentary on the Tractate Aboth.* (All commentators agree this is a reference to the introduction to the commentary, the Shemoneh Perakim, just as the Moreh stated regarding the thirteenth class.) Your kushya is good: if [as per MN] our proper relationship to even permitted sexualityis "to instill disgust" - how can desire still remaining not be a flaw [as per ShP]???? But I think the solution I offered is reasonable. To wit: What do you do with the elephant in the room I mentioned? The Torah commands /t'shaktsu/ concerning the eating of non-kosher creatures (which is certainly as much in the category of non-mefursomos as bassar b'chalav and arayos); yet Chazal (and naturally, then, Rambam) say that when it comes to basar b'chalav, etc., one should have the attitude of "I have the desire to do it, but Hashem prohibited me.'' I offered one answer to both questions: When Rambam says that Hashem wants to instill in us disgust for the act, and the Torah (as per Chazal) says "t'shakstu,'' they mean that despite the fact that we should not deny or seek to eradicate the physical inclination for such pleasures, we must maintain an aversion to succumbing to it except for limited situations. (And the purpose of that is to keep us from doing it in excess, which is the real flaw.) *So although as per MN,] our proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is to instill a reluctance except for limited occasions (such as in a marriage setting), the desire still remaining is not a flaw [as per ShP] to be eradicated.* "I have the desire to do it [even outside of marriage, and I will not eradicate the sexual desire from myself,] but [live with it and constrain it outside of marriage,] because Hashem commanded me so [and this will bring me to perfection]. So, a word about the Moreh's wording. Pines translates: "As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. ... the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity." Friedlander translates: " we ought to limit sexual intercourse altogether, hold it in *contempt,* and only desire it very rarely." Ibn Tibbon translates "ha-arayos, ha-inyan b'kulam shahv l'ma-eit ha-mishgal *v'lim'os* bo, v'shello yirtseh mimennu ki im m'aht mi-za-ir...sheh-inyan ha-tiv'i *nim-ahs* l'hay-a-sos rak l'tsorech." I suspect from the context (lim'os/disgust/contempt, *except for limited occasions*) that the Rambam's original Arabic, not to mention his intention, is closer on the scale to the idea of avoidance for the sake of gaining perfection, than to disgust and contempt. Basically, it translates to what I believe is in fact our common attitude regarding these things. To put things in perspective, note that immediately before this section, the Rambam, following the same attitude of engaging in unrestrained physical pleasures being an obstacle to personal perfection, writes similarly about the activity of eating, again equating what he writes in the Moreh to what he wrote in Shemoneh Perakim: The thirteenth class comprises the commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain foods and what is connected therewith. These are the commandments that we have enumerated in the Laws concerning Forbidden Foods [/Hilkhoth Ma-akholoth Asuroth/]. The [commandments concerning] vows and the state of the Nazarites belong to this class. The purpose of all this is, *as we have explained in the Commentary on the Mishnah in the introduction to Aboth,* to put an end to the lusts and licentiousness manifested in seeking what is most pleasurable and to taking the desire for food and drink as an end. [Email #2. -micha] On 7/22/2015 1:25 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > But the most famous Ramban does speak of perushim tihyu and how perishus > is the key to holiness. ...And his first example is yema'eit > bemishgal... > I presume, in an unXian sense, the Rambam refers to onah, not "only" > piryah verivyah. > Perishus and neqi'us come up a lot in lower-case-m mussar literature, even > among anti-Maimonidians like Rabbeinu Yonah. To quote Mesilas Yesharim ch 13 > ..." And they said about > R. Eleazar (Nedarim 20b) that even in the proper hour and the correct > time he would expose a handbreadth and conceal two hand-breadths and > imagine that a demon was compelling him, in order to cancel out the > feeling of pleasure. > And ch. 14: ... > Separation in relation to pleasures, which we spoke of in the > previous chapter, consists in one's taking from the world only what > is essential to him. > Which also limits marital intimacy to what is necessary to fulfill piryah > verivyah and onah. Which, as I was contemplating to write, shows that the Ramban and Rambam (and as you have pointed out, mainstream Jewish thought) all share the same basic nuanced attitude--despite the Ramban's opposition to the Rambam's presentation. Thanks for the sources. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:00:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:00:43 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> References: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:06 AM, M Cohen via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after > chatzos on Tbav > > Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc > > Why ? > > What changed in the afternoon? (especially since some pple fast both the 9 > th and 10th( > There are two answers in the Birkhei Yosef quoting Sefer Hakavvanot of R. Haim Vital (OH 559 s"k 7) for why we say verses of consolation at minha, both based on Midrash Eicha Rabba, and perhaps the reason is the same. Firstly, that this was when the BHMK began to burn, and it was davka a time of consolation because the people realized that HKBH was pouring his anger on stone and wood, not on flesh and blood. Secondly, that this is the time when the Messiah whose name is Menahem is born. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 22:23:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 01:23:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55B07A69.5020203@gmail.com> On 7/22/2015 1:26 PM, H Lampel wrote: > When Rambam says that Hashem wants to instill in us disgust for the > act, and the Torah (as per Chazal) says ''t'shakstu,'' they mean that > despite the fact that we should not deny or seek to eradicate the > physical inclination for such pleasures, we must maintain an aversion > to succumbing to it except for limited situations. (And the purpose of > that is to keep us from doing it in excess, which is the real flaw.) I should also note that the Rambam teaches that hand-in-hand with the flaw of excessive involvement in physical pleasures, and the ultimate problem with that, is the attitude behind it, of making physical pleasure an end in itself, rather than a side benefit of a means. The Rambam applies this objection to both sexual pleasure for its own sake and eating pleasure for its own sake: The prohibition of certain foods and what is connected therewith.... The purpose of all this is, as we have explained in the Commentary on the Mishnah in the introduction to Aboth, to put an end to the lusts and licentiousness manifested in seeking what is most pleasurable and to taking the desire for food and drink /as an end/. ...The commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain sexual unions... The purpose of this ... is to bring about a decrease of sexual intercourse and to diminish the desire for mating as far as possible, so that it should not be taken /as an end/, as is done by the ignorant, according to what we have explained in the Commentary on the Tractate Aboth. Zvi Lampel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 01:16:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:16:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R' Aharon Lichtenstein was bothered by the difference in opinion regarding marital intimacy between Chazal who seem to have a very positive attitude and the Rishonim (especially the Rambam) who have a very negative attitude and the attitude of contemporary authorities who seem to have swung back to the positive side: "We, for our part, are confronted by a quandary of our own; and it is dual. At one plane, we ask ourselves, within the context of our learn- ing?it is Torah, and we must learn?a simple and straightforward ques- tion. In light of the predominant evidence we have noted from Hazal and, particularly, its halakhic component, how and why did Rambam, Ramban, and some other rishonim, deviate so markedly from their prevalent attitude? With reference to yetser (the inclination)?generic in connotation but defined by Rashi as shel tashmish (sexual desire)?Hazal identify it as one of a triad which, optimally, one should ?let the left hand deflect and the right hand bring close? (Sota 47a). One sometimes gets the impression that the proportion was subsequently inverted. ... To the extent that we do succeed in harmonizing the positions of Hazal and of rishonim, we ameliorate the pressure of one issue but exacerbate that of another. For we are brought, in turn, to a second quandary: our own. While I have conducted no empirical survey, I believe there is little question regarding the sensibility of the contempo- rary Torah world, irrespective of camp and orientation. We stand, fun- damentally, with R. Bar-Shaul. We assert the value of romantic love, its physical manifestation included, without flinching from the prospect of concomitant sensual pleasure; and we do so without harboring guilt or reservations. " Source: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 06:35:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:35:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shimon haTzaddik and Alexander the Macedonian Message-ID: <20150723133509.GA14333@aishdas.org> The story of Shim'on haTzaddiq, in the office of kohein gadol, meeting Alexander the Great, as told in Yuma 69a, is pretty well known. Josephus told the story earlier, in Antiquities 11:8. The Daily Mail recently covered what appears to be another retelling : Mosaic of Alexander the Great meeting a Jewish priest is the first ever non-biblical scene to be discovered inside a synagogue - Artwork was uncovered in a fifth-century synagogue in Huqoq, Israel - May depict Alexander the Great, based on the presence of elephants - Scene is the first non-biblical story to be found in an ancient synagogue - Depictions of Biblical hero Samson are also part of the decorative floor By Sarah Griffiths for MailOnline Published: 03:43 EST, 15 July 2015 | Updated: 07:21 EST, 15 July 2015 ... The artwork was uncovered in the east aisle of a fifth-century synagogue in the ancient Jewish village of Huqoq. ... The largest top strip contains the scene showing a meeting between two men, who perhaps represent the legendary warrior and a Jewish high priest. In the scene, a bearded soldier wearing battle dress and a purple cloak leads a bull by the horns, followed by other soldiers and elephants with shields tied to their sides. He is meeting with a grey-haired, bearded elderly man wearing a ceremonial white tunic and mantle, accompanied by young men with sheathed swords, also in ceremonial clothes. Southern Galil, 5th cent CE. Within a generation of the compilation of Mes Yuma. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 06:14:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:14:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B0E8A7.7050202@gmail.com> I agree with all those who reacted to my remark about Ramban vs Rambam, and I am especially grateful to Marty Bluke for the link to Rav Lichtenstein ztl's comprehensive article that provides the sources and notes the challenges they present. (I think that link was recently posted on R. Gil Student's blog.) As R. Akiva Miller has pointed out, it was Rebbi Eliezer of Nedarim 20b, referenced at the end of Kitzur 150:1 (and, as RAM pointed out, the Mechaber OC 240:8) who is understood to have expressed duress during the marital process. (And who is a Tanna, not an Amora, as I incorrectly stated.) Also, RAM asked, > For purposes of Talmud Torah, where is this Ramban who "strongly disagreed > with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting"? And again, I stand corrected. The Rav who gave me my "chassan shmuess" was probably referring to the /Iggeress ha-Kodesh,/ which, as Rav Lichtenstein pointed out in his article, is often erroneously attributed to Ramban. But apparently, had Rav Lichtenstein been giving me the "chassan shmuez," I would have come away with the same halacha l'ma'aseh regarding attitude. He writes: We cannot, as the author of the /Iggeret ha-Kodesh/ could not, abandon the conviction that so central a component of human nature is not part of the /tov me'od/ of primordial creation. Consequently, impelled by our spiritual instincts and animated by the faith instilled in us by our Torah mentors, we opt for consecration rather than abstinence. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 07:12:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:12:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> Message-ID: <26C8383E-E3E8-4443-8BAD-62AB922C5681@gmail.com> Again, one has to be very careful. There are four different sources here. 1)Shmona Prakim -- chapter 4 -- where reason for laws on arayot is to limit Sexuality -- in the sense of a golden mean. 2)Shmona Prakim -- chapter 6 -- where desire for things forbidden only by halakhah is endorsed as not a spiritual flaw 3) MN 3:35, where he describes category 14 of mitzvot -- relating to arayot -- in terms similar to source 1, as the rambam notes and meforshim point out. 4) MN 3:49 -- where purpose of hilchot arayot is to instill disgust -- not merely control and limit Therefore, RZL is correct that MN 3:35 refers to Spm but chapter 4. One can reconcile sources 1,2 and 3, or 1,3 and 4 -- but difficult to recocile all 4. I would ad that source 2 is problematic, in that it's view of halakhah as an almost arbitrary set of limitations, seems quite different than the rambam's normal presentation of the purpose of Halacha. Meir Shinnar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 10:15:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:15:16 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150723.131516.32484.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> Many posters - and their quoted sources - have compared the desire for intercourse with the desire for food. What I have not seen is any comparison between the *enjoyment* of intercourse and the enjoyment of food. Halacha restricts our eating in many ways, and we are taught that this is to curb our desires. But there are seem to be many exceptions to this, and I don't see parallels to intercourse. We have mitzvos where eating is merely a physical act used as a means to some other end. Achilas Matza might be the best example of this. We need to internalize the matzah and its lessons, but any enjoyment that we might get from this eating is utterly irrelevant. This seems quite comparable to the intercourse, where it is merely a means towards having children. The enjoyment that one gets from the intercourse (like from the matza) is irrelevant - or perhaps even lower, to be eschewed. One might cite Rama Even Haezer 25:2, which lists various permitted forms of intercourse, but to me, that is like saying "You can eat your meat broiled or cooked or fried, as long as you don't put milk in it, and don't eat it too often either." This is NOT what we are told about meat. Rather we are told that eating meat is the only way to enjoy Yom Tov. We are taught that eating is proper and good. When a simcha arises, we must make a meal so as to properly celebrate it. And if there are overlapping simchas, we should add an extra course so that each simcha gets its due. Red wine is more appropriate than white, but if you personally enjoy white, then go for it. Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. - Is the difference really that subtle? To me, it is as subtle as a brick. R' Marty Bluke posted: > Also see RAL's article OF MARRIAGE: RELATIONSHIP AND RELATIONS > ( http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf ) where > he discusses this question and brings many of the sources. Indeed he does bring many sources. And I was particularly intrigued by his conclusion, that the general thrust of recent authorities seems to be very different from before that: > To the extent that we do succeed in harmonizing the positions of > Hazal and of rishonim, we ameliorate the pressure of one issue but > exacerbate that of another. For we are brought, in turn, to a > second quandary: our own. While I have conducted no empirical > survey, I believe there is little question regarding the > sensibility of the contemporary Torah world, irrespective of camp > and orientation. ... We assert the value of romantic love, its > physical manifestation included, without flinching from the > prospect of concomitant sensual pleasure; and we do so without > harboring guilt or reservations. We insist, of course, upon its > sanctification?this, within the context of suffusive kedusha of > carnal experience, generally. and yet, a page later, > Assuming these facts to be correct ? as regards my own spiritual > environs, I can attest directly ? we ask ourselves: How and why > do we depart from positions articulated by some of our greatest > ? "from whose mouths we live and from whose waters we drink" - > and, is this departure legitimate? Are we victims of the Zeitgeist, > swept along by general socio-historical currents? Do we tailor our > attitude on this issue to conform to appetitive convenience and > erotic desire? Have we, in this case, adopted a self-satisfying > posture of facile world-acceptance clothed in culturally correct > garb? I did not find his answers to these questions very satisfying. But I do find his *asking* them to be extremely comforting. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 11:43:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:43:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Relative Priorities Message-ID: <1440012f20ae4d989f0b2c5fdc8b1c1e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> A yahrtzeit shiur is "being sponsored" at the same time as your regular learning seder. Evaluate the various score cards in shamayim (yours, the niftar's, your chavrutah's) depending on whether you attended the shiur or seder (all other things being equal). She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 24 07:09:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 17:09:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: artificial meat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Technological advances are bringing us to ask a pressing question: Does Judaism consider meat created in a laboratory to be kosher? Does Jewish law even consider it to be meat?The question takes on particular significance now, during the nine days, the traditional period of mourning that precedes Tisha B'Av when observant Jews abstain from meat. (Well, theoretical significance, at least ? the world's first lab-grown hamburger, created in 2013, cost a cool $325,000 and it's not exactly available at your neighborhood grocery store yet.)Some kashrut experts are ready to rule the burger kosher, and not only that, parve, reported Ynet reporter Koby Nachshoni ? meaning observant Jews, who won't eat milk and meat together, can eat their test-tube burger topped with cheese. Furthermore, the halachic authorities with whom Nachshon consulted even said this would apply to test-tube pork ? so make that a bacon cheeseburger.But, no surprise here, not everyone agrees about that.Chabad addressed the issue , too, noting that there are precedents for test-tube meat in the ancient Jewish sources. see http://www.haaretz.com/life/food-wine/1.667580 -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:30:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh Message-ID: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> Last night in the shul that I davened B'Leil Zeh was said with great fervor. However, I am wondering if it should have been said at all. B'Leil Zeh is referring to the night of the 9th of Av and the many things that occurred then. Last night was, of course, the night of the 10th of Av. Does it really make sense to have said B'Leil Zeh on the 10th of Av? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:50:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:50:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh In-Reply-To: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 10:30:37AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : B'Leil Zeh is referring to the night of the 9th of Av and the many : things that occurred then. Last night was, of course, the night of : the 10th of Av. Does it really make sense to have said B'Leil Zeh : on the 10th of Av? Now that you made me think about the question, I would ask the reverse one. Bayis sheini was set aflame shortly before sheqi'ah on the 9th and burned through the 10th. So wouldn't beleil zeh only fit a postponed ta'anis? As for bayis rishon... I'm still sorting my way through understandings of Yechezqeil and the Yerushalmi. RMT, kedarko (see ) touches on a nice subset of sources at http://download.yutorah.org/2012/1053/Tisha_Bav_To-Go_-_5771_Rabbi_Torczyner.pdf Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: R' Mordechai Torczyner -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:58:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:58:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh In-Reply-To: <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> References: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150726145900.0654D1831F2@nexus.stevens.edu> At 10:50 AM 7/26/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >Now that you made me think about the question, I would ask the reverse >one. Bayis sheini was set aflame shortly before sheqi'ah on the 9th and >burned through the 10th. > >So wouldn't beleil zeh only fit a postponed ta'anis? > >As for bayis rishon... I'm still sorting my way through understandings >of Yechezqeil and the Yerushalmi. Perhaps two separate tefillos are needed, one for the night of the 9th of Av and one for the night of the 10th of Av. However, given the vast amount of kinos and other tefillos for Tisha B'Av, I am loath to suggest adding any more. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 16:32:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 19:32:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Message-ID: From: M Cohen via Avodah There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why? What changed in the afternoon? Mordechai Cohen >>>> The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 22:02:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:02:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus Message-ID: Thew gemara in Gittin tells the story of the rich lady miryam bat batus who sent her sevant to buy food in the market, before the churban, each time the food is already sold and she finally dies from dung on her foot. OTOH the gemara in ketuvot says that miryam bat batus paid King Yanai a lot of money to appoint her son yehoshua ben gamla as high priest First the two stories are about 150 years apart. In addition Alexander Jannai was himself high priest and unlikely to sell that position -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 20:18:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:18:25 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150726.231825.30515.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> R' Zvi Lampel wrote: > But apparently, had Rav Lichtenstein been giving me the > "chassan shmuez," I would have come away with the same halacha > l'ma'aseh regarding attitude. He writes: > > We cannot, as the author of the /Iggeret ha-Kodesh/ could > not, abandon the conviction that so central a component of > human nature is not part of the /tov me'od/ of primordial > creation. Consequently, impelled by our spiritual instincts > and animated by the faith instilled in us by our Torah > mentors, we opt for consecration rather than abstinence. I am very bothered by this attitude. I will explain why. We have discussed the idea that a posek may sometimes choose a psak based on what "seems right" to him, and then he will find sources to support that conclusion. But if I remember correctly, this is usually done in the case of *new* questions, where there is little precedent to draw upon. But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed. And it changed so recently that Rav Lichtenstein couldn't name any seforim that might have explained it to him. Namely, that for some reason, various people (such as RZL's teacher) started paskening - "halacha l'ma'aseh" in RZL's words - that the halacha follows the Iggeret ha-Kodesh (whose author we aren't sure of) rather than the Shulchan Aruch and Rav Yosef Karo. Why aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? Can we really overturn the Shulchan Aruch simply because "We cannot ... abandon the conviction" that sex is "tov me'od"? When we justify a psak and say we were "impelled by our spiritual instincts", how are we different from Conservative and Reform? I would not speak this way if the topic was a machlokes rishonim. Can someone please point to another major Rishon besides the Iggeret ha-Kodesh who holds that way? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b5a34e339ce234e4610st01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 01:31:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:31:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why? What changed in the afternoon? Mordechai Cohen >>>> The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= R'YBS explained that once the mikdash started burning (PM of TB) we knew hkb"h was taking out his wrath on stones and wood, not us. 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 00:49:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:49:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> On 07/27/2015 01:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Thew gemara in Gittin tells the story of the rich lady miryam bat > batus Martha bat Baytus. > who sent her sevant to buy food in the market, before the > churban, each time the food is already sold and she finally dies from > dung on her foot. > > OTOH the gemara in ketuvot Yoma. 18a. And Yavamos 61a. I could not find any reference to this in Kesubos. > says that miryam bat batus Martha bat Baytus. > paid King Yanai a lot of money to appoint her son Husband > yehoshua ben gamla as high priest. First the two stories are about > 150 years apart. No, they're not. Yehoshua ben Gamla was the Cohen Gadol at the time of the revolt against Rome, and was murdered by the Biryonim. > In addition Alexander Jannai was himself high priest > and unlikely to sell that position Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos in both places points out, for precisely that reason. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 03:22:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:22:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> References: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150727102247.GA8241@aishdas.org> RnTK wrote: : The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting : the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people : (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house : on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. R' Yirmiyohu Kaganoff provided sources at : In some places there is a custom to wash the floors and clean the house on the afternoon of Tisha B'Av. This custom is based on a mesorah that Moshiach will be born on Tisha B'Av afternoon and that it is therefore appropriate to commemorate the redemption and strengthen people's hopes and prayers (based on Beis Yosef 554 and Kolbo). Although this seems like unnecessary work on Tisha B'Av that should be postponed, the poskim rule that one should not discourage those who follow this custom (Birkei Yosef 559:7). On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:31am +0000, R Joel Rich replied: : R'YBS explained that once the mikdash started burning (PM of TB) : we knew [HKB"H] was taking out his wrath on stones and wood, not us. I bet RYBS cited the Gra (OC 555:1). Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: Actually, Google gets most of the credit for filling in vague memories with mar'eh meqomos. -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 05:00:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:00:41 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150727.080041.13995.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> I asked: > I would not speak this way if the topic was a machlokes > rishonim. Can someone please point to another major Rishon > besides the Iggeret ha-Kodesh who holds that way? Alternatively, can anyone cite other halachos, where for centuries the acharonim followed the Shulchan Aruch, and then in recent decades, the poskim decided to follow a minority rishon? My first instinct is to say that the shitos of the Gra are in this category, but there were those who followed the Gra ever since his day, and the only real change is that his views became more and more widespread. Was there ever a community that was known for following the Iggeret ha-Kodesh in this inyan until recently? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b61d8f130a61d8b4299st01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 07:10:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:10:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 11:15:51AM -1000, R/ Dr Noam Stadlan wrote on Areivim: : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded : as ignorance... To do that woud be to disagree with her husband. See "Thinking Aloud", pg 113: DH: What is the heter for a married woman in her house not to cover her hair when there are outsiders present? RYBS: She has to cover her hair. Another exchange: DH: Someone was asking about a woman wearing a kisui rosh in the house. RYBS: We pasken you should. DH: Someone showed me a gemara in Kesubos that b'toch chatzeira it should be mutar, since otherwise there is no way any woman could remain tachas ba'alah (72b). Offhand it occurred to me that if it was lo shechichei inshei - just for going around the house when no one's around, and someone just may drop in - then it would be mutar. But if you have people coming over b'kevius, then why would it be any different than going aroung in the street? Is there a special din in the bayis that there's no din of covering your head anymore? DH: Is this kisui ervah like most kisui ervah? RYBS: Of course. DH: What should I do for myself, for my wife? RYBS: You will find out. There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 08:15:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & the Tosafists. http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ Our *Torah shebe?al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the *Torah shebe?al peh* would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe?al peh* today. I just heard a piece yesterday by Rabbi Weill, from a few years back on Kinnot and the destruction of Ashkenaz and burning of the gemorahs in Paris. It was very devastating for the area. Jews lived in other areas as well, thank God. So the Mesora continued with them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 11:42:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:42:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? Message-ID: From: Micha Berger via Avodah : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded : as ignorance...[--Dr. Noam Stadlan] To do that would be to disagree with her husband. ....There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. -- Micha Berger >>>> A similar quote (third hand): Someone told me he once asked RYBS if a married woman is obligated to cover her hair, and RYBS replied in a somewhat sideways fashion, "You are not obligated to divorce her if she does not do so." You have to understand that it was an era in which most American Jews were throwing away the Torah with both hands. It was hard enough to find a wife who was frum; demanding that she cover her hair was almost impossible in many cases. RYBS was not the only Torah scholar whose wife failed to cover her hair. I have to assume that this was simply one nisayon that was too difficult, given those times. After the post-war influx of chassidim arrived in America, kisui rosh, like so many other neglected mitzvos, became much more acceptable and common. R' Michael Brody in his article on the subject says that the Chofetz Chaim railed against the practice of women in Vilna, even those married to big talmidei chachamim, to go about with their hair uncovered. Although the CC is completely, vehemently, opposed to this practice, R' Brody deduces (I am paraphrasing) that "This proves that many talmidei chachamim did not demand that their wives cover their hair, from which we may deduce that they held kisui rosh was not required, and we may rely on them." This line of reasoning is reminiscent of the joke, "How do we know that Yakov wore a yarmulka? Answer: It says 'Vayetzei Yakov' -- would Yakov have gone out without a yarmulka?!" But at any rate it does indicate that this was a largely neglected mitzva even in Vilna, in the early 20th century -- though neglect of a mitzva does not make the obligation go away. I for one do not hold it against RYBS. What he would have preferred and what was actually obtainable, in that time and place, were not the same. For that time and place, for a woman to be Torah observant was already a madreiga. To have been the wife of such a man -- his rebetzen must have had extraordinary zechuyos. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 11:43:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:43:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> The below (and, btw, R Nachum Lamm makes an interesting point in the comments there) leads me to a different, but related, question: We trace Rashi's mesorah pretty easily back to Rabbeinu Gershom -- but where did _he_ get _his_ mesorah from? How did it get from Bavel and the Gaonim to northern Europe? > RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & the Tosafists. > http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ [1] > Our *Torah shebe?al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the *Torah shebe?al peh* would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe?al peh* today. Links: ------ [1] http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 12:41:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:41:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: From: Kenneth Miller via Avodah >> We have discussed the idea that a posek may sometimes choose a psak based on what "seems right" to him, and then he will find sources to support that conclusion. But if I remember correctly, this is usually done in the case of *new* questions, where there is little precedent to draw upon. But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? --Akiva Miller >>>> It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan Aruch. What frequency is optimum? Surely that is at least partly subjective, and any of the various sources that apparently disagree with each other can be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up what your gut tells you is right. I can easily see a modern day rav or Torah mentor varying his answers depending on the circumstances of the wife and husband who are asking him for advice, as well as accepted societal norms. Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least some obligation to fulfill. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 14:59:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gil Student via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 17:59:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume 2 of his Collected Essays. Gil Student From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 19:55:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 22:55:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Re:Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> References: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:10:59 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah > : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the > : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded > : as ignorance... > > To do that woud be to disagree with her husband. > > See "Thinking Aloud", pg 113: ... > There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with > his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. WADR, Micha misunderstands the issue. The issue is not whether RYBS agreed with his wife's practice -- there are sources (albeit most of them from long after her passing) which would suggest that he may ave disagreed, and paskened otherwise) -- but that is a different issue of whether he viewed it as ignorance -- and for sure not out of the pale of halacha. That is the crux of the issue -- not whether we wish to pasken that this is muttar for ourselves (or for those who listen to us..) -- but how we view those who follow a different shitta -- and anyone who suggests that RYBS viewed his wife as nonobservant or not fully halachically committed is motsi la'az and needs to go to her kever( you can ask R Seth Mandel his opinion how the rav would have viewed such a person) Several related stories: 1) The rav was the posek for a community, who knew that his wife did not cover her hair. The vast majority of that community, even those close to the rav, who followed his every word, did not think that he viewed this as being problematic -- and he had plenty of opportunity to let it be known.... 2) I knew a talmid who was close to the rav in the 70s (shiur many years, rav was measured kiddushin -- unfortunately niftar early. when getting married, he told me that he asked the rav all his shailos -- except about head covering for his wife (she did) -- he said that it was thought problematic to ask him because of the rav's wife 3) Another talmid was once invited, late 70s, to Rav Schwab's shabbes table. Topic got around to data's torah, and rav schwab said that many have it wrong -- there is not one da'as torah -- but da'as torah is the opinion of someone who is wholly torah -- rav kotler is da'as torah, rav feinstein is da'as torah,the satmar is da'as torah. My friend jumped in and asked what about RYBS? Rav Schwab was no fan of RYBS, and he hemmed and hawed and then said that as his wife did not cover her hair, he was not da'as torah. At that point Mrs. Schwab interjected, but you know that none of the litvische rebbitzens covered their hair. At which point R Schwab agreed to that, and then agreed that RYBS was da'as torah..... That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. Meir Shinnar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 06:52:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:52:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> Message-ID: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> On 7/27/2015 2:49 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos > in both places points out, for precisely that reason. > Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any permutation thereof. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 07:31:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:31:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> Message-ID: <55B79226.4030906@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 09:52 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 7/27/2015 2:49 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos >> in both places points out, for precisely that reason. > Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of > there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any > permutation thereof. Except this memra of Rav Assi, which is quoted twice in the gemara with the same language, so it's unlikely to be a mistranscription. Either Rav Assi was mistaken about the king's name, or there was a short-reigned later king of that name whom Josephus didn't bother mentioning, or one of the later kings had Yannai as one of his names, and Josephus didn't bother mentioning it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 07:21:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:21:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> References: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55B78FCC.2020104@sero.name> On 07/27/2015 10:55 PM, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: > At that point Mrs. Schwab interjected, but you know > that none of the litvische rebbitzens covered their hair. At which point > R Schwab agreed to that, and then agreed that RYBS was da'as torah..... > > That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it > was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, > it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. No, it was *not* a shita in Litte, it was a makas medinah. It was an aveira that was prevalent among women, and the best the rabbonim could do was not talk about it to the women, in the hope that they were shogegin. Even in an earlier generation, no less a person than R Akiva Eger had no control over his wife and daughters' mode of dress: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31632&pgnum=300 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 08:57:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:57:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 08:52:45AM -0500, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of : there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any : permutation thereof. Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and Hebrew? 400 years prior, having two names was common and the civil names we know of (Mordechai, Esther, Shadrach, Meshach, Aved-Nego, etc...) bore no relation to their Jewish names. Alternatively: Chazal could have thrown in the timing problem to flag to the historian that they were not speaking historically. After all, we know from the other narratives quoted that they knew the dates for Alexander Yannai wouldn't work. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:21:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 12:21:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> References: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150728162126.GC24227@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 11:09pm EDT, RnTK wrote: : with their friends, "You can't say kaddish for your Ima or your Abba : today, someone else has kadima"? Correct me if I am mistaken but my impression : is that kaddish yasom is really mainly for genuine yesomim, i.e., those who : lose their parents while they are still children. Rather than correct you, let me provide a mar'eh maqom: Rama YD 376:4, quoting the Mahariq. Both of us probably remembering R Michael Poppers posting this. The Rama says that Qadish Yasom was established for Qetanim, because they cannot be Chazan. BUT... the Rama is clear that this ended before the custom of multiple people saying Qaddish at once began. When writing the above, I started wondering about areas like Vilna, where a daughter would say Qaddish for parents who had no sons. Did this minhag begin back when only one person said Qaddish at a time? If so, she would get the same priority for Qaddish Yasom as a qatan, no? But cold you picture such a scene in early 19th cent Litta, a woman saying Qaddish by herself on one side of the mechitzah or by the doorway, and all the men of the minyan answering? So my instinct is that this minhag post-dates group Qaddish. But my instinct might be based on revisionist history, for all I know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:38:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:38:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:153am EDT, R Saul Guberman wrote: : RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & : the Tosafists. : http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ : Our *Torah shebe'al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish : history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a : great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, : but the *Torah shebe'al peh* would have survived without him. However, : without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, : any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe'al peh* today. Which is a different statement than the subject line. I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue understanding the gemara. But one thing RGS loses is RYBS's context. RYBS was saying this in shiur, in a room where talmidim bring a compact edition of the Rambam with them for reference. It's a different thing to make this statement while sitting in Brisk, when you may intentionally state a perspective re-setting idea more strongly than in other settings. On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 2:43pm EDT, R Sholom Simon wrote: : We trace Rashi's mesorah pretty easily back to Rabbeinu Gershom -- but : where did _he_ get _his_ mesorah from? How did it get from Bavel and the : Gaonim to northern Europe? In a teshuvah, Rabbeinu Gershom says he was taught most of his Torah by "R' Leon". He means Rabbi Yehudah (Leontin) ben Rabbi Meir haKohein. R' Leontin was from Iraly, but he was in France before reaching Mainz. In France he picked up talmidim who then followed him to Ashkenaz, including Rabbinu Gershom and R' Yosef Tuv Elem (Tuv Elem = Bonfils, you will see him the the Mordechai alot, Tosafos, and [if you ever have occasion to look] Machzor Vitri). Rabbeinu Gershom took over the yeshiva upon RYBRM's petirah, which is probably why he is "Rabbeinu" rather than "Rav". The thing is, the tradition in Provence is that they came from EY. For example, in Luneil it was (is?) believed that the city was founded by refugees from Yericho, who commemorated their city of origin by using a translation of the same name: yareiach = luna. Which brings me to RGS's reply to R Sholom, written yesterday, Jul 27, 2015, at 5:59pm EDT: : Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German : mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger : disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. : However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments : against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from : Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume : 2 of his Collected Essays. If there is any truth to the Israeli Provencial tradition, we have a link in terms of rabbinic leadership to EY. However, not only do nusach hatefillah, piyut, and a number of pesaqim (which RRW educated me on repeatedly on these "pages" in the past) point toward an EY origin of Ashkenaz, so does something I didn't see R/Dr Soloveitchik address -- genetics. A map of the Jewish genetic tree http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072 shows the closes affinity for the Ashkenazi gene pool were the Italian, Greek, Turkish and Syrian communities. Notably all under the Roman Empire. Whereas the Jews of the geonic lands -- from Bavel through Qairouan, Tunisia -- form a second grouping. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:45:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:45:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728174552.GE24227@aishdas.org> I just posted: : However, the loss of a codifier who : stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of : mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But : Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue : understanding the gemara. I meant to add a different (and to my mind very important) way of looking at this idea: In terms of mesorah, a flow of TSBP as a "dialog down the ages" (to use RYBS's terminlogy), the parshan keeps the chain connected down the ages in a way that a Yad, designed to be stand-alone, does not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:24:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:24:20 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go > by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and > Hebrew? > I don't follow: the Hasmonean and post-Hasmonean kings did all have both Hebrew and Greek or Latin names, but Yannai is a *Hebrew* name, from the same root as Yona. I know someone who Hebraized his surname from Taubmann to Yannai ("Taub" is German for "dove"). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:50:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:50:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 09:24:20AM -0700, Simon Montagu wrote: : > Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go : > by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and : > Hebrew? : I don't follow: the Hasmonean and post-Hasmonean kings did all have both : Hebrew and Greek or Latin names, but Yannai is a *Hebrew* name, from the : same root as Yona. I know someone who Hebraized his surname from Taubmann : to Yannai ("Taub" is German for "dove"). I believe this is a folk etymology. Where would the alef (yud, nun, alef, yud) have come from? But more tellingly, Alexander Janneus's Hebrew name was Yehonasan, like his uncle. See the Latin and Hebrew on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Jannaeus#/media/File:JanaeusCoinPhoto.jpg If he could be "Alexander Yannai" in one language and "Yonasan" in another, who knows it there weren't another king whose Latin name "Janneus" was simply not preserved? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:17:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:17:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: There are those who argued that Tosfos (in particular Rabbeinu Tam) essentially created Ashkenazi mesorah by radically changing how we study and relate to Gemara and how we relate to popular practice. One might suggest without exaggeration that Tosfos created our Mesora. In which case Rashi's mesora is less relevant. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> There certainly is a lot of evidence that Ashkenzi minhagim com more from E"Y than Bavel. But do we know of any chochomim that went from anywhere in the Middle East to Germany? I.e., ok, even if we accept that either there was a third school, or it came from E"Y -- do we yet know *how* it got to Northern Europe? (Or perhaps the answers are in articles that Haym Soloveitchik or David Berger wrote? (And, if so, does anyone have any citations?) -- Sholom On 2015-07-27 17:59, Gil Student wrote: > Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. > > However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume 2 of his Collected Essays. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:18:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:18:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Sources_for_Not_Covering_Hair=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > 2) I knew a talmid who was close to the rav in the 70s ... when getting married, he told me that he asked the rav all his shailos -- except about head covering for his wife (she did) -- he said that it was thought problematic to ask him because of the rav's wife I have a related story. A talmid who was also close to him. When getting married he _did_ ask about a head covering for his wife (after apologizing for asking it). If I remember the story correctly, the Rav smiled and said that he wasn't the right person to ask. -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:41:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:41:08 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Molad Message-ID: Calendars in my home town print the latest times of saying Kiddush Levana, which equate to exactly fifteen days after the announced Molad time. This might be an entire night, or an exact time, e.g. Sunday night 22.45. But since the astronomical Molad can be some distance from the calculated Molad times, by sometimes as much as twelve hours, does this not mean that these sof zeman kiddush levana times can be faulty by that same margin? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:00:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:00:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728180043.GG24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 01:28:42PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : There certainly is a lot of evidence that Ashkenzi minhagim com more : from E"Y than Bavel. Although experts, O Rabbi-PhDs, debate the issue. So what seems obvious to you or me apparently isn't. : But do we know of any chochomim that went from anywhere in the Middle : East to Germany? I already posted the mesorah from EY to Provence to Rabbeinu Gershom. Jews really started reaching the Rhineland area at the invitation of Charlemagne in the 9th cent CE, when he started the Holy Roman Empire. They came from Provence (again) and Italy. Recall that most of the captives from EY ended up in Rome, and you can understand how an Israeli presence in Italy would have already been established. Far more so than the Jews of the geonate -- who, as I mentioned, were living outside the Roman Empire. In mythic form, we have a story of a King Charles invited R' Moshe ben Klonimus from Lucca to Mainz. In documentation form, Louis "the Pious", C's son, left charters showing that he too invited Jewish merchants to provide an economic backbone to his country, and mentions that he was continuing his father's invitation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person must be very patient micha at aishdas.org even with himself. http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:10:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:10:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: AIUI the MN "was all that you needed to study". Are you/RGS saying that this is only as a codifier? RAMBAM did not feel that he was passing on the mesorah? In the end, it does not matter what he wrote, RASHI vs RAMBAM, you must have RASHI, RAMBAM is nice but without RASHI you come to a dead end? On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > > I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah > through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who > stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of > mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But > Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue > understanding the gemara. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:32:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:32:24 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are forgotten after 12 months (memory of the bet hamikdash is different) I have a personal problem with this statement. To my sorry I know of several people who have lost children especially in the age of 18-25. One thing I have learned from these people is that one never forgets a child, It is part of their lives every day. The secretary of my department lost a son in a flash flood in the negev. She changed her last name to incorporate the name of that son. Every time she signs her name she remembers her son, Others who have lost sons in military actions say kaddish every day for the son many years later. I would just imagine that Yaakov having lost his "favorite" son would not forget him after 12 months but indeed would mourn for him forever -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:09:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:09:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 12:41 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > Calendars in my home town print the latest times of saying Kiddush > Levana, which equate to exactly fifteen days after the announced > Molad time. This might be an entire night, or an exact time, e.g. > Sunday night 22.45. That should be halfway between moldos, i.e. 14d 18h 22m after the molad, not a full 15 days. It should also be adjusted for the time difference between your standard time and Y'm's real time, which for NY is 7h 20m in the winter and 6h 20m in the summer. Using a full 15 days is only bediavad. > But since the astronomical Molad can be some distance from the > calculated Molad times, by sometimes as much as twelve hours, does > this not mean that these sof zeman kiddush levana times can be faulty > by that same margin? Yes, but since we have no easy way (other than consulting readily- available secular resources, of course) of determining when the real full moon occurs, we use the calculated moldos, *unless* there is a lunar eclipse, since that by definition happens at the true full moon. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:28:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:28:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B7C9D0.5030709@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 01:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If he could be "Alexander Yannai" in one language and "Yonasan" in > another, who knows it there weren't another king whose Latin name > "Janneus" was simply not preserved? Here's a thought: AFAIK there is no mention in the gemara of a second, bad, King Agrippas. The only Agrippas mentioned is the first one, the good one. Also, as far as I know, there is no record of the second Agrippas's Hebrew name. What if the first Agrippas gave his oldest son Yannai as his Jewish name, after the first Yannai, and that is how he was known among Jews, and therefore by the Amoraim, while Josephus called him by his Roman name, Herod Agrippa? -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:23:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:23:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus Message-ID: <> Any Jewish king would have been over 100 before the churban besides there is the known problem with Yehoshua ben Gamla having his position bought for him OTOH he seems to have done good deeds Interestingly wikipedia writes "*Yehoshua ben Gamla* (or Joshua son of Gamla) was a Jewish high priest who officiated in about 64 CE. He married the rich widow Martha of the high-priestly family Boethos (Yeb. vi. 4), and she by bribing Jannai secured for him the office of high priest (Yeb. 61a; Yoma 18a; comp. "Ant." xx. 9, ? 4). Although Yehoshua himself was not a scholar, he was solicitous for the instruction of the young, and provided schools in every town for children over five years of age, earning thereby the praises of posterity (B. B. 21a). The two lots used on the Day of Atonement , hitherto of boxwood, he made of gold (Yoma iii. 9). Yehoshua did not remain long in office, being forced, after a year, to give way to Matthias ben Theophil ("Ant." xx. 9, ? 7)." i.e. Martha bribed someone named Jannai in 64CE. Not clear who this Jannai is but definitely not a king -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:44:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:44:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B7DB8C.8030404@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 03:23 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Interestingly wikipedia writes I.e. somebody, perhaps with no more information than you or me, wrote > i.e. Martha bribed someone named Jannai in 64CE. Not clear who this > Jannai is but definitely not a king Says who? Why do you say that, especially when not only does the gemara say he was a king, but we know that at the time the kehuna gedola was in the gift of king? -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 13:37:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:37:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? Message-ID: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> From: Meir Shinnar via Avodah >> That is the crux of the issue -- not whether we wish to pasken that this is muttar for ourselves (or for those who listen to us..) -- but how we view those who follow a different shitta -- and anyone who suggests that RYBS viewed his wife as nonobservant or not fully halachically committed is motsi la'az and needs to go to her kever [snip] That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. << Meir Shinnar >>>> [1] No one has ever suggested that RYBS viewed his wife as "nonobservant" so nobody has to go to her kever, although anyone who wants to may do so. I assume her children and grandchildren go on her yahrzeit. The line between observant and nonobservant is pretty clear, even though all of us sometimes sin. I have yet to hear of anyone saying that if a woman keeps Shabbos, kashrus and taharas hamishpacha, but does not cover her hair, she is "nonobservant." However if you know of a person who does say that, please cite the source, thank you. Maybe he is the same person who says that if you talk loshon hara you are nonobservant -- and therefore there are only about 500 observant Jews in the whole world, if that. [2] There is no "different shita." There was no "shitta in Lita" allowing married women to go out with their hair uncovered. What there was in Lita was the winds of Haskala, Reform and sliding, sliding, sliding away from Torah, more marked among the women even than among the men. Sarah Schnirer noted that there were chassidishe homes in Poland where, after the Friday night Shabbos meal, the teenage girls and even the mother would go out to see a play at the local theater. If there was slippage in Poland, where chassidus was strong, you can just imagine what was going on in Lita, where there was nothing to capture the hearts and minds of people who were not themselves talmidei chachamim -- viz, the unlearned masses, and the women. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 14:30:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:30:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> References: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150728213052.GA12259@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:37pm EDT, RnTK wrote: : [2] There is no "different shita." There was no "shitta in Lita" : allowing married women to go out with their hair uncovered... The AhS, whose theory of pesaq gives a lot of weight to seeing which ruling was accepted as general practice, famously permits saying Shema while seeing a married woman with her hair uncovered. But this is what he says in OC 75:7 , where that heter is given: And now, we will cry about the breached of our generation in its many since, for many years Benos Yisrael violate this sin and go with a revealed head. And whateve we yell about this, it doesn't help and it doesn't have an effect. And now this mispachas [oe of the nega'im] has spread, that married [women] go with their hyair like the besulos do. Woe to us that this arose in our generation! Still, al kol panim, according to the din is appears permitted to us to daven and make berakhos opposite their revealed heads, since now that most of them go this way... memeilah there won't be hirhur. So, RYME is pretty clear: It was common, it was viewed has a sin -- not "a different shittah", and the rabbinate did complain but no one listened. And again, that's the AhS, not the textual theoretician "what ought the ideal halakhah be from a clean slate" approach of the MB. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 14:46:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:46:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728214605.GB12259@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 02:10:52PM -0400, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: : AIUI the [MT] "was all that you needed to study". Are you/RGS saying that : this is only as a codifier? RAMBAM did not feel that he was passing on the : mesorah? In the end, it does not matter what he wrote, RASHI vs RAMBAM, you : must have RASHI, RAMBAM is nice but without RASHI you come to a dead end? As the Rambam says in the haqdamah (par 40 ), the goal was to put the "TSBP kulah sedurah befi hakol" -- his primary audience was the masses. And we know how much he thought of the masses. Similarly he continues (41) by telling you he his work "Mishneh Torah" because it fulfills the shelish bemishnah -- the studying of halakhah pesuqah. (He calls it sheliesh BTSBP, but as you just saw in the haqdamah, the Rambam both identifies the two and also says they're contained in his MT.) However, in Hil' Talmud Torah 1:12 tells you that that's only "betechilas tazlmudo shel adam, aval kesheyagdil bechokhmah" he should set time for TSBK and divrei hashemu'ah so as not to forget, "veyifneh kol yamav ligemara". So it is not impossible that even the Rambam himself might agree that those who explain how to do the shaqlara vetarya like gemara, or lomdus, or "veyotzi davar midavar veyidmeh dava ledavar" etc... are more central to the mesorah than his own Mishneh Torah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 13:54:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: <9ea4b.71e33b03.42e9460c@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) >>The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are forgotten after 12 months (memory of the bet hamikdash is different) I have a personal problem with this statement. To my sorry I know of several people who have lost children especially in the age of 18-25. One thing I have learned from these people is that one never forgets a child << --Eli Turkel >>>>> My grandmother had a baby daughter who died at the age of five months, and fifty years or more after that, I once asked her about the baby she had lost. She started to cry as if it had just happened, and described the baby in detail -- what she looked like, what she could do at five months and so on. So I learned the lesson that a parent never forgets a lost child. However, she only cried for a little while and then returned to her cheerful self. I'm sure that in the year after her baby died, she was not cheerful. I don't think "gezeira al hameis" means the person is literally forgotten, but that the degree of mourning becomes less intense. Initially the bereaved person, especially a bereaved parent, simply cannot believe the child is gone, and constantly thinks and even dreams about the child. With the passage of months and years, the knowledge that the child is truly gone is assimilated and the parent goes on with life, even if a heaviness always remains somewhere in the background. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 15:38:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 18:38:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150728223810.GD12259@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:12am EDT, R/Dr Meir Shinnar wrote: : Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions : I) in hazal - that continued desire for some forbidden actions : is compatible with a high spiritual state - issue is control of : the desire - NOT its presence : II) Aristotelian ethics - a high spiritual state does not desire : for forbidden - the desire is a sign of a flaw. But chazal too talk in terms of virtue ethics, not just in terms of kibush hayeitzer (overcoming the desire) but also tiqun hayeitzer (adjusting those desires). Most famously, "mah Hu Chanun, af atah chanun". Or, as the Rambam paraphrased, "mah hu *niqra* 'Chanun'..." It doesn't speak of giving to others without cause despite desire, it asks us to develop the middos of chanun, rachum, etc... Now, on to a totally different topic... On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 05:15:16PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote: : Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. Sex : is proper as long as you minimize it. - Is the difference really that : subtle? To me, it is as subtle as a brick. I think the difference is just about that, but because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: 1- It involves a second party. There is no threat of objectifying good. 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... Therefore, the attitude toward perishus for each comes from opposite directions. For food, which is necessary for survival, we talk about how much is too much. For sex, we talk about the right balance between keeping the other happy (chiyuv onah) and turning them into a tool for your own happiness. The bottom line is still the same: perishus from challenges I cannot handle while be maqdish olam hazeh the rest of the time. The details differ due to the differences above. On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:18am GMT, Kenneth Miller wrote: : .... This is a case where the Shulchan : Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went : uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed... On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:41pm EDT, Rn Toby Katz replied: : It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too loosely. If : it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim and acharonim, agree : that marital intercourse is always mutar (assuming the usual, the wife is not : a nidah, it's not forced, it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really : talking about here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan : Aruch. What frequency is optimum? Surely that is at least partly subjective, ... While what I said before about "minimize it" not meaning all that different from "don't overdue" addresses this question of RAM's as well, I think RnTK's response is really the essence of the answer. But to quibble with the language... I'm not sure it's "hashkafah" as much as Hilkhos Dei'os / Chovos haLvavos. After all "Qedoshim tihyu" is a chiyuv, not a nicety, and that's a source for "perushim tihyu". What a mitzvah to be or to become something (such as "qadosh") is in practice, though, is inherently situational and subjective. If we were talking about something reducible to black-letter halakhah and objective rules, it would have been. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 15:58:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:58:41 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <20150728.185841.2133.0@webmail10.vgs.untd.com> R"n Toby Katz wrote: > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar > (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, > it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might also be RTK's point). But if that is how we are to understand the vocabulary, then we have a whole new way of reading the Shulchan Aruch. Here are some examples: It's not assur to shmooze between Geulah and Tefillah of Maariv. (236:2) It's not assur to say Shehecheyanu on the Lulav on the second day. (662:2) Surely that is at least > partly subjective, and any of the various sources that apparently disagree with each other can be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up what your gut tells you is right. I can easily see a modern day rav or Torah mentor varying his answers depending on the circumstances of the wife and husband who are asking him for advice, as well as accepted societal norms. Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least some obligation to fulfill. ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b8096a62fe9695575st03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 20:51:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:51:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 02:09:11PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : That should be halfway between moldos, i.e. 14d 18h 22m after the : molad, not a full 15 days. It should also be adjusted for the time : difference between your standard time and Y'm's real time, which : for NY is 7h 20m in the winter and 6h 20m in the summer. Using : a full 15 days is only bediavad. Y-m time to EST is 7h 21m, not 20. But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we call it. It's hard to know exactly where the molad is being announced for, since the average lunation has changed over time and the accumulated difference between estimation and reality over millenia has grown large. Right now, the average molad matches the average moment of new moon for Qandahar, Afghanistan. If we go back in time to when the molad was closest to one lunar month, we get to 4th cent CE, the days of Hillel Nesi;ah. The av beis din to whom R Hai Gaon attributes our current calendar. If we assume the molad then was most accurate in start time as well when it was most accurate in durection, then the molad is being announeced for something like Ur Kasdim, which is also around the middle of Jewish settlement at the time, between the Nile and the Euphrates. In which case, the molad is being announced for a place 44 min after IST (not 21m). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 23:45:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 02:45:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 11:51 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Y-m time to EST is 7h 21m, not 20. True. I was approximating, much as the Rambam did with Y'm latitude. > But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we > call it. http://mechon-mamre.org/i/3811.htm#17 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:33:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 02:45:03AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we :> call it. : http://mechon-mamre.org/i/3811.htm#17 The Rambam there (Qiddush haChodesh 11:17) discusses the calculation of the calendar. The rules are set up based on RC in Y-m. Announcing the molad doesn't reflect the calculated calendar, but the whole Qiddush haChodesh is set up to invoke Sanhedrin being meqadesh al pi re'iyah. So perhaps they chose a clock for announcing the molad that wasn't the one they used to translate to the meridian used for translating mollad into rosh chodesh. Why would we do so? Isn't the meridian of Y-m the obvious time to use even if it weren't the one used to compute the calendar? As I quickly mentioned (I gave more details more than once in the past), I am suggesting a different meridian because if Hillel Nesi'ah ubeis dino had assumed a molad that was 23 min earlier than the one we announce, the molad would be more accurate. 23 min later than Yerushalayim does correspond to a meaningful place at the time, a point exactly midway between the Jews of EY and those of Bavel. Aside from including Ur Kasdim. Not the most obvious choice (Yerushalayim) but still not a random meridian either. So why not assume they picked the meridian for announcing the molad on that basis, and credit the Sanhedrin with knowing the molad to greater accuracy? The question is what that does to molad zaqein, and how we would explain the clean result of before noon vs posponing RH if the molad is after noon. The idea behind molad zaqein is that the furthest east Jewish community would still be able to see (weather permitting) the new moon before the end of RC. This is obviously only a loose idea, since we're talking about timing based on the molad, an approximate average. (So that on average Jews in the east would see the new moon...?) RYGB and/or RAZZ theorize http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n038.shtml#08 that the Calendar Controversy was over the issue of how far east do we worry about. R' Aharon ben Meir wanted to move the cutoff for molad zaqein by 64 chalaqim. (More than 23 min, ie 414 chalaqim.) He doesn't say why. Their article suggests that RABM was setting the rule for molad zaqein based on the furthest known Jewish settlement at that time. Which would be Kaifun, and the numbers work. Whereas RSG objected saying that the location is theoretical, not experimental. The Kuzari (following RSG -- since it's his version of the calendar that we all use) uses this to argue that the international date line is 90 deg east of Y-m ih"q. And thus any Jewish settlement that would be further east would be on the other side of the date line WRT Rosh Chodesh, and there is no problem of the molad being on their day 2. If so, changing the molad by 23 min would change the calendar, halakhah would prove my claim wrong. But few if any of us hold that the date line is 90 deg east of Y-m, east down 125.2 deg E, down Dongeng St in Changchun, China. To quote R Dovid Heber at : Families on the eastern strip of Dongfeng Street would recite kiddush while families a block to the west would recite havdala. It may be possible for those who want two days of Shabbos to walk one block eastbound, down Dongfeng Street, after Seuda Shlishis and start Shabbos again. Those who want to skip almost all of Shabbos could take a short stroll westbound, and go from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. (This post needed something light to leaven it.) >From where I sit, between those who say 180deg and the CI's adjudgment of including the entire land mass if part of it is west of 90deg, the dominant shitah is inconsistent with the Kuzari's explanation. If the date line is not involved, it would mean the machloqes would be about what we mean by the far enough end of Jewish settlement who would still experience the molad before the end of RC. RSG is saying that 90 deg is the Sanhderin mandated estimate, and RABM holds it's the actual furthest settlement. And that stands whether or not RYGB and RAZZ are correct about RAML's sevara, as we're only looking at RSG lehalakhah. I just took the Kuzari's lomdus and asked what it would mean to those who don't agree with his date line. If that line of reasoning is correct, then saying the approximate eastmost community is to be measured from the center of the core Jewish settlement -- between Bavel and EY -- ends up more intuitive than saying it's measured from Y-m. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 05:11:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:11:28 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Ooops! Yesterday I accidentally pressed "send" when I meant to "save draft". The result was a post that was far from finished. Here is what I had intended to publish: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar > (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, > it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might also be RTK's point). But IF that is how we are to understand the vocabulary, then we have a whole new way of reading the Shulchan Aruch. Here are some examples of this new way of understanding: It's not assur to shmooze between Geulah and Tefillah of Maariv (236:2) or to say Shehecheyanu on the Lulav on the second day (662:2) or to say Hallel on RH and YK (584:1) or to get a haircut before Mincha (232:2). It's not assur to daven only in your heart, but it's better if you pronounce the words with your lips. (101:2) I will concede that these examples are indeed less severe than cases where the Shulchan Aruch DOES use the word "assur". But nevertheless, we do not take these halachos as mere suggestions. Despite the lack of the word "asur", we DO accept it as normative psak halacha, and not as "hashkafa", to use RTK's word. So why should Siman 240 be different? Why would we suddenly take the words of Siman 240 to be hashkafa, and wave off the Shulchan Aruch, saying that his derech is different than our derech? Shouldn't we accept it as normative halacha? Even if I feel these halachos to be strange or difficult, shouldn't I at least accept them as a goal to strive for? And if I *don't* strive for them, doesn't that require teshuva? > Surely that is at least partly subjective, and any of the > various sources that apparently disagree with each other can > be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up > what your gut tells you is right. Maybe, but one had better be VERY sure that those sources actually exist, and that they have ample support in the poskim. Otherwise - as I asked a couple of posts ago - how is this any different than what the conservative and reform do? "It's a big machlokes - there's gotta be someone who paskens the way I want, so that's what I'm gonna do." I shudder when I hear otherwise-observant people saying such things. There are indeed some cases where there is such a *lack* of consensus among the poskim that one can do as he wants (one of my teachers paskened this way and for this reason regarding brachos on dessert), but I do not see Siman 240 in this category. We seem to be abandoning the consensus of the Shulchan Aruch and Nosei Keilim, and running to minority rishonim. > Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing > this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing > to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation > of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional > closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly > pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least > some obligation to fulfill. Are we really sure that (for the wife) physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness from the Torah's perspective? Or perhaps that is only an invention of minds which have been clouded by the outside culture? Could it be that Onah requires physical closeness, but not emotional closeness? I get mixed messages on this. On the one hand, an awful lot of Siman 240 is devoted to husband and wife both being of the proper frame of mind, and this is extremely strong evidence to the real importance of emotional closeness. But when I see halachos about keeping conversation to a minimum, and keeping the time involved to a minimum, then I wonder how much closeness can be achieved. I had posted: : Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. : Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. R' Micha Berger responded: > ... because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: > ... 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... Really? Can we really survive without it? You and me, I suppose, but that's because we are male. RTK referenced mitzvas onah. In the Torah's view, sex is as essential as food and shelter are. But only for women. Regardless of whether we're talking about physical closeness or emotional closeness, it seems that the Torah is concerned about closeness only for the woman, and not for the man. For women, closeness is a need which must be met; for men, closeness is a taavah which must be controlled. Let's not allow ourselves to get confused between needs and taavos. A person may desire something so much that he thinks it to be a need, but he is deluding himself. Nowhere do I see any responsibilities of the wife which are comparable to Mitzvas Onah. Yes, she'll be a "moredet" if she refuses, but (as I understand it) that is due to the social contract implicit in the concept of marriage, which is a very cry from a Chiyuv D'Oraisa. ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b8c3465e5f543465c9est02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:01:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:01:07 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla Message-ID: according to the Hebrew wikipedia Matyha bat Baytus bought the high priesthood for her husband Yehoshua ben Gamla towards the end of the second Temple. As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai and they guess that it was from Agripas II. Furthermore Yehoshua Ben Gamla was killed during the revolt against Rome. (Where the high priest Yishmael ben Elisha fits in we have discussed in the past) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:07:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:07:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150729160759.GF12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 06:01:07PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> according to the Hebrew wikipedia Matyha bat Baytus bought the high :> priesthood for her husband Yehoshua ben Gamla towards the end of the second :> Temple. As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai and they guess :> that it was from Agripas II. : Furthermore Yehoshua Ben Gamla was killed during the revolt against Rome. : (Where the high priest Yishmael ben Elisha fits in we have discussed in the : past) The gemara is Yuma 18a and Yevamos 61a. The mishnah in Yevemos says that Yehoshua ben Gamla married Marta bas Baisus, an almana, but before consummating the marriage "umanahu melekh" to be kohein gadol, The point of the mishnah is that they can stay married, as actually happened in this event. The gemara comments on the language of "manahu" rather than the expected "nisnamneh" to denote that the appointment wasn't the usual approval of a candidate selected by the kohanim and vetted by Sanhedrin. Then the gemara says she spent two qavin ("tarqav" = trei + qav) of dinarim to buy it. The gemara in Yuma makes this last point as well. Josephus (Antiquities XX 9:4 ) wrote that he became KG during the reign of Herod Agrippa II. Nothing about how. The translation reads weird, calls him "Jesus the son of Gamaliel". I went to the Soncino, since I don't know who else would comment on a gemara - Josephus interaction. Fn 16 on Yuma, 20 on Yevamos make the identity. They first opine that "Jannai is often employed in the Talmud as a general patronymic for Hasmonean and Herodian rulers." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:30:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:30:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?HILCHOS_KIBUD_AV_V=92EIM?= Message-ID: <20150729153144.1CF3218089B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://halachafortodaycom.blogspot.com/2013/02/archives-hilchos-kibud-av-veim.html Some selections from this site. The Aseres HaDibros, the Ten Commandments given to us by Hashem on Har Sinai are divided into two parts, the first five are commandments between man and Hashem (Bein Adam L?Makom) and the last five are commandments between man and fellow man (Bein Adam L?Chaveiro) Kibud Av V?Eim ,the fifth of the Aseres HaDibros, is listed amongst the commandments that are between man and Hashem even though it is seemingly a commandment that is only between man and man. The reason for this is that honoring one?s parents is akin to honoring Hashem. There are 3 partners in every human being, the father, the mother and Hashem. If one honors any of the three it is as if all three have been honored, and if one dishonors any of the three it?s as if all three have been dishonored. 1)It is prohibited to contradict a parent. (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah Siman 240:2) If a parent has a verbal disagreement with another person, and the child tells the other person ?I concur with your view?, it is considered contradicting the parent and is prohibited. (Shach Yoreh Deah 240:2) 2) According to some Poskim this prohibition is only in the presence of the parent. Other Poskim, however, maintain that even not in the presence of the parent it is prohibited. 1)It is forbidden to call a parent or refer to them by their name; rather they need to be referred to as ?My father [my teacher]? or ?My mother?. 1) What constitutes ?Kibud, respecting? parents? One must speak to their parents softly, with respect the way one would speak to a king. 1) Children are obligated to stand up for their parents when they enter a room. 1) If a parent does something that is against the Torah and a child sees, the child should not say ?You transgressed a Torah prohibition?, as bluntly saying so will cause the parent embarrassment. Rather, the child should say something to the effect of: ?Father Does it say in the Torah that one should not .?? in a way that sounds like a question and not like a chastisement or rebuke, and the parent will realize on their own that they have committed the sin. 1) If one?s father asks for a glass of water or any other task, and at the same time his/her mother asked for a glass of water or another task, tending to the father?s needs takes precedence, as the son/daughter and the mother are both obligated to respect the father/husband. 2) If a parent is sleeping it is forbidden to wake them up. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:51:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:51:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B8F66D.2000701@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 11:33 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > > But few if any of us hold that the date line is 90 deg east of Y-m, > east down 125.2 deg E, down Dongeng St in Changchun, China. To quote > R Dovid Heber at: > Families on the eastern strip of Dongfeng Street would recite > kiddush while families a block to the west would recite havdala. > It may be possible for those who want two days of Shabbos to walk > one block eastbound, down Dongfeng Street, after Seuda Shlishis and > start Shabbos again. Those who want to skip almost all of Shabbos > could take a short stroll westbound, and go from sunset Friday to > sunset Saturday. > (This post needed something light to leaven it.) Shu"T Bnai Tziyon points to a gemara about two villages within techum shabbos, where it was Yom Kippur in one and not the other, because that was the last place the messenger had made it before sunset. (I can't figure out how that actually worked, but that is what the gemara says.) He avoids the awkwardness of the situation posited in this clip by positing that the line is not one-dimensional but is several miles wide, and that the area inside the line has an official din of sofek, like bein hashmoshos. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:21:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 19:21:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: saw some trivia questions: 1) Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters of the alph-bet (I only know one) 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:51:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:51:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150729165138.GH12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 07:21:20PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 1) Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters : of the alph-bet (I only know one) Soferim use Tzefania 3:8 to show their penmanship, because it not only includes all 22 letters, it also includes all the sofios. Is that a way to denote total ultimate justice (the meaning of the words ) or what? This question is easier than that, just asking for 22 letters, not whether sofis or not. I already heard this one so I will leave the other 6 for others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:58:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B8F834.5060103@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 11:01 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > according to the Hebrew wikipedia Which is no more authoritative than English WP, and in fact seems to have looser rules regarding sourcing. > Matyha bat Baytus Martha. > As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai As Tosfos already points out, in both places where the gemara quotes this memra. > they guess that it was from Agripas II. That seems like a good guess, that the Yannai in the memra refers to the king Josephus calls Herod Agrippa II, but it is only a guess. On 07/29/2015 12:07 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I went to the Soncino, since I don't know who else would comment on a > gemara - Josephus interaction. Fn 16 on Yuma, 20 on Yevamos make the > identity. They first opine that "Jannai is often employed in the Talmud > as a general patronymic for Hasmonean and Herodian rulers." Which, for all we know, it may have been. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 10:13:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:13:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B909C7.7070906@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 12:21 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach 1. The definition of an "edah" from "this wicked edah". 2. Hezek re'iyah from Bil'am. 3. Standing for a davar shebikdusha, from Eglon. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 14:57:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:57:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150729215724.GA3540@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:11:28PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : R"n Toby Katz wrote: : > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too : > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim : > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar.... : > What we are really talking about : > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan : > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... : : Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. : : I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount : of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as : "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" : (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken : literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that : these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might : also be RTK's point). Which is why I quibbled with RnTK's language. Becauser I think it's assur -- really and actually assur -- not to try for perishus where possible. It's a bitul asei of "qedoshim tihyu". However, a mitzvah of hilkhos dei'os is to stretch, to move the nequdas habechirah and is therefore not only "at least partly subjective" but necessarily subjective. And if the criteria for behavior could be spelled out non-subjectively, they would be spelled out in chovos ha'eivarim. : I had posted: :: Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. :: Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. : R' Micha Berger responded: :> ... because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: :> ... 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... : Really? Can we really survive without it? You and me, I suppose, : but that's because we are male. Under normal circumstances, one can't go 3 days without food and water. Not just "one would be miserable if", but actual death. I am not sure how you could compare the need for intimacy to that kind of mechanistic do-or-die. : RTK referenced mitzvas onah. In the Torah's view, sex is as essential : as food and shelter are. But only for women. I disagree. And BTW, my #1 which you ellided /was/ mitzvas onah. : Regardless of whether we're talking about physical closeness : or emotional closeness, it seems that the Torah is concerned about : closeness only for the woman, and not for the man. For women, closeness : is a need which must be met; for men, closeness is a taavah which must : be controlled. Or, the Torah presumes that opportunity is in the hands of men. Not a difference in desire. Or -- a 3rd possibility -- lehefech, men are presumed more likely to get distracted by their own taavos and objectify their spouse and therefore the chiyuv of onah to focus on someone else's psychological needs. In any case, the requirement to avoid misery would motivate a chiyuv, one needn't define it as a need. Esperically since biologically, it's not necessary for survival the way food, drink or air are. But getting back to what you're saying here... Let me repeat point #1 in different phrasing: Because onah is indeed a chiyuv, saying that it should be minimized outside the realm of mitzvah isn't that much of a minimization. And yet, the threat of erotic desire becoming an end in itself is both more damaging, since there will be other victims beyond the self-destructive aspect and more likely. (In most people's psychology -- it's not like there is an internet food "porn" industry.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 15:37:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:37:27 GMT Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> R' Eli Turkel asked: > The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov > mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are > forgotten after 12 months ... > > I have a personal problem with this statement. ... one never > forgets a child R"n Toby Katz answered: > I don't think "gezeira al hameis" means the person is literally > forgotten, but that the degree of mourning becomes less intense. > ... the parent goes on with life, even if a heaviness always > remains somewhere in the background. I have had the same question as RET, and I thank RTK for this answer. I have written on several occasions, about my belief that Chazal often exaggerate, and this misleads those who are not used to their style of speaking. I think we have here another example of the same thing. There's a tendency to take Chazal at literal face value. We need to be more careful when reading the poetry. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 08:02:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:02:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Parallels in Kiruv Message-ID: <56c357c0b3404dbcbfc7bce2d25a6162@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Here's a quote from "Their Rock is Not Like Our Rock" - Daniel Strange In a recent article addressed to evangelical pastors I outlined a three-point "to do" list that might begin to move us into this stance: * Develop and deploy a biblically rich and nuanced theology of religions * Discern and denounce the arrogance and intolerance of pluralism * Demonstrate and display, in both word and deed, the unique power of the gospel to change lives and communities My impression is the first two are not generally done by kiruv folks but I was wondering if you replace gospel with orthodoxy and evangelical pastors with kiruv professionals, what fits? Should it be considered as an approach? Kol Tuv, 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 09:30:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:30:47 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: 'oh hanisa elokim' is one; the other is in parshat haman , i forget which one. will leave the dvar tora connecting the two , to others , other than to say the import of 'zeh gilui shechina' and lechem mishamayim as fundaments of faith,,,, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 10:38:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:38:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: From: Eli Turkel via Avodah " 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach -- Eli Turkel >>>>> Don't know if this is what you had in mind but I can think of these: [1] A woman cannot be married without her consent -- learn from Lavan -- "Nish'alah es pi hana'arah" before sending Rivka off with Eliezer to marry Yitzchak. [2] A younger sister cannot marry before the older sister (unless she gets permission from her) -- from Lavan again, excusing himself for giving Leah to Yakov instead of Rachel. [3] Celebrating seven days of sheva brachos -- from two places. One is Lavan again -- give Leah a week to celebrate and then Yakov can marry Rachel. And from the Pelishti "friends" of Shimshon who celebrated his wedding for a week. [4] We also learn from Izevel (Jezebel) that it's a big mitzva to dance at a wedding, to be mesameach chassan vekallah, but strictly speaking this is not in Tanach, it's a midrash. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 11:41:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:41:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: In Avodah V33n109, RET posted > Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters of the alph-bet (I only know one) < In the Torah, a *pasuq* in P'Va'eschanan (4 :34) is usually noted, but it (containing letter *sin* but no *shin*) works only when the *shin* and the *sin* are considered the same letter (they are, so long as we're considering the written form). The other *pasuq* in the Torah of which I'm aware is Shmos 16 :16 (in it, the *shin* is extant but there's no *sin*). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 15:30:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:30:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months In-Reply-To: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150730223053.GA17753@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:37:27PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : I have written on several occasions, about my belief that Chazal often : exaggerate, and this misleads those who are not used to their style of : speaking. I think we have here another example of the same thing. There's : a tendency to take Chazal at literal face value. We need to be more : careful when reading the poetry. Tanakh sometimes does something else with a similar effect, and it may be what Chazal are doing here. Lei'ah, rather than being described as "less loved" is "senu'ah". It's not necessarily exageration as much as a language norm to express a relative statement uing the same terms as absolutes. Here too chazal are making a comparison. Was the reader expected to know it's guzma, or was the norm in mishnaic Hebrew as well to use the term for the end of the spectrum to mean "less mourned than"? My problem with this is the parent of the MIA who can't let go for years or decades, and then it's found out that the chayal r"l was killed upon capture (or their body was taken after petirah for a bargaining chip). We have no experimental evidence of parents having that mystical knowledge of their children's state, and quite a bit of evidence otherwise. Perhaps Yaaqov avinu, or even someone with "just" ruach haqodesh is that aware of what's going on on the plane of souls without learning about them through normal olam hazeh means. But I do not see it being true of the majority of humanity. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 20:39:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 03:39:12 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> I tried to make the point that although many try to show similarites between food and sex, if we look at the Torah's view, there are far more differences. I suggested a rule of thumb: > Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. > Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. Chazal see food as an entirely proper way of enjoying olam hazeh, to the point that it is actively encouraged as a form of all sorts of celebrations. (And not only happy celebrations, but eating is also involved in various mourning practices.) Under normal circumstances, one can and should eat as much as he needs, subject to the limitations of kashrus and brachos. One is never allowed to eat in a quantity or manner that he becomes a menuval, but that is not a major concern. Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah. And even there, the restrictions are many. Food has tremendous room for creativity even within the restrictions of hilchos kashrus and brachos. Sex could be similar, even within the bounds of hilchos nidda and arayos, but the restrictions set out in OC 240 go much farther than merely to insure that one does not become a menuval. R' Micha Berger responded: > I think the difference is just about that, but because of the > biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: > 1- It involves a second party. There is no threat of > objectifying [food]. > 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... > Therefore, the attitude toward perishus for each comes from > opposite directions. For food, which is necessary for survival, > we talk about how much is too much. For sex, we talk about the > right balance between keeping the other happy (chiyuv onah) > and turning them into a tool for your own happiness. I think that he is agreeing with me that food and sex are very different, but I disagree with his explanation of *why* they are so different. In his first point, intended to be "food"), he seems to feel that the restrictions on sex are to prevent people from taking advantage of each other: If I have even a small desire for a snack, the Torah has no problem at all if I go to the kitchen and take an apple (provided that I say the bracha to acknowledge Hashem's involvement) because the apple is nothing more than an apple. But while casual eating is fine, casual sex is not. Casual sex involves people, and they must not be taken advantage of. My problem with this is on several levels. First, Chazal are pretty explicit that the purpose of Hilchos Nida is to restore a honeymoon-style atmosphere on a regular basis, and that alone might suffice to insure that spouses aren't objectified. Also, we have the many parts of OC 240 which insure that husband and wife are in the same "place" emotionally: no one is drunk, words of "ritzui", and so on. But isn't that sufficient protection against objectifying? What is gained from the additional restrictions (such as various positions, or finishing quickly) which have no parallel in food? In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach the Torah uses for Onah. While men and women are pretty much identical in the halachos of food, Onah places the husband and wife in opposite situations. Any discussion of Onah that uses the word "spouse" will be flawed, because Onah treats the husband and wife so differently. For example, whenever the wife desires relations, then the husband has a clear and present chiyuv d'Oraisa. But if the husband desires, she has no corresponding obligation; in fact (if I'm not mistaken) she's not even labeled as a "moredet" until after prolonged and repeated refusals. It seems to me that Onah may have the effect of objectifying males. Those parts of Orach Chaim 240 which forbid unwilling relations ought to suffice to insure that the women are not objectified. But Onah seems to push the pendulum too far. In response to RTK, RMB wrote: > I'm not sure it's "hashkafah" as much as Hilkhos Dei'os / Chovos > haLvavos. After all "Qedoshim tihyu" is a chiyuv, not a nicety, > and that's a source for "perushim tihyu". > What a mitzvah to be or to become something (such as "qadosh") > is in practice, though, is inherently situational and subjective. > If we were talking about something reducible to black-letter > halakhah and objective rules, it would have been. And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective rules", is it not? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 1 22:55:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 00:55:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: I initially replied on Areivim to a post reminding women during the summer to cover their hair. Mrs. Katz added that there was no support for those who hold that hair covering in public is not necessary. Others have disputed what RYBS's position on hair covering was, in view of the fact that his wife did NOT cover her hair in public at all times(someone seems to have the impression that she wore a hat). Here are the sources I have collected, in addition to the fact that a significant percentage of Modern Orthodox women to not cover their hair in public except in shul/davening situations. In response to those who have stated that the younger more educated women are covering their hair, I would point out that they have been educated to believe that it is an obligation, and the permissive sources have not been shared with them- case in point Mrs. Katz who either is not aware or chooses to dismiss them out of hand. In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is: if it is the practice of women to cover [their hair] and she uncovered it, then this is immodesty ( *ervah*). But if it was not the regular practice [of women] to cover [their hair] then [going uncovered] is not in the category of immodesty at all. If they uncover one hand?s-breadth in a place where they are habituated to cover then it is [a case of] uncovering immodesty and it is prohibited to read the Shema prayer in their presence... But if their (ladies?) custom is to uncover their hair (or a hand?s-breadth of the body) ? as single women do who by custom walk around with head [hair] uncovered - then this [action] does not constitute immodesty (*ervah*)." If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. Here is a list of easily accessable sources: Rabbi Marc Angel(former president of the Rabbinical Council of America) discusses why hair covering is not mandated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbrQwEerLsY Massive article by Rabbi Michael Broyde: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/0095-0180.pdf I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and everyone can come to their own conclusion. Rav Yosef Haim(author of Ben Ish Chai) writing that hair covering is not necessary(and how his opinion was altered by others): http://text.rcarabbis.org/the-ben-ish-hai-and-women%E2%80%99s-hair-covering-an-interesting-case-of-censorship-by-jacob-sasson/ See Rabbi Broyde's article(pages 155-158) for citations of those who state that hair covering is not mandated in the current society: R. Yitzchak Hurwitz in Yad HaLevi R. Moshe Malka(late Chief Rabbi of Petach Tikvah) R. Josef Messas(late chief rabbi of Morocco and later Haifa) R. Yaakov Haim Sofer Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did not cover her hair? Was this permitted by the *halachah*, or was it not prohibited on the grounds of modesty? He took out a *Gemara Berachot*, opened it to page 24A and showed me the Talmudic statement. "Said Rav Sheshet: [showing] hair by a woman is *ervah *(an act of immodesty)." Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with uncovered hair. Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat common. Some will say that- 'they couldn't control their wives' or other such statements. I would point out that RYBS also went to the opera- perhaps in keeping with an approach that hair wasn't erva, a lenient view of kol isha, all of which seems consistent. Furthermore, it seems quite far fetched that a rav who knew that he had great communal status would abide by gross violation of halacha in public by his own family, and at the very least would make it clear that he did not hold by it. Obviously, the fact that he did not make a deal of it(certainly not a big deal), illustrates something. Do you think he would countenance his wife eating treif? furthermore, the chiyyuv is also for men not to see hair(if that is the position that is being taken), and by not protesting his wife's uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 2 03:40:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 13:40:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: <<> 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach 1. The definition of an "edah" from "this wicked edah". 2. Hezek re'iyah from Bil'am. 3. Standing for a davar shebikdusha, from Eglon. >> Some others are: 4. Lavan: Sheva Brachot; also the Bracha we give the Kalla at the bedeken 5. also "chaye shaah" is less important that "chaye olam" from the 4 lepers, gechazi and his sons -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 2 01:25:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 11:25:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: ""It's a big machlokes - there's gotta be someone who paskens the way I want, so that's what I'm gonna do." I shudder when I hear otherwise-observant people saying such things. There are indeed some cases where there is such a *lack* of consensus among the poskim that one can do as he wants (one of my teachers paskened this way and for this reason regarding brachos on dessert), but I do not see Siman 240 in this category. We seem to be abandoning the consensus of the Shulchan Aruch and Nosei Keilim, and running to minority rishonim." R' Lichtenstein was bothered by this point and answered that we need to rely on our teachers and Gedolim. "Probably most significant, however, is our reliance upon our own mentors. Sensing that modern gedolim, ?the judge of your era??for our purposes, most notably, the Rav, but not he alone?have examined the issue and the evidence and adopted a positive stance, we, ordinary students of Torah, follow in their footsteps as we identify with their position. Whether they felt justified in accepting, out of the depths of their own conviction, a minority view; whether they held that our topic was essen- tially a matter of hashkafic proclivity, not necessarily amenable to the nor- mal procedures of pesak; or whether some other unknown but imagined element?might, for instance, the hospitable climate of Kabbalistic sources, have had some impact?is a matter for conjecture. That the authority of our mentors can inform and sustain our sensibility is not." I understand that for many of us that is not a very satisfying answer and leads to many questions about why specifically here we follow minority opinions as opposed to other places (e.g. wombs issues, etc.) but I don't think there is a better answer. This is the way the halachic system works. Even after all of this, R' Lichtenstein himself was bothered by this very point: "I am left, nonetheless, with a lacuna. Even while adhering to the Rav?s position, one may freely concede wishing that he had done for us what we have been challenged and constrained to do here: examine the various tiers of tradition and elucidate the basis for his own judgment and commitment." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 01:21:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:21:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on tefillin Message-ID: There is a disagreement between Rashi/Rambam and R Tam whether one says one or two brachot on tefillin of the arm and head. While sefardim follow SA and say one bracha ashkenazim follow R Tam and say 2 brachot bur add "baruch shem kvod ..." to avoid a bracha le-vatala I have 2 things I don't understand about the ashkenazi minhag 1) The usual rule is "safek bracha le-kula" and so when in doubt don't say a bracha 2) How does saying "barch shem" help ? We have many disagreements about brachot. For example ashkenazim (again following R Tam) say brachot on customs, eg half hallel. We don't add "baruch shem ..." in these cases. Why only in tefillin? Furthermore whenever there is a doubt about a bracha (classical case is if one forgot to count the omer at night and remembered during the day) why do the act without a bracha - why not say the bracha and add "baruch shem" -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 07:43:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:43:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150803144333.GA30399@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 03:39:12AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed : in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah... ... and priya verivya, no? : Food has tremendous room for creativity even within : the restrictions of hilchos kashrus and brachos. Sex could be similar, : even within the bounds of hilchos nidda and arayos, but the restrictions : set out in OC 240 go much farther than merely to insure that one does : not become a menuval. ... : I think that he is agreeing with me that food and sex are very different, : but I disagree with his explanation of *why* they are so different. I have the same assessment. I am saying that the same principle of when perishus is appropriate is very different for food vs sex because food and sex are different in nature. Summarizing my point #1: : But while casual eating is fine, casual sex is : not. Casual sex involves people, and they must not be taken advantage of. : : My problem with this is on several levels. First, Chazal are pretty : explicit that the purpose of Hilchos Nida is to restore a honeymoon-style : atmosphere on a regular basis, and that alone might suffice to insure : that spouses aren't objectified.... If your objection is based on the "might suffice", all one needs to assert is or might not. : What is gained from the additional : restrictions (such as various positions, or finishing quickly) which : have no parallel in food? I am not sure that prohibitions based on mood are sufficient, as it's too easy to fool oneself about what the other person really wants. In any case, you return to OC 240 again at the end of the post and ask: : And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective : rules", is it not? Perhaps not. Is OC 1 black-letter halakhah? Is hitting the snooze button, or even lying around for a few seconds before getting up, actually assur? For that matter, there is a mitzvah to remember right vs left when putting on and tying shoes, but do you really think someone was oveir an issur if they don't? As the AhS OC often notes, the style of the SA is just to discuss do vs don't, and it blurs the distinctions between levels of issur -- a deOraisa can be next to an accepted minhag, and both may even be written in parallel language. : In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival : without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, : psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach : the Torah uses for Onah. : : While men and women are pretty much identical in the halachos of food, : Onah places the husband and wife in opposite situations... Whereas moredes has no parallel because she cannot initiate a gett. And for that matter, it has no parallel because he is obligated to support here. For that matter, the assymetry in who supports who is quite possibly why HQBH set up an assymetric process for gittin. The man who obligates himself in support can get of it. Onah is a protection against that objectification. Against turning that whole support thing into near prostitution. And with onah, the outcome is more symmetric -- he can end a marriage if dissatisfied, and is obligated to keep her satisfied. Without which BD can force him to willingly end the marriage. (Just paraphrasing the din...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 08:17:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:17:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on tefillin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150803151733.GB30399@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:21:03AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I have 2 things I don't understand about the ashkenazi minhag : : 1) The usual rule is "safek bracha le-kula" and so when in doubt don't say : a bracha : 2) How does saying "bar[u]ch shem" help ? ... The AhS (OC 25:11 ) agrees with you on both points, and therefore posits (se'ifim 12-13) a totally different meaning to the 2nd berakhah. And even though shel yad and shel rosh are two different of the 613, we make one berakhah on maaser rishon and maaser sheini. He also quotes that the BY rejects a possibility that if someone talks between the two tefillin, he would have to make both berakhos on the shel rosh -- repeting "lehaniach" and yet still saying "al mitzvah". But even though he uses this as proof, he requires (se'if 16, following the Ran via the MA s"q 15) loosening the shel yad so that you are still saying "lehaniach" the 2nd time on both. This is a pretty big chiddush, a birkhas hoda'ah that says "asher qidshanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu al mitzvas..." However, similar arguments are made about Birkhas haTorah, if one says the berakhah is deOraisa (Ramban) and therefore "aqb"v la'asoq bedivrei Torah" can't be a birkhas hamitzvah. The IM says as much (OC 2:3). : We don't add "baruch shem ..." in these cases. Why only in tefillin? Leshitas AhS, it follows enacting the qesher gadol between us and HQBH for the same reason the pasuq is said after the first pasuq of Shema. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:04:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 17:04:47 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> I wrote: : Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed : in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah... R' Micha Berger asked: > ... and priya verivya, no? I was trying to show differences between sex and food. I would say that, in the eyes of Halacha, there is no connection between pirya v'rivya and the olam-hazeh enjoyment of sex, in exactly the same manner that there is no connection between achilas matzah and the olam-hazeh enjoyment of food. The latter is a means of internalizing a historical connection, and the former is a biological imperative, but neither has any connection to olam-hazeh enjoyment. However, that it not to say that halacha is blind to the fact that sex *IS* enjoyable. This is recognized by the mitzvah of Oneg Shabbos, where if the act is to be done once a week, then Shabbos is receommended. Chiyuv Onah also recognizes that if the wife has a taavah for this particular hanaah, then it is the husband's obligation to satisfy her taavah. But pirya v'rivya? No, I don't see evidence of that. I asked: : And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective : rules", is it not? RMB suggested: > Perhaps not. Is OC 1 black-letter halakhah? Is hitting the snooze > button, or even lying around for a few seconds before getting up, > actually assur? For that matter, there is a mitzvah to remember > right vs left when putting on and tying shoes, but do you really > think someone was oveir an issur if they don't? I agree that there are degrees of obligation. A simple verb like "yaaseh" clearly implies a smaller obligation than "chayav laasos". "Must" is much stronger than "should". But if a subject makes it into Shulchan Aruch - as these did - that also shows a stronger obligation than something that appears only in Mesilas Yesharim, or even Gemara for that matter. Yes, I do think that when the alarm clock rings, one has an obligation to seriously consider whether he really *needs* to stay in bed a little longer, or whether he merely *wants* to. And I will admit that - b'shaas maaseh - I rarely consider that as seriously as I should. And that's one of the things I'm trying to improve on. Same thing for tying my shoes - I think that by now I do it correctly by habit, but I'm not really sure, and I'll try to remember to watch myself tomorrow morning. RMB wrote: > Whereas moredes has no parallel because she cannot initiate a gett. And > for that matter, it has no parallel because he is obligated to support > here. For that matter, the assymetry in who supports who is quite > possibly why HQBH set up an assymetric process for gittin. The man who > obligates himself in support can get of it. Yes, I agree that this could be part of why Hashem set it up that way. But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no corresponding safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55c0f0f9c892870f9653ast02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:43:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:43:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <117801d0cedd$1904bea0$4b0e3be0$@com> > But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan > Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went > uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why > aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? Good question. I can't help but thinking that this is one of those (many) halachic issues where the hanhaga of Klal yisroel in certain halachic (or hashkafic) areas has developed to be inline with yechidim than with the majority of chazal/rishonim/etc Why this happens is certainly a discussion - is it societal / siata shimaya guiding Klal yisroel / etc We have many others similar to this (some d'oriasa, some d'rabbanan) - human hair sheitals, chadash, live music after the churban, etc. When this should happen (and when it should be fought), I will leave to the einei haeida. Mordechai Cohen From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:49:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Baruch Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 10:49:07 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Halachic Requirement for Dayanim Evaluating In-Person Facial Expressions of Parties in Bais Din In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: List Mates: In an AMI issue that was reported in VosIzNais, Rabbi Hershel Schachter was quoted as saying: ""*There is a Mishna in Pirkei Avos that the oilam says a vort on. It says, "K'sheyihiyu habaalei dinim lifanecha, yihiyu b'einecha k'resha'im. K'she'yaamdu m'lifanecha yihiyub'einecha k'tzaddikim, shekiblu aleihem es hadin." ["When the litigants stand before you (the judges), they should be in your eyes like wicked people. When they stand up from being in front of you, they should be in your eyes like righteous people, because they have accepted the judgment."] They say from a few different dayanim that they would put a tallis over their face, to not see the face of a rasha. But that is wrong; part of the din Torah is to look at the person and see from his facial expression and how he talks...whether or not he is saying the truth. You have to be able to detect whether he is telling the truth*.'" ( http://www.vosizneias.com/92931/2011/10/11/new-york-in-exclusive-ami-magzine-intreview-noted-rabbi-schachter-slams-set-up-of-rabbinical-court-system/ ) Is there a Halacha that you can direct me to that mandates in-person and face-to-face participation by the parties to a Bais Din for the reasons given by Rabbi Schechter? I found this... The seating configuration of the Sanhedrin ??????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?? ?? The Mishnah describes how the members of the Sanhedrin sat in a row in the shape of a half-circle in order *for each person to be able to see everyone else*. Why was it necessary for everyone to be able to have direct eye contact with everyone else? Rashi explains that it is only when people have direct sight of each other that they can listen and then argue and debate with each other. ?"????? elaborates and says that when people argue and express their views, they often rise from their seats. If they did not sit facing each other, it is quite possible that they would not be able to hear when a person turns as he speaks from a standing position. Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin 1:3) explains that this arrangement was used in order for the President (????) and the Av Beis Din to be able to see everyone. Lechem Mishneh notes that this was a sign of respect for these leaders to sit in the middle and for everyone to easily be able to listen to them. Rashi also addresses why the Sanhedrin sat in a half-circle rather than in a full circle. From a technical standpoint, the witnesses and litigants would have to have a way to enter the circle to present themselves in front of the judges (see Rashi, Chullin 5a). Furthermore, if the judges sat in a full circle, while the witnesses would be facing some of the judges, their backs would be turned toward the others. *The judges might have a hard time hearing the witnesses and litigants, or they would not be able to see them as they spoke. Facial expressions and other subtleties are essential in communication, and the judges must be able to pick up on any and all such nuances during the deliberations*. The Tosefta (8:1) cites differing opinions regarding the seating position of the President of the Sanhedrin. Tanna Kamma holds that the President sat in the center of the semi-circle, with thirty-five of the members of the Sanhedrin seated on each side of him. R' Elazar b. Tzadok says that when Rabban Gamliel sat in the Sanhedrin in Yavne, one of the sages sat to his right, and all the others sat to his left. Rambam (ibid.) writes that the ???? sat with the Av Beis Din to his right, and the rest of the sages to his left, seated according to their ages and their wisdom, with the wisest among them to his immediate left, and the rest seated closer according to their level. Radva"z and Kesef Mishneh ask why Rambam does not rule according to Tanna Kamma, and, as he rules according to R' Elazar b. Tzadok, why the row begins with the Av Beis Din, and not with the ???? himself. Radva"z explains that it was not only the Av Beis Din who sat to the right of the ????, but the ???? sat in the middle, as Tanna Kamma explains, with the Av Beis Din to his immediate right. ??? ???? explains that Rambam rules according to R' Elazar b. Tzadok because he cites the actual case of Rabban Gamliel http://www.dafdigest.org/Sanhedrin/Sanhedrin%20036.pdf -- Respectfully, Baruch C. Cohen, Esq. Law Office of Baruch C. Cohen, APLC Los Angeles, CA 90010 e-mail: BCC4929 at gmail.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:24:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:24:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> From: Kenneth Miller via Avodah >> In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach the Torah uses for Onah. [snip] It seems to me that Onah may have the effect of objectifying males. << Akiva Miller >>>>>> To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without reproduction. Our nitzchius is absolutely dependent on this particular activity, which is why "peru urevu" is actually a mitzva and not "mutar if you wish." It is Hashem's chessed that He made this activity intrinsically pleasurable. If you were a robot or an alien without human emotions and you witnessed this human activity, you would wonder, "What the heck are these humans doing? And why?!" I am not an expert on male physiology but I am under the impression that for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. This reminds me of something else I wanted to say in response to some of RMB's posts. He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her. But human beings derive pleasure from each other all the time, whether the pleasure is a stimulating conversation, "please scratch my back," playing with a delightful, cuddly baby -- I could go on and on -- and it is just absurd to think that if another person gives me some kind of pleasure, I have "objectified" that person. Not to forget the main point I wanted to make: sex /is/ necessary for survival, and therefore some comparison to eating food /is/ valid. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:57:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:57:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> References: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150804185730.GA28011@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 02:24:43PM -0400, RnTK wrote: : To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS : required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human : species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without : reproduction... The question is the difference in relationship a person to their hunger compared to their sex drive. You appear to only be objecting to an overly broad use of "required for survival" by not saying "individual's survival", without touching the point that people relate to each desire very differently. (You also seem to ignore non-reproductive sex -- an infertile couple, post-menapouse, etc...) .... : This reminds me of something else I wanted to say in response to some of : RMB's posts. He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from : being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her... Pleasure is a positive thing, as long as it's not the only thing. It's turning a wife into a cheftzah by which he obtains his pleasure that is literally objectifying. If the husband is forced to think about her perspective, his wife as a person, during relations, the risk of the pursuit of pleasure taking over to that point, the mutual search for pleasure is humanizing and bonding, quite the reverse. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:10:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 14:10:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150804181031.667AC180E06@nexus.stevens.edu> At 01:51 PM 8/4/2015, Noam Stadlan wrote: >If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered >hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. Is it really true that what women in the general society do is some standard for tznius for Jewish women. If so, then the practices of "well undressed" gentile women (as R. A Miller used to call them) of today have eliminated all tznius standards. One sees women in public today dressed in almost nothing. [Email #2] At 01:51 PM 8/4/2015, Noam Stadlan wrote: >Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat >common. Just because something is or was commonly done does not make is correct according to halacha. Many, many people talk loshon hara, yet it is not proper according to halacha. [Email #3] Please see Covering the Hair by Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 13:07:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 23:07:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: >> Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters >> of the alph-bet (I only know one) < [R' Michael Poppers:] > In the Torah, a *pasuq* in P'Va'eschanan (4:34 > ) is usually noted, but it > (containing letter *sin* but no *shin*) works only when the *shin* and the > *sin* are considered the same letter (they are, so long as we're > considering the written form). The other *pasuq* in the Torah of which I'm > aware is Shmos 16 :16 (in it, > the *shin* is extant but there's no *sin*). We still need another 3 pesukim in the rest of Nach including one that has not only the 22 letters of the alphabet but also all the end letters -- Eli Turkel [Well in I already wrote: > Soferim use Tzefania 3:8 to show their penmanship, because it not > only includes all 22 letters, it also includes all the sofios. Is > that a way to denote total ultimate justice (the meaning of the words > ) or what? -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 15:31:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:31:53 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I see your pesukim and raise you a medieval Hebrew poem of four lines, where each line contains every letter of the alef-beit including sofiot exactly once with no repetition: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pagefeed/hebrewbooks_org_38040_154.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 5 02:53:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 05:53:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" Message-ID: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> I think a philosophy book just came out detending a variant of RSSchwab's "two clocks" explanation of ma'aseh bereishis. RSS's shitah appeared in AOJS's Challenge (ed. R Aryeh Carmel, R/Prof Cyril Domb pg 164 onward. surveys the area and summarized RSS as follows: Similarly, Rav Shimon Schwab talks of two types of time, cosmic time and earthly time. The 6 days of creation are counted according to cosmic time, during which period millions of years may have passed according to our measure of time. (Althugh I disagree with their next sentence on REED's position.) Now for the book. I just got this review : > he Fall and Hypertime > Hud Hudson, Oxford University Press, 2014, 211pp., $65.00 (hbk), > ISBN 0198712693. > Reviewed by Trent Dougherty, Baylor University > Hud Hudson's book is a brilliant and creative defense of the following > proposition. > There is a conflict between a literal reading of the book of > Genesis and science only if one assumes that the hypertime hypothesis > is false. > The import of Hudson's thesis is that those who allege a conflict between > science and a literal reading of Genesis are not basing that claim merely > on science but on controversial metaphysics as well.,,, > To understand the hypertime hypothesis (hereafter "HH"), begin > with the "growing block" theory of time, one of the standard set of > options. According to this theory, the past is real and "still exists" > as a "block" as spacetime and the future is "open," i.e. the future > does not exist. The block grows as the quantity of either space or > time increases. Hudson notes that there is nothing more intrinsically > mysterious about the block losing parts than its gaining parts. He > then points out that it is also not more intrinsically mysterious that > a "morphing block" shrink or grow not just in units of hyperplanes > ("slices" of the block) but also in sub-regions of hyperplanes. As a > result, there are no in principle limits to the ways in which a block can > morph, to the "shape" it can take. Furthermore, there is no good reason > why the hyperplanes (or sub-regions thereof) might not be "reshuffled" > in a different order. > Because the universe is here modeled as a spacetime block, the temporal > dimension only measures changes within the block. Hypertime measures, > as we may think of it, changes to the block (though technically blocks > at different hypertimes are numerically distinct,and there remains a > question concerning the status of various essentialisms about blocks > with respect to their parts). That means that at any given moment on > the hypertimeline, there can be a complete spacetime block, a complete > physical universe distinct from blocks at different hypertimes. Given > infinite hypertime, this generates a plurality of worlds not unlike that > of David Lewis. Hudson applies the possibility of this plurality in three > ways: to an understanding of omnipresence (which I will not discuss), to > (three versions of) the problem of evil (one of which I'll discuss below), > and in defense of his main thesis. The way HH helps with an understanding > of omniscience and the problem of evil gives it credit and motivates > it as a viable option so that its application to the main thesis is > not ad hoc (though it's being ad hoc would not prevent its success for > its purpose). I will describe the application to the problem of evil, > offer a criticism, then describe its application to the main thesis. > If there is a plenitude of spatiotemporally discrete universes, then it is > difficult to infer from any empirical observation that the actual world > is not the best possible world. It is important to remember that on the > hypertime hypothesis the spacetime blocks at different hypermoments are > only one portion of total reality. Our observable universe is a drop > in the bucket. So an argument from evil against the existence of God > from ours not being the best possible world would have to argue that > the observable universe could not even be a part of the best possible > world. That is not clearly an easy argument to make. > This move takes the form of what is traditionally called a "defense" > rather than a "theodicy"... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 5 15:22:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 18:22:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesak and Safeik Message-ID: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> Anyone know a source (or at least a theory) that discusses when we treat a machloqes as a safeiq, rather than applying the rules of peaq? The issue comes up in AhS YD 24:42. (Mazal tovs on completing OC will be graciously accepted.) Siman 24 discusses 4 of the 5 halakhos leMoshe miSinai of shechitah. (Shehiyah got its own siman.) There is a machloqes between the Behag and Rashi about the line between aqirah and tereifos. Rashi says that aqira is the displacement of the qaneh or veshet caused by using a nicked knife. Most rishonim hold like the Behag, and then there is a submachloqes about what kind of dislocated simanim are aqirah, ad what are tereifos. Leshitas Rashi, they would all be tereifos. Anyway, here the AhS says that Rama holds that midinei shechitah, we are machmir for every definition of aqirah. But midinei tereifah, which differ in that it would also prohibit the milk or eggs from such an animal, we recognize that the iqar hedin if the Behag, and are meiqil. So okay, one tiny bit of my question is answered -- we have a special rule by shechitah that machloqesin are resolved by safeiq deOraisa lehachmir. But WRT tereifos.... The AhS says that despite the Rama, we are nohagim lehachmir. So, while the Rama thinks this is a case where the rules of pesaq apply, the AhS says "we" disagree and treat it like a safeiq. Why? I also realize the line isn't all-or-nothing. I presume that not every shitah rises to the level of creating a safeiq, so there is some kind of pesaq-like reasoning necessary to assess which do and which don't. So it's more an issue of how balanced do shitos have to be for us to be unwilling to pasqen and just assume it's a safeiq. But still, these two acharonim are setting te line at a different place. So, does anyoe discuss the kelalim of when to bail out from the (other) kelalei pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 07:47:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:47:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] They Found Gat Message-ID: <20150806144710.GA2303@aishdas.org> As you may have heard, a team found the gates of Gat, Golias's home town. And, as I've noticed in the past, the question of whether they find evidence of the events as found in Tanakh or evidence against can be predicted in advance by checking the religious stance of who is running the dig. So you get this story from Haaretz : Philistine City of Gath a Lot More Powerful Than Thought, Archaeologists Suggest Powerful fortifications newly uncovered by Israeli archaeologists suggest the kingdoms of Saul, David may not have been quite as powerful as thought. Nir Hasson Aug 04, 2015 3:08 AM [IDT] ... According to Maeir, the discovery of Gath as a huge, fortified city on the border of Judea during an extended period, without any signs of destruction as a result of a war with Judea, proves the Philistines controlled the Judean plain. Because Khirbet Kaifa existed for a relatively short period -- about 30 years -- it is likely the remnant of a failure of the Israelite kingdom to spread westward and not a sign of its power. "The Judean kingdom is supposed to be big, important and strong," says Maeir. "But it turns out there is a very big city on its western border. For years, I claimed Gath was a big city, but they countered that it has no lower city, and if it has one it is not fortified. After finding a huge fortification, its clearly the most important city of the 10th and ninth centuries." Now, to get a hint of how we would have heard about Gat had the dig been run by a bilical maximalist, here's an element mentioned in : Near the gate, Maeirs team also unearthed the remains of the citys extensive fortification wall, a Philistine temple, ironwork and pottery. While the pottery bears hallmarks of the distinctive Philistine style, elements of Israelite techniques can be seen on the fragments as well, indicating there was more interaction between the two cultures than previously thought. Since Pelishti culture was importing Jewish culture, doesn't that lend MORE credibity to the idea that David haMelekh's kingdom was at east on the same scale if not overshadowing theirs? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 15:28:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 23:28:31 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] : Re: De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> RAM writes: >And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective rules", is it not? In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? And further read the Tur (and the meforshim on the Tur) in Even HaEzer simin 25 to get a fuller picture of the sources (and the original gemora sources) - so you can see the history of the machlokus on how to deal with this issue all the way back. As Rav Lichtenstein articulated it, the question is not so much that we differ from the position of Chazal, as our position (and the one quoted by the Rema) is much more in line with the majority position in Chazal, but why did the major rishonim - Rambam, Ra'avid etc differ so markedly from what appears to be the majority position in Chazal and posken - well like Rabbi Eliezer (shmuti hu?), as then did the Achronim. I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the influence of the outside world. The same sort of influence that reputedly led to the cherem of Rabbi Gershom (Jews who are supposed to be the upholders of morality cannot be seen to have more than one wife in a world where that is seen as immoral). In a world which identified relations with sin and death (standard Xtian theology of the time, and the Muslim theology in many circles was not that different) - it would have been inappropriate, and led to general looseness if the general non Jewish world view had been repudiated to the extent consonant with the positive positions found in Chazal. Hence Orech Chaim, the book most accessible to the masses, contains not a word of the Rema's position, that is buried in Even HaEzer, where it is more likely only the scholarly will look (or from the point of view of Maran, go look in the Tur). But to talk about relations positively in an open way in Xtian Europe would have created temptations for the non Jewish world that would have unleashed a level of vengeance (eg from the priesthood) that could likely not be endured. There was a lot of censoring and self censoring that went on in all sorts of areas, it seems to me also here, especially as there are the minority positions to bring and rely on. Only in the modern day world which has swung so far the other way is it possible to honestly and openly evaluate the position of Chazal, and that is what in effect has been done, by Rav Lichtenstein and others. >Akiva Miller Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 17:28:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 00:28:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? Message-ID: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Apparently, In the U.S., the therapist's duties are owed to the client, subject to statutory obligations such as the mandatory-reporting requirement. There is no exception for the therapist's religious custom or belief, unless, in limited circumstances, the client consents to it. Question-from a torah point of view should it make a difference who shows up at the therapist's (or Rabbi's)door (for any therapy or advice)? How does Halacha balance the needs of the individual, the family, the community, Jewish society and/or society in general? 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 12:56:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 15:56:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" In-Reply-To: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> References: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> What's the difference between this and Gerald Schroeder? KT, GS, YGB On 08/05/2015 05:53 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I think a philosophy book just came out detending a variant of RSSchwab's > "two clocks" explanation of ma'aseh bereishis. > > RSS's shitah appeared in AOJS's Challenge (ed. R Aryeh Carmel, R/Prof > Cyril Domb pg 164 onward. > > > surveys > the area and summarized RSS as follows: > > Similarly, Rav Shimon Schwab talks of two types of time, cosmic > time and earthly time. The 6 days of creation are counted according > to cosmic time, during which period millions of years may have > passed according to our measure of time. > > (Althugh I disagree with their next sentence on REED's position.) > > > Now for the book. I just got this review > : > >> he Fall and Hypertime >> Hud Hudson, Oxford University Press, 2014, 211pp., $65.00 (hbk), >> ISBN 0198712693. >> Reviewed by Trent Dougherty, Baylor University From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 13:32:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:32:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" In-Reply-To: <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> References: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150807203234.GA14121@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 03:56:56PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: : What's the difference between this and Gerald Schroeder? R' Gerald Schroeder is working within physics, using Relativity to try to make the timelines match up. R' Schwab, and for that matter this Hypertime idea are metaphysical, saying that the 6 days were not physical days, meausured using the same kind of time Galileo turned into a variable when he measured pendulum swings, Newton took derivatives with respect to, and Einstein unified with space. Rather, a logically prior idea altogether. This is more in line with the rishonim who said that science as we know it post-dates creation, and therefore time during creation is has to be measured with a different kind of clock than the one of physics. ------- And some day when humanity develops to this point, the two will finally be in sync. Which would fit RAYK's metaphysics in which every duality is an illusion, as everything is the Or Ein Sof from the Absolute Unity. And le'asid lavo, even the division between olam hazah and olam ha'emes will fall. Leshitaso, techiyas hameisim is a consequence of the reunification of the worlds of life and of death. Those souls don't so much come back to life as the distinction disappears. (I do not recall if RAYK invokes "hayinu kekholmim".) And yes, in such a situation, physical time will be back in sync with supernal time. Although one needn't believe in RAYK's eschatology in order to accept the concept that the two definitions of time will be unified, nor do we need to believe in eventual synchronization in order to talk about the 6 days of ceration being on a different kind of clock than physics. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 13:56:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 15:56:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Re; sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R. Levine wrote: "Is it really true that what women in the general society do is some standard for tznius for Jewish women. If so, then the practices of "well undressed" gentile women (as R. A Miller used to call them) of today have eliminated all tznius standards" Response: Of course there are baseline standards of tzniut for Jew, men and women, that are independent of surrounding culture. But hair covering is not one of them.(At least according the sources and shitta that I have brought). R. Levine then brings an article by Rav Breuer. That is his shitta, it doesn't mean it is universally accepted or binding. Much of what he brings is not specific halacha but advice or Nach based(the entire sugya of kol kevuda etc) I would note that the vast majority of shittot do not require single women to cover their hair I will not have access to respond for a week or so, but will be address further responses at that time. shabbat shalom noam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 8 12:02:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 22:02:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] depression Message-ID: Enclosed is a summary of the last shiur of R Zilberstein to the doctors. I am giving a shiur on this in my shul this coming shabbat. Since I feel it is controversial I am looking for input from the list. Question from a psychiatrist - A patient has 3 kids and has mild depression since the last birth. She wont take chemical drugs and instead uses one based on plants which is good for mild depression. It had some side effects and so the patient stopped that also. The dictor suggested various anti-depression drugs and other help which the patient refused, Contacting a social worker it turns out the woman runs a "nursery' (mishpachton) from 8am to 4pm. The social worker says she manages only with a great effort; her husband comes home from work at 1pm and the mother helps. The woman refuses to open a file in the social ministry because of this nursery which they may close down. The social worker pointed out that if something happens the state will prosecute the psychiatrist. Question: On one side there might be a danger to the kids in the nursery and the psychiatrist might lose her license OTOH this is a major income for the young family. She has successfully run the nursery for several months without any complaint with the help of the husband and mother. If this is all explained to the ministry it most likely won't help and they will closer her down Answer: The job of a bet din is to watch out for the welfare of the community. Hence, according to Torah law the doctor must go the rabbi of the city or neighborhood to hear their opinion, R Zilberstein notes that in Bnei Brak there is an agreement with the authorities that the local bet din deals with such problems and calls in the local authority only if they feel this is necessary. Such an arrangement should be set up in every town that the local bet din makes the decision. see YD 336:1 that ba doctor needs the permission of the bet din to practice, Therefore one needs the permission of the local secular authorities to rely on the judgement of the local rabbi. It is well known that the "mara de-atra" have the ability to treat broken and depressed people. In England there was a baby born with Down's syndrone whose Jewish parents disappeared. The local board of health turned to Rav Yoseph Dinner Zt'L what to do, Rav Dunner , who was the 65, (after checking with his wife) said they would adopt the baby since at that time there was no Jewish institution capable of handing this baby. The local board of health accepted this solution. The couple cared for the child until they reached the age of 80. At that point they transfered the child to an instituion in Afula, Each year R Dunner would come to Israel to bake matzot and then visit the child in Afula. The doctors in Britain said the best social workers are the Jewish leaders. In the beit midrash of R. Pam there was born a child with Down's syndrone. R Pam always tried to cheep up the boy. One year the boy complained that on simchat Torah they used all the sifrei Torah except for his paper one. After Musaf R Pam went to the Bimah and announced to everyone that now they were reading from the sefer Torah of this boy. This was the happiest moment for the boy and the angles surrounding "kise hakavod" Conclusion: The psychiatrist should explain to the local rabbi the situation in the nursery. The rabbi should come to some agreement with the local secular authotities to rely on his judgement -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 8 21:21:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 21:21:33 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? Message-ID: you are basically asking when must the rabbi/frum therapist offer halachic therapy and then risk prosecution? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 12:17:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:17:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] human hair sheitals Message-ID: In the thread "De-Chokifying Arayos", I asked: > But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan > Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went > uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why > aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? R' Mordechai Cohen answered: >>> I can't help but thinking that this is one of those (many) halachic issues where the hanhaga of Klal yisroel in certain halachic (or hashkafic) areas has developed to be inline with yechidim than with the majority of chazal/rishonim/etc >>> ... >>> We have many others similar to this (some d'oriasa, some d'rabbanan) - human hair sheitals, chadash, live music after the churban, etc. You are raising a great point. I have wondered this about chadash and music myself, and I'm somewhat surprised that I didn't see the connection. Thank you very much for bringing it to my attention. (Though, to be honest, these examples sharpen my question about Conservative "psak".) But for THIS thread, my question is simple and direct: Tell me more about why you specify "human hair sheitals". Have chazal/rishonim ever distinguished between wigs made of human hair vs other kinds of wigs? I was always under the (possibly mistaken) impression that chazal and rishonim - and even acharonim - only discussed the requirement to cover hair, and how much to cover, and the ramifications of leaving it uncovered. But I don't recall any discussion of the covering itself except by the leaders of very recent chasidic groups. Am I mistaken? Where is this discussed in the seforim? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 13:15:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 16:15:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: In Avodah V33n111, RET noted: >> Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters >> of the alph-bet (I only know one) << > We still need another 3 pesukim in the rest of Nach including one that has not only the 22 letters of the alphabet but also all the end letters < Fact-checking what I found via Google'ing (besides the *pasuq* already noted by R'Micha) provides these fifteen (!) *p'suqim* containing all the letters: -- Y'hoshua 23:13 -- M'lachim Beis 4:39, 6:32 -- Y'sha'yahu 5:25 -- Yirm'yahu 22:3, 32:29 -- Y'chezqeil 17:9 -- Hosheia 13:2 -- Amos 9:13 -- Esther 3:13 -- Daniel 3:22, 4:20, 7:19 -- Ezra 7:28 -- N'chemya 3:7 All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 14:11:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: <<< To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without reproduction. Our nitzchius is absolutely dependent on this particular activity, which is why "peru urevu" is actually a mitzva and not "mutar if you wish." >>> Yes, that's true. But please note that you yourself are referring to "peru urevu". My question concerns a different mitzva, namely Onah, wherein sex is explicitly linked to food and clothing/shelter. I don't think it is a big stretch to say that the common thread of these three things is how important they are to this particular individual, and NOT how important they are to the species. <<< ... for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. >>> I think we may be understanding the word "objectify" in different ways. Contrary to what some might think, not all men are constantly obsessed with having sex. At any given point in time, a particular man might have other priorities - other activities that he'd rather do than this one. But a husband cannot give higher priority to these activities over Onah, just like he can't choose them over minyan, or other mitzvos. He must be sensitive to his wife's needs and wants, and if he senses her mood, he is under a chiyuv d'Oraisa to act accordingly. (Actually, he'll have this chiyuv even if he does NOT sense her mood accurately, in which case he will have been Mevatel the Aseh b'shogeg, though I suppose it could easily be argued that it's more of a "shogeg karov l'meizid" if he hasn't even tried to judge her mood accurately.) But there is no flip side to Onah. The wife has no responsibility to judge her husband's desires. In fact, even if she does realize that he is "in the mood", there is no Chiyuv d'Oraisa for her to ignore her other desires and respond to her husband's desires. Sure, it could well be advisable for her to do so for Shalom Bayis reasons, and one might even call it a "chiyuv" in that context, but the imbalance remains: Her chiyuv would be Shalom Bayis alone, while the husband must deal with both Shalom Bayis and Onah. That's what I meant by "objectify": Much of Orach Chaim 240 is to protect the wife from a forcible rape (for instance, she can't be asleep or drunk), and much is also to protect her from more subtle rape (such as thinking of another woman). But there are far fewer protections offered to the husband. Neither can be drunk, and neither can have decided to divorce, but in general, the wife is within her rights to demand relations whenever she wants, and to me, this can "objectify" the husband. RTK reminds us that the husband *will* have pleasure from this. But that is exactly my point: If someone is required to have a pleasure that (for whatever reason) he does not actually *desire*, it is a sort of rape. RTK also wrote: <<< He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her. But human beings derive pleasure from each other all the time, ... it is just absurd to think that if another person gives me some kind of pleasure, I have "objectified" that person. >>> You are correct. Merely receiving pleasure does not automatically objectify a person. But if one receives pleasure without returning that pleasure to the giver, this carries a danger of objectifying the giver. And if one receives pleasure against the giver's will, that is the very definition of "objectifying" (in my view). R"n Chana Luntz wrote: <<< In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? And further read the Tur (and the meforshim on the Tur) in Even HaEzer simin 25 to get a fuller picture of the sources (and the original gemora sources) - so you can see the history of the machlokus on how to deal with this issue all the way back. >>> Indeed, the first few times I saw that Rema, he seemed to be saying, verbatim, that "you can do anything you want, and whenever you want to do it." A sexual hefkervelt, a world with no rules. But a more careful reading shows that he is only making two specific points: That there are no restrictions on positions, and that (as we've already said in this thread) the timing restrictions of O"C 240 are a "madrega" but not the basic halacha. But aside from these points, I see OC 240 and EH 25 as very similar: Their main focus concerns the *mental* state, and it is in this area (it seems to me) that Shulchan Aruch - including all acharonim until quite recently - endorses a very prishus-oriented approach. RCL again: <<< I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the influence of the outside world. ... In a world which identified relations with sin and death (standard Xtian theology of the time, and the Muslim theology in many circles was not that different) - it would have been inappropriate, and led to general looseness if the general non Jewish world view had been repudiated to the extent consonant with the positive positions found in Chazal. >>> There are many responses I could give to this. Perhaps the simplest would be: So then let Shulchan Aruch be silent; why did they choose to pasken overtly like the prishus view? Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 10 05:08:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:08:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: To continue from my previous post: R"n Chana Luntz wrote: <<< In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? >>> I think it is noteworthy that the Aruch Hashulchan often goes out of his way to justify the common practice in the face of the consensus of poskim, but does *not* do so in this case. In fact, Aruch Hashulchan EH 25:11 quotes the same Tur as the Rama did, but emphatically warns us *against* following it. This suggests that the turning of the tide, from a more prishus-oriented view to something else, occurred more recently than the days of the Aruch Hashulchan. Can anyone suggest a more precise time? Or, to put my question more blatantly: Does the less-prishus-oriented view appear only in recent articles such as the one by Rav Lichtenstein, and in the sort of verbal psakim such as he received? Does it appear anywhere at all in any of the seforim that one might happen to be learning, such as the Igros Moshe, Tzitz Eliezer, or similar? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 07:14:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akirah In-Reply-To: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> References: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150811141458.GA31500@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 6:22pm EDT, I wrote: : The issue comes up in AhS YD 24:42... : There is a machloqes between the Behag and Rashi about the line between : aqirah and tereifos. Rashi says that aqira is the displacement of the : qaneh or veshet caused by using a nicked knife. Most rishonim hold : like the Behag, and then there is a submachloqes about what kind of : dislocated simanim are aqirah, and what are tereifos. Leshitas Rashi, : they would all be tereifos. : : Anyway, here the AhS says that Rama holds that midinei shechitah, : we are machmir for every definition of aqirah. But midinei tereifah, : which differ in that it would also prohibit the milk or eggs from such : an animal, we recognize that the iqar hedin if the Behag, and are meiqil. In response RAF sent me offlist an essay he wrote in Dec 2001, titled "Hagdaras Iqur Simanim baTalmud", which I put up on-line here . The article does a survey of various definitions of ique hasimanim, which vary amazingly widely. He lists some causes: - The discussion is in scattered snippets across Chullin, not one organized sugya. - The rishonim do not agree about the girsa of the gemara that contrasts iqur from tereifah. - The rishonim do not even agree on basic defining features about iqur simanim. RAF also mentioned to me: "I have a very different peshat in ikkur, based on actually looking at the Behag." Sec. 4 does appear to quote a Behag that is at odds with the mesorah about shitas haBehag that the baalei Tosafos received. We've discussed the relationship between errors in reception and whether finding one would change pesaq before. Here, the nafqa mina lemaaseh is small but real, as per above. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: If anyone else has a Torah article they want up on-line, feel free to ask. -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 15:53:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:53:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150811225301.GA13480@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 12:55:06AM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : Here are the sources I have collected, in addition to the fact that a : significant percentage of Modern Orthodox women to not cover their hair in : public except in shul/davening situations. Although there is long evidence of rabbis saying it's a problem, but not a battle they can win. So the mimetic side is dismissable. (Also, how does someone who advocates for more roles for women in shul make a mimetic argument?) : In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of : uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is... : If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered : hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. But saying it's not a breach of tzeni'us doesn't say it's allowed, that's your addition not in the translated text you quote. RYB could mean what the AhS says, that it's terrible things came to this, but you may daven in her presence. Or, that whle it's not a tzeni'us problem, it's still prohibited deOraisa as per the implication in parashas sotah. : Here is a list of easily accessable sources: : Rabbi Marc Angel... Listening to his citing R' Masas and your quoting R Badad, maybe it's a Seph thing? He presumes hair covering is das Yehudis, which makes his a rare shitah. (Again, given the derivation from a pasuq.) But then again, R' Ovadiah Yosef firmly disagrees. But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. ... : I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and : not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. : However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and : everyone can come to their own conclusion. ... which is what he does, that the theory is there, but it's a shitah dechuyah. And noticably, he too quotes R' Yosef Masas, R' Moshe Malka and the Kaf haChaim -- Sepharadi sources. : Rav Yosef Haim... So, assuming the woman doesn't eat qitniyos, may she go with her hair uncovered? And even if she does... At what point is a shitah dechuyah? ... : Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony : of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. : R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: : "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did : not cover her hair? ... : Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in : this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." : I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the : artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with : uncovered hair. : Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat : common... And yet the rabbanim protested. This isn't even admissable as mimetic tradition, any more than noting how often people speak leshon hara or buy off-the-books or anything else rabbis have failed to curb. : uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his : wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. He too, would only need to be convinced is wasn't ervah in the sense of "all those men" sinning. But as we see in the AhS, that doesn't mean it's allowed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 16:00:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:00:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R' Noam Stadlan wrote: <<< Of course there are baseline standards of tzniut for Jew, men and women, that are independent of surrounding culture. But hair covering is not one of them. ... I would note that the vast majority of shittot do not require single women to cover their hair. >>> I both agree and disagree. Hair covering is NOT a "baseline standard", in the sense that it applies only to married women and not to single girls. But hair covering IS a baseline standard for Jewish women, in the sense that it remains in force independent of the surrounding culture. Thus, we have at least three different standards: males, married females, single females. And actually, we have several more than that, if we distinguish among various ages of boy and girl children, not to mention infants. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 21:26:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:26:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: From: Akiva Miller via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) <<< ... for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. >>> [--TK] >> I think we may be understanding the word "objectify" in different ways. Contrary to what some might think, not all men are constantly obsessed with having sex. At any given point in time, a particular man might have other priorities -- other activities that he'd rather do than this one. But a husband cannot give higher priority to these activities over Onah, just like he can't choose them over minyan, or other mitzvos. He must be sensitive to his wife's needs and wants, and if he senses her mood, he is under a chiyuv d'Oraisa to act accordingly.... But there is no flip side to Onah. The wife has no responsibility to judge her husband's desires. In fact, even if she does realize that he is "in the mood", there is no Chiyuv d'Oraisa for her to ignore her other desires and respond to her husband's desires....<< Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) >>>>> There is a great irony in what you have written. You seem to think that there is an inequality, a lack of reciprocity, in the mutual obligations of men and women -- with women having all the power and men all the obligation. It is ironic because the mitzva for men to be sensitive to their wives' feelings derives from the /curse/ that was given to Chava! Look at Rashi on Ber 3:16, "el ishech teshukasech -- your desire will be towards your husband." Rashi says the curse is: You -- the woman -- will desire relations, but will not be so brazen as to request it verbally. Rather, "he will rule over you" -- it is all from him -- the initiative is his -- and not from you. [end Rashi] To modern ears this Rashi might sound strange because the idea that "women are not brazen" sounds so old-fashioned. Modesty has gone out the window in modern society. But even the brazen women -- and certainly the more refined and eidel women -- want to be wanted. By their nature, most women do not want to be the ones taking the initiative or the ones pursuing the men. For most women it is embarrassing to have to ask outright. If you want an example of a woman in the Torah who was brazen even way back then, look at Eishes Potiphar -- "Lie with me." The very fact that she behaved this way shows what a hussy she was, but also, it shows that she was utterly humiliated. Not only was Yosef not seduced by her wiles, but even when she so lost her dignity as to ask him outright, he /still/ refused. It is no wonder she felt such a burning desire for revenge. It was in order to mitigate the harshness of Chava's curse that Chazal instituted the rule that men have to be sensitive to their wives' desires, that a woman should not have to humiliate herself by spelling out what she wants. It is a chessed that a man does for his wife, to mitigate the curse, to somewhat level the playing field in which men have all the advantages! I actually think this a wonderful example of Chazal's extraordinary sensitivity to women. They acknowledge and partially correct an imbalance that favors men at the expense of women, ever since Adam and Chava. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 22:47:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (bk via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:47:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: depression Message-ID: I have worked in the mental health field and have other personal experience with serious depression. The description which you provided "mild depression", would not at all indicate a danger to anyone including daycare children. It seems that the description is very much lacking. Either there is much more to warrant defying her confidence, including/especially to a rav, or someone doesn't understand what depression is all about. I'm assuming that the former is the case. So, the question is, what can we learn from a case in which the problem is not accurate? b'kavod, ChaimBaruch Kaufman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 06:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:19:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waiting Six Hours for Dairy- A Rabbanite Response to Qaraism Message-ID: <20150812131918.925F517FC6A@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/08/waiting-six-hours-for-dairy-rabbanite.html Qaraites are a Jewish group that began around 760 CE. They rejected the Talmud and rabbinic Judaism and insisted that Jews only observe halacha as expressed in the literal text of the Torah. "Qaraite" means "Scriptualist". The movement started in Iraq and Persia by Jews who objected to the authority of the leaders of the Babylonian Talmud Academies, the Gaonim. The Gaonim and their successors, the rishonim, are called Rabbanites because of their stance in defending the Talmud and rabbinic laws. Scholars have noted that many minhagim began as a response to the Qaraite movement. For example, the recital of Bameh Madlikim on Friday evening after davening [1] was started in the times of the Gaonim to reinforce the rabbinic stance on having fire prepared before Shabbos, in opposition to the Qaraite view that no fire may be present in one's home on Shabbos [2]. There is evidence that the reading of Pirkei Avos [3] on Shabbos afternoon, which began in Gaonic times, was to emphasize to the Jewish masses that the Oral Law was passed down since Moshe Rabbeinu as stated in the first mishna of Pirkei Avos. Professor Haym Soloveitchik [4] has argued convincingly that the unique arrangement of Hilchos Shabbos in Rambam's Mishna Torah was organized specifically with anti-Qaraite intent. Briefly, Rambam's formulation of the Shabbos laws does not follow a chronological order or any other expected logical order. See the above URL for more. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:03:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 11:25:27AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : R' Lichtenstein was bothered by this point and answered that we need to : rely on our teachers and Gedolim. : "Probably most significant, however, is our reliance upon our own mentors. : Sensing that modern gedolim, "the judge of your era" -- for our purposes, most : notably, the Rav, but not he alone -- have examined the issue and the evidence : and adopted a positive stance, we, ordinary students of Torah, follow in : their footsteps as we identify with their position... : I understand that for many of us that is not a very satisfying answer and : leads to many questions about why specifically here we follow minority : opinions as opposed to other places (e.g. wombs issues, etc.) but I don't : think there is a better answer. This is the way the halachic system works. To some extent, yes. However, I do not know what halachiccategory is "gedolim". My job is to have my own poseiq, someone ho cnot only knows the halakhah, but knows me and my situation. Or to get as close to that as possible. My rav's job is to have experts to inform him, and to know when a question is either too complicated for his skills, or the stakes to high (eg mamzeirus, potential intercommunal fallout, or....) to not consult others, starting with his own rav. Yes, you will eventually reach the few at the head of the pyramid, so I guess we can call them "the gedolim", and their opinions will end up shaping policy on big or broad issues. But I do not think RYBS would be happy learning that he had a talmid in the job of mara de'asra who had so little confidence in his own ability to map theory to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronos and desires of the people in it that he hands the job off to people who know less of that reality. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:19:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:19:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> References: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150812201911.GB8165@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 11:28:31PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the : influence of the outside world. The same sort of influence that reputedly : led to the cherem of Rabbi Gershom (Jews who are supposed to be the : upholders of morality cannot be seen to have more than one wife in a world : where that is seen as immoral)... I understood this as well as the Sho'el uMeishiv's take on intellectual property in a single way, and slightly different than your explanation. The Sho'el uMeishiv invokes "lo sehei Torah shelanu kesichah beteilah shelahem. If they recognize a kind of property as a right our native sense finds moral, we obviously must obligated to protect it as well. This is not DDD, as the protection isn't to the extent of the civi law, but to the extent of the halakhos of property. He is identifying a moral obligation we must halachically defend, not the civil law in and of itself... My understanding is that it's not that we learned morality from their law, but their law reflects a new social contract. The new expectations are a change in metzi'us. Now that we expect to have intellectual property, that is part of the new situation, to which a new pesaq applies. Similarly, I understood Rabbeinu Gershom's mandating monogamy in the same terms. He was less worried about being seen as immoral, or learning morality from Xian marriage norms. Rather, once society created different expectations of what marriage is, we had no ability nor obligation to reset to the old expectations (after all, even chazal referred to sister wives as "tzaros"), and therefore have to support a moral solution to the new expactations. A woman gets married expecting a man for herself. Rabbeinu Gershom mandated treating that woman morally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:22:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150812202233.GC8165@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:04:47PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : ... But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent : the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no corresponding : safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. Given the size of the two porn industries, or the difference between what "porn" usually refers to and locating smut in a romance novel, I would think that it's not just Chazal who would conclude the threat of objectfication is assymetric. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 16:24:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:24:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> References: , <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <13CC426F-297A-4E3A-AC33-979E5391FA35@sibson.com> > > But I do not think RYBS would be happy learning that he had a talmid in > the job of mara de'asra who had so little confidence in his own ability > to map theory to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronos > and desires of the people in it that he hands the job off to people who > know less of that reality. > > I agree but I think it's also true That RYBS would not be happy learning that he had a talmid in the job of mara de'asra who had so so much confidence in his own ability to create the theory to map to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronosand desires of the people in it that he doesn't hand the job off to those more qualified to break new ground. Kol tuv 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 20:21:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:21:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: I wrote: : ... But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent : the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no : corresponding safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. R' Micha Berger responded: > Given the size of the two porn industries, or the difference > between what "porn" usually refers to and locating smut in a > romance novel, I would think that it's not just Chazal who > would conclude the threat of objectfication is assymetric. Chazal were aware of the differences between those two industries, and they suggested reasons for it on the top few lines of Kesubos 64b. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 12:36:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:36:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Copyright Message-ID: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> Back in Jun 2001, Napster was in the news, and I heard a shiur from R Zev Reichman, then of REITS' Kollel Elyon. So at the first on-list mention of copyrights, I used it as an excuse to post a summary on-list at and . It's been 14 years, and I just learned of a beautiful einfahl by R' Asher Weiss on the subject. So, I'm reviewing the list, and adding to it. (v7n58 #13 is marked ">", #4 is marked ":".) > 1- Dina dimalchusa issues: > According to Tosafos on Gittin, dina dimalchusah dinah is only on > taxation. > The Beis Yitzchak does rule that ddd applies here. However, RZR opined > that ddd still wouldn't apply apply to Sony Bono's law that was aimed > specifically at Disney, allowing them to extend their copyright on some > animated characters. It's not an evenly applied rule. > 2- I already cited the most chamur, the Sho'el uMeishiv 1:44, who goes > beyond ddd. : The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral : obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it : is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership : of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal : (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights : are lehalachah also eternal. : Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for : that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a : halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos : of copyright. : I just want to note the SuM's assumption, and the importance he assigns : moral rights identified by the surrounding culture. > RZR wondered if the SuM would also recognize the French philosophy of > copyright: that the artist could sell reproduction and profit rights, but > eternally retains rights to controlling how the idea is changed. (So even > if you sell a painting, the owner is allowed to copy it, but not modify > it.) After all, this is also a secularly identified moral right. Would > it be a halachah only in France? > 3- Hasagas gevul: > There is an old cheirem, invoked in many if not most haskamos for a few > centuries, against copying sefarim. (The SuM mentions it.) The cheirem > is at least as old as the publication of Tomer Devora (about a century > after it was written) -- because it's mentioned in the haskamos. That > if one copies the sefer beli reshus, or buys such a copy he is subject > to the cheirem and will lose all the berachos showered on people who > learn TOmer Devorah listed in the begining of the haskamah. > The Chasam Sofer traces the cheirem back to the Maharam Padua's edition of > the Rambam. After he invested all the time and money preparing the plates, > a non-Jewish publisher, Justinian, took those plates and printed his > own copy of the Yad, charging one gold coin less than the original. The > Rama said that anyone who bought a Justinian edition was under cheirem, > as they prevented him from recouping his loss. > Given this lashon, the CS concludes that the problem is hasagas gezul. > However, as RZR noted, hasagas gevul only applies to unfair competition, > not to give copies away as a tzadakah or a fundraiser. > This is also the conclusion of R' Moshe. R' Bleich, back when he was > a talmid at Torah Vadaas found a rare publication of a notebook of R' > Chaim and had it published as a TvD fundraiser. The original publisher > found out about it and cried "hasagas gevul". They went to R' Moshe who > ruled in favor of R' Bleich. > 4- Issur geneivah: > R' Bleich himself, when writing on the subject, quotes "ein berei'ach > mishum me'ilah", and that there is no geneivah without a cheftzah. > 5- Hezek > Now we're in "Micha's 2 cents" territory. Li nir'eh that even for a > tzedakah to do it, even if not hasagas gevul, you are causing hezek to > someone who would otherwise earn money. > Even if not quantifiably assur, I would want to invoke bal tishaktzu on > this one. > 6- Chilul Hashem > In a case like Napster, where the case will have a kol and a trial in > the press, I would think that the risk of chillul Hashem, and therefore > *dinei nefashos*, is enough to assur it -- even in cases where the > copying would be found to be technically legal. 7- Chamas So I heard from R' J Ziring (YUTorah.org) that R' Asher Weiss in a 2013 shiur compared the theft of intellectual property to the dor hamabul (after revisiting some of the above). I found a blog post of RJZ's that describes it or : Chazal explain that the sin of the dor hamabul was that they would each steal less than a shaveh perutah. Thus, in the aggregate they would destroy people's livelihood, but none of them could be prosecuted in court. From here he argued that there is an issur to do something, which while not formally theft, lends to a society that destroys other people's financial well being. If no one respects intellectual property, then inventors, writers, and the like will have no way of supporting himself. Thus, even if no one can properly be called a gazlan, they have all participated in chamas. Tir'u baTov! -Micha > PS: While on the subject, I should point out that we obtain reshus to > include any emails that are reposted on Avodah. When asking, I make it > clear that a copy will appear in the web archive as well. -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 15:08:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baal Nefesh in the Igeros Moshe Message-ID: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> R' Elli Fischer contrasted the use of baal nefesh yachmir in the MB with its use in the IM. (Also heard via R' Jonathan Ziring.) The MB uses baal nefesh yachmir to refer to chumeros where the person is acting in a way to fulfill all shitos. The MB lists the more recent opinions, and then advises that the baal nefesh follow the most stringent. (Although I believe we found in previous iterations that the MB doesn't actualy use the expression particularly often. The IM argues that chalav hacompanies is actually chalav yisrael, so that there is no textual reason to only drink milk that was literally Yisrae'el ro'ahu, as opposed to using anan sahade eidus. But leshitaso, FDA certified milk is kosher even according to the Peri Chadash. (YD 1:47) In 1:48 he dismisses all other possibilities, and then says baal nefesh yachmir. RMF's baal nefesh is not being chosheish for all shitos, he dismissed those other shitos. Instead he is keeping minhag yisrael saba beyond halakhah. Pretty much the opposite of the MB's baal nefesh, who is ignoring accepted pesaq in order to make sure all the textual bases are covered. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 20:27:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 05:27:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Baal Nefesh in the Igeros Moshe In-Reply-To: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> References: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55CD6005.7020707@zahav.net.il> I don't have it open in front of me, but IIRC, in his psak on eating veal RMF makes it very, very clear that the baal nefesh will not eat it and anyone who does is (to use my words) walking on thin ice. The way he relates to a baal nefesh in the CY issue (it is a nice thing to do but if you don't keep, no big deal) vs the veal issue (you really shouldn't be eating this stuff) is stark. Ben On 8/14/2015 12:08 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In 1:48 he dismisses all other possibilities, and then says baal nefesh > yachmir. RMF's baal nefesh is not being chosheish for all shitos, he > dismissed those other shitos. Instead he is keeping minhag yisrael saba > beyond halakhah. > > Pretty much the opposite of the MB's baal nefesh, who is ignoring accepted > pesaq in order to make sure all the textual bases are covered. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 14 12:13:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Heather Luntz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 20:13:15 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> I have been struggling with this thread, but have not found it easy to explain why, although I will do my best: On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:153am EDT, R Saul Guberman wrote: : RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & : the Tosafists. : http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ : Our *Torah shebe'al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish : history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a : great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, : but the *Torah shebe'al peh* would have survived without him. However, : without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, : any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe'al peh* today. And RMB then wrote: >Which is a different statement than the subject line. >I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to >the survival of mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue understanding the gemara. I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? I really struggle with that statement. Now, if you want to limit the claim, and say that Rashi and Tosphos are far more key than the Rambam to what people do in modern day yeshivas all day, including (if not particularly) the Briskers, then it would be hard to disagree. But is what people are doing in yeshiva all day in the 21st century "the mesorah" or is the Shulchan Aruch "the mesorah"? What are the consequences if we relegate the Shulchan Aruch and elevate the Tosphists in terms of halacha as she is practiced? Somehow these seem troubling directions in which to be heading, but I must log off as shabbas is coming very soon in this part of England (and I, for one, am not about to rely on Rabbanu Tam, Tosphotist par excellence, regardless of his mesorah, I don't know about you,). -Micha Shabbat Shalom Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 14 13:48:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:48:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 08:13:15PM +0100, Heather Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> Which is a different statement than the subject line. : :> I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah :> through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who :> stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of mesorah :> than the parshanim... : : I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan : Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the : Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, : we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. : : Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the : Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? Let me make it far more more explicit. The subject line differs from my understanding of RGS' expansion of RYGB's idea in that it claims "Mesora ONLY through Rashi" (emphasis added), whereas I heard them talking about cofication being "less critical". Comparative terms, not absolute ones. IOW, the mesorah could survive without codes, if we had to. But it couldn't survive without parshanim. Without them we couldn't handle any new case that isn't in a code, nor even have the skills to always determine which are the new cases. In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that discusses how the conclusions are reached. Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The parshan connects the past to the now. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 15:41:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:41:09 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> I wrote: : I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan : Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the : Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, : we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. : : Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the : Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? And RMB replied: <<>Let me make it far more more explicit. The subject line differs from my understanding of RGS' expansion of RYGB's idea in that it claims "Mesora ONLY through Rashi" (emphasis added), whereas I >heard them talking about cofication being "less critical". Comparative terms, not absolute ones. >IOW, the mesorah could survive without codes, if we had to. But it couldn't survive without parshanim. Without them we couldn't handle any new case that isn't in a code, nor even have the >skills to always determine which are the new cases.>> Firstly of course, the Rambam wrote his perush on Mishnayos, so I don't think it is merely parshanut that distinguishes the two. Secondly, in the Rambam's code there are various "nire li" statements where he comes across areas where the answer from the gemora is not clear, and he therefore inserts his own view. It seems slightly bizarre to suggest that he or the Shulchan Aruch ever assumed that their code would make determining new cases more difficult, nor does that seem accurate historically. >In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that >discusses how the conclusions are reached. So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no Rambam and no Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any distinction at all between the halacha of the Orthodox and the halacha as championed by the Conservative movement? Is that not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would of necessity lead (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent than we have today - one that would perforce have to embrace the Conservative movement, and certainly all the forms of Open Orthodoxy that RGS is so vehemently against. Part of RAM's distress on one of the other threads on this list at the moment, regarding modern day psak vis a vis sexual relations versus the postion of the Shulchan Aruch has to do with the fact that Orthodoxy in general (although not, I would note, at least some of the Chassidic movements, such as Ger, and possibly increasingly not other groups within the Charedi world) has without appearing to notice, abandoned the position as set out in the Shuchan Aruch (albeit for one that can be said to be the more majority position of Chazal). But take the codes out of the equation and *all* these multiple rishonic positions become tenable, allowing a general free for all within the vastness of the parshanut tradition. The codes therefore are a critical part of what might be considered a dual process - equivalent to the situation where one first brainstorms ideas, and then whittles away to those most tenable. There are of course, situations where Sephardim do not posken like the Shulchan Aruch, and there are even more situations where Ashkenazim do not hold like the Rema, preferring a Shach, Taz or Magen Avraham (or even a Bach). But in the post-Shulchan Aruch world the conversation that RAM has been leading on the other thread is fundamental and critical - if we do not posken like the Shuchan Aruch in the particular case in question - we need to understand and investigate precisely why not, because by and large, the Shulchan Aruch draws the line as to where we go or do not go halacha l'ma'aseh. Without the Shulchan Aruch, we are only left with the brainstorming side of the halachic endeavour, and that means - as I intimated in my closing remarks, that if you find Rabbanu Tam's shkia analysis compelling (or indeed, that of a more minor rishon), there would seem to be little to prevent you holding like it halacha l'ma'aseh. What would hold us together? Indeed you are, I see, engaged in a debate regarding hair covering on another thread. But surely those who seek to justify the practice of many, many women who otherwise led and lead fully halachic lives are full square within the mesorah of tosphos. It is only those who also have an eye to the codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in the light of common practice. >Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The parshan connects the past to the now. That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation handed over to the next. And the generation of the Shulchan Aruch, in accepting it as "The" Code which shall be followed in most circumstances (with exceptions) handed that down to all generations following - making the Shulchan Aruch the mesorah par excellence. I can debate the nature of shkia with the Tosphotists in a conversation down the generations, but my mesorah regarding Shabbas is unlikely to be based upon any such conversation, nor is it expected to be. If you want to redefine the word mesorah to mean only that which Rashi has given us, then of course the title of this thread becomes 100% correct, just rather pointless. Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more of them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the Rambam, were able to formulate their halachic conclusions. Without them it would be far more difficult to have anything like the number of people we have today engaging with the gemora. The Rambam in contrast might well not see the point - if you can't manage without Rashi and Tosphos, then, in his view, maybe you shouldn't be trying, and should be relying on his code instead, leaving gemora engagement to the true elite who should be leading the people. That aspect of the Rambam's view has not dominated as "the mesorah" - using the more commonly understood use of the term. While we might debate the length of time that should be spent in yeshiva, and whether one should do work/army instead of long term yeshiva study - there is pretty close to universal agreement within Orthodoxy that all Jews should spend at least some significant time engaging with the fundamental texts, even if they are of only average intelligence. But what people do in yeshiva is still, in my view, only a small slice of "the mesorah", as it is commonly understood (as opposed to as redefined by RYBS) and a far greater slice is the Shuchan Aruch itself, and for that, the Rambam's influence is surely pre-eminent. >-Micha Shavuah tov Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 13:35:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:35:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim Message-ID: Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? [image: --] Shui Haber [image: https://]about.me/shuihaber *"The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are."* ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 19:20:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:20:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55CFF350.3030205@sero.name> On 08/15/2015 04:35 PM, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: > Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? Devarim 6:13, 10:20. Hil' Yesodei Hatorah 2:1 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 22:14:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:14:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R. Micha offered the following critiques: > Although there is long evidence of rabbis saying it's a problem, but > not a battle they can win. So the mimetic side is dismissable. (Also, > how does someone who advocates for more roles for women in shul make a > mimetic argument?) If the same rabbi's whose wives were not covering hair were the same ones saying it is a problem, this critique makes sense. otherwise, there is no reason to say that those whose wives were not covering their hair were unhappy with the mitziut. The mimetic argument here is that the shitta existed and was followed. It doesn't mean that it is obligatory. So I think this is apples and oranges regarding roles of women in shul. >: In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of >: uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is... >: If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered >: hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. > But saying it's not a breach of tzeni'us doesn't say it's allowed, > that's your addition not in the translated text you quote. RYB could > mean what the AhS says, that it's terrible things came to this, but you > may daven in her presence. Or, that whle it's not a tzeni'us problem, > it's still prohibited deOraisa as per the implication in parashas sotah. I think that you are making a moving target, one rationale knocked down and another rationale surfaces. Obviously hair covering could be mandated for a number of different reasons, but all of them? I am not sure it is necessary to be yotzei l'chol hadayot and even if so, the sources who permit, permit it regardless of the rationale against. I also have to go back and look at the source because I think it said more than the quote. >: Here is a list of easily accessable sources: >: Rabbi Marc Angel... > He presumes hair covering is das Yehudis, which makes his a rare > shitah. (Again, given the derivation from a pasuq.) > But then again, R' Ovadiah Yosef firmly disagrees. He obviously is not paskening like R. Ovadiah > But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And > two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. There are Ashkenazim among the sources as well.....I am illustrating that not only the shitah exists, but was followed and continues to be followed by a significant segment of the MO community. And, were it not for the shoah, it seems that a large segment of Lithuanian Jewry would still be following it. ... >: I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and >: not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. >: However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and >: everyone can come to their own conclusion. > ... which is what he does, that the theory is there, but it's a shitah > dechuyah. And noticably, he too quotes R' Yosef Masas, R' Moshe Malka > and the Kaf haChaim -- Sepharadi sources. >: Rav Yosef Haim... > So, assuming the woman doesn't eat qitniyos, may she go with her hair > uncovered? Again, apples and oranges, or peanuts and sesame. It isn't just a Sephardi shita. > And even if she does... At what point is a shitah dechuyah? Good question. From my limited point of view, if it makes sense and some Rabbonim of at least some stature (and I think Rav Messas et al quality) hold that position, it is not dechuyah. What is your definition? ... >: Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony >: of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. >: R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: >: "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did >: not cover her hair? ... >: Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in >: this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." >: I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the >: artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with >: uncovered hair. >: Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat >: common... > And yet the rabbanim protested. This isn't even admissable as mimetic > tradition, any more than noting how often people speak leshon hara or > buy off-the-books or anything else rabbis have failed to curb. I do not agree. Many in Meah Shearim protest that all women do not wear long thick stockings but that doesn't mean that every rabbi holds that long thick stockings are obligatory. if it is the rabbi whose wife didn't cover her hair, you have an argument. otherwise I suggest that those who protest do not speak for everyone. >: uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his >: wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. > He too, would only need to be convinced is wasn't ervah in the sense of > "all those men" sinning. But as we see in the AhS, that doesn't mean > it's allowed. It is a possible option, but not the probable one. It seems you are going out of your way to figure out how this could occur in consonance with your pre-selected approach, rather than accepting the most likely and obvious rationale. kol tuv. Noam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 16 14:05:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:05:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150816210531.GE28046@aishdas.org> : I think that you are making a moving target, one rationale knocked down : and another rationale surfaces... You gave two counterarguments: 1- Ashkenazi mimeticism 2- A list of sources that appear to be predominantly if not entirely Sepharadi. I therefore gave a teo part reply: 1- Ashk mimeticism was consistently gainst rabbinic will. Even the AhS who weighs halakhah-as-practiced as a major factor in pesaq laments the ubiquitous sin of neglecting this din. He also says it's not ervah. So, the sole person who does spell out Ashk position gives me no reason to equate either (1a) ubiquity nor (1b) a textual statement ruling out ervah with permissability. 2- Those sources are not only Seph, but are possibly dechuyos in their community as well. But at the end of the day, I did write: :> But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And :> two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. (And I still find it ironic that someone making a mimetic argument about hair covering wants to also change the role of women by looking at tets to the exclusion of 3-1/3 millenia of common practice.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 17 08:59:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 11:59:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Soloveitchik on Single Women Lighting Shabbat Candles Message-ID: <20150817155949.GA11283@aishdas.org> http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/single-women-lighting-shabbat-candles Snippet: Torah Musings Halakhic Positions of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik Single Women Lighting Shabbat Candles By Aharon Ziegler on Aug 14, 15 1:00 am in Halakhic Positions ... ... Those who have family customs and if their minhag [custom] is that the single women do not light their own candles then they should certainly not deviate from their custom- "Ve'al Titosh Torat I'mecha"... ... .... As a matter of fact Rav Soloveitchik suggested that Le'chat'chila, all women should indeed first turn off the electric lights, light the Shabbat candles, open the electric lights and then recite the Beracha. Regarding single girls, Rav Soloveitchik noted that this was the practice in Europe, even in his town, and that is how the Rav practiced with his daughters when they were single-that they lit their own candles, even with a Beracha, even when his wife also lit candles with a Beracha. Interestingly, RYBS promoted mimeticism in not taking on the practice of lighting candles if one's mother and grandmother didn't light when they were single and still living with their parents. Yet in the same discussion, he acknowledges how the new reality of electric lights makes relying on the mimeticism of making the berachah on the candles / oil alone just a bedi'eved. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 01:22:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 04:22:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Copyright In-Reply-To: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> References: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55D2EB40.1060303@sero.name> On 08/13/2015 03:36 PM, in a message that Gmail, for some reason, decided was spam, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Beis Yitzchak does rule that ddd applies here. However, RZR opined > that ddd still wouldn't apply apply to Sony Bono's law that was aimed > specifically at Disney, allowing them to extend their copyright on some > animated characters. It's not an evenly applied rule. This isn't true. > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, > it is impossible that the Torah is less moral. This assumes its own conclusion. The exact same reasoning could have been used during the Jim Crow era to "prove" that the Torah requires racial segregation of shuls and yeshivos, or during Prohibition to "prove" that the Torah requires teetotalism. > Now we're in "Micha's 2 cents" territory. Li nir'eh that even for a > tzedakah to do it, even if not hasagas gevul, you are causing hezek to > someone who would otherwise earn money. Even if not quantifiably assur, > I would want to invoke bal tishaktzu on this one. Why should he earn that money? You could invoke the same idea against giving anything away to someone who might otherwise have bought it. Every wedding takes parnassah away from wherever the guests might have bought their dinner that night. Sellers do not own their customers, and have no rights to them. > Chazal explain that the sin of the dor hamabul was that they would > each steal less than a shaveh perutah. [...] From here he argued > that there is an issur to do something, which while not formally theft, Stop right there. Stealing less than a shaveh pruta *is* formally theft. The thief is over on lo sigzol. It's not *returnable*, which is an entirely different matter. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 17 22:18:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:18:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Splendor of Clothes Message-ID: <20150818051824.9B2F7183235@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/the-splendor-of-clothes/ Rav Soloveitchik further added that wearing a Yarmulke, a Kippa, is more dignified than a baseball cap. He said, "If the President of the United States suddenly appeared and wanted to take a picture with me, would I wear a Russian hat, a baseball cap,- or a Kippa? That is the way we should stand Shemoneh Esrei when addressing the King of the Universe, HaKadosh Baruch-Hu. See the above URL for more. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 15:08:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:08:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150818220842.GA26873@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:35:26PM +0300, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: : Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? While it's obligatory (see Zev's citations), I am not sure it's halakhah rather than something prior to halakhah. As in Moshe rabbeinu's list: Mah H' sho'el mei'imakh, ki im - leyir'ah es H' Elokekha - lalekhes bekhol derakhav - ule'avah oso - vela'avod es H' Elokekha... - lishmor es mitzvos H' ve'es chuqosav... It would seem that MRAH is excluding these for thing from the realm of mitzvos and chuqim, and yet still mandatory. Even though the Rambam calls "lalekhes bekhol derakhav" to be "HILKHOS Dei'os". I don't know how to shtim this with the pasuq. It seems more like the Rambam's approach, that there is a duty of pursuing qedushah, yashrus and tov in ways beyond the limits of black-letter halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 10:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:17:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halachic Requirement for Dayanim Evaluating In-Person Facial Expressions of Parties in Bais Din In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150819171747.GA2506@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:49:07AM -0700, Baruch Cohen via Avodah wrote: : ... The Mishnah describes how the members of the Sanhedrin : sat in a row in the shape of a half-circle... : Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin 1:3) ... : The Tosefta : (8:1) cites differing opinions regarding the seating position of the : President of the Sanhedrin. Tanna Kamma holds that the President sat in the : center of the semi-circle, with thirty-five of the members of the Sanhedrin : seated on each side of him. R' Elazar b. Tzadok says that when Rabban : Gamliel sat in the Sanhedrin in Yavne, one of the sages sat to his right, : and all the others sat to his left.... My apologies to RBC that I don't have any thoughts about his intended topic, but he got me thinking about something else... To quote myself from 2010 : > REMT quoted the IE, which I found at Shemos 25:37, in what Bar Ilan > calls the short version of the IE: > Neiroseha: And the qadmonim said that one lamp was in the middle > ve"hashisha ne'erachim ze achar ze bachatzi iggul" (to cut-n-paste > from REMT's post) > And after the scripture said "vehei'ir al eiver paneha", and the > reason for "al eiver" one [eiver], behold the shape is clear. Not semicircular as seen from the front, but the lamps in that pattern as seen from above. Continuing: > The IE appears to very explicitly places all the lamps on the same side > of the middle one. Similarly, in the long version of the IE, Shemos 27:21: > Yaarokh: baavur hayos haneiros bechatzi igul. Ve'od adaber al zeh. Notice that leshitaso, the layout of the Sanhderin parallels the layout of the neiros in the keli most associated with chokhmah. Which makes it interesting that the definition of neir ma'aravi also parallels the machloqes about where the nasi sat. We generally assume it's the middle lamp, on the central shaft. However, Tamid 33a speaks of the two western lights, which we also find implied in Abayei hava mesader, "hatavas shetei neiros" being at a different time than "hatavav 5 neiros". >From which Rashi (see also Rashi Menachos 86b "mimenah hayah madliq") concludes that the neir ma'ariv was the 2nd in the row. So it looks like a two machloqes, leshitasam, setup. But... IE's semicircular menorah is based on the idea that the middle lamp was westmost, the other lamps curving off toward the NE and SE directions. A variant on the shitah that the menorah stood so the lamps run north to south. The idea that the 2nd was the ner hama'ari has the lamps running from west to east. The 2 neiros on the west are lit on their own. The second from the west end is the neir hama'arivi, a title not given the westmost candle because it is lit facing the NhM, with the wick on the east. But that leshitasam looked so pretty! Anyone want to help me salvage it? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 12:25:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:25:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? In-Reply-To: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> References: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150819192519.GB2506@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 12:28:27AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Question-from a torah point of view should it make a difference : who shows up at the therapist's (or Rabbi's)door (for any therapy or : advice)? How does Halacha balance the needs of the individual, the : family, the community, Jewish society and/or society in general? Confidentiality and for that matter focusing on the needs of the client serves society in general in the long run. Society needs not only therapists, but therapists clients are willing to get help from. If we tell therapists that they are to compromise client trust for the sake of the family, community or society, we will lose that. So, even if halakhah requires factoring others' needs in to a greater extent, it might not change things all that much. (After all, the profession developed those standards for a reason. That reason needn't reflect a different set of values.) There are also the secondary effects of the law... If someone loses the opportunity to offer therapy because disobeying those standards open them up to threat of suit or legal consequences, we still lose the therapy. Which has to be factored in to the halachic decision. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 14:45:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:45:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Bais Hamussar] The Small Things Message-ID: <20150819214542.GD812@aishdas.org> ----- Forwarded message from Bais Hamussar ----- Bais Hamussar Al Sheim HaRav Shlomo Wolbe zt"l Shoftim - Elul Rav Wolbe (Daas Shlomo) cites a mind boggling Medrash (Bereishis Rabba 2:7). Reb Avahu said, "From the beginning of time Hashem gazed at both the actions of the righteous and the actions of the wicked. Yet, it is not clear whose actions He desired. Once the Torah writes, 'And Hashem saw the light that it was good' it is clear that He desires the actions of the righteous and not the actions of the wicked." What is this supposed to mean? Could there be a possibility that Hashem prefers the actions of the wicked over the actions of the righteous? Rav Simcha Zissel Ziv, the Alter of Kelm, offers a beautiful explanation. Indeed, even the wicked perform good deeds. However, they limit their good deeds to grandiose actions whose effects can be heard around the world. They will found organizations, create moral ideologies and give their lives for the sake of their country. In contrast, the righteous focus on the small, even minuscule, actions. Chazal were asking who's good deeds are superior -- those performed by the righteous or those performed by the wicked? The answer was provided by the Torah: Hashem prefers the small actions of the righteous over the high-flying deeds of the wicked. A similar idea is mentioned by the Rambam. He asserts that for one who wishes to give tzeddaka, it is better that he give many small donations than one big donation. Many small mitzvos are preferential to a single big action. Rav Yisrael Salanter writes that the focus of teshuva also must be on the small actions. Many are overcome with despair when faced with the prospect of teshuva. "There is no possible way for me to stop speaking lashon hara" or "I simply can't overcome this middah" they lament. However, there is no room for despair when the topic is teshuva. They are absolutely right; at the present time they cannot entirely overcome their inclinations. Nevertheless, they can greatly reduce the severity of their actions if they would merely desist at the times when it is easy for them to refrain from transgressing. If they would take small steps and resist for five minutes here and there, they will already have progressed tremendously down the road of teshuva. With this in mind, our understanding of Chazal's well known statement becomes even more profound. "Hashem says to Klal Yisrael, 'Open for me a hole like the eye of a needle and I will open for you gateways that wagons and carriages will be able to pass through!'" Hashem specifically is interested in the small holes. Teshuva must begin with a focus on the small actions. "Just five minutes" is a mantra that can change your life. I will refrain from lashon hara just for five minutes. I will learn just for five minutes. I will spend just five minutes on helping another Yid. The truth is that sometimes one doesn't even need five minutes. A wave of the hand to motion that one can't talk now can save a person from pages of bittul Torah or loads of lashon hara. Moreover, Hashem guarantees that He will reciprocate our small gesture with a huge dose of Heavenly assistance, as He waves us through big gateways of teshuva! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 20:49:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:49:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: I'm really very unsure what this thread is asking. Let's take, for example, this paragraph from R' Micha Berger: > In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the > BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, > but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that > discusses how the conclusions are reached. What can you possibly mean, that we COULD HAVE limped along without it? We ARE limping along without it! There is so much that is ALREADY missing from the Mesora! There are so many masechtos missing from the Bavli, for example. I suppose it is possible that Ravina and Rav Ashi never saw a need to compile them, but it's much more likely that they were written and then lost, no? Now, imagine, if you will, a halacha which was decided (by a rishon, acharon, it doesn't matter) because of one obscure gemara that some ingenious thinker found and applied to a particular situation. Without this gemara, the halacha pesuka would have been different than we are accustomed to, but because that gemara -- obscure though it might be -- WAS found, and is a legitimate part of our Mesora, the halacha as we know it came to be. There must be hundreds of such halachos, maybe even thousands. But what if that particular gemara was not hiding in Chullin or Makos? Suppose it was a gemara in Terumos? Then that halacha would never be known to us, because that gemara has been lost. R"n Chana Luntz wrote: > Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more > of them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the > Rambam, were able to formulate their halachic conclusions. You do realize, of course, that there was no such person as "Tosphos". The Tosaphists were very real, and very important, but they were not the ones to decide on the inclusion or exclusion of any particular comment. That was the choice of the publisher of the gemara, and if his whim had gone in another direction, who knows what other views would have gotten more press coverage. (Yes, I know that there are many volumes filled with the writings of even the most obscure Tosaphists, but the fact remains that getting included in the standard printed edition is the path to widest influence.) My point is that while RMB and RCL are trying to imagine what Torah would look like without Tosaphos, as I see it, even the Tosaphos that we do have is a somewhat random document. If Hashgacha (or, some might prefer, blind luck) had gone in another direction, Tosaphos would be very different, and practical halacha with it. But it doesn't stop there. Need I remind anyone that even our Torah Sheb'ksav is a reconstruction (or, some might prefer, an approximation) created by the Baalei Mesorah? If the sources that they worked from had been just a bit different, then our Sifrei Torah today would be different too. And yet, somehow we manage. We use the Torah that we have today, because it rendered the previous versions (the source material of the Baalei Mesorah) to be passul. What an amazing concept! One day, these several Sifrei Torah, all with known yichus, each had its own chezkas kashrus. And the next day, a new document, different from those that preceded it, comes to center stage and replaces the others! I would like to suggest that this is exactly how it would have worked if there was no Rashi, or no Rabenu Tam, or no Rambam, or no Rav Yosef Karo: We would use whatever we did have, and that would be our Torah. It would be different than the Torah that we do have, but so what? Rashi's Torah was different too! IN CLOSING, RCL asked: > So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no > Rambam and no Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any > distinction at all between the halacha of the Orthodox and the > halacha as championed by the Conservative movement? Is that > not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would of necessity lead > (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent than > we have today ... If you've been following me, then my answer to this should be clear: No! This "much broader tent" is pure speculation. If we had no Rav ABC to guide us, the void would have been filled by Rav XYZ, whose views might have been to the right, to the left, or the same. And in *exactly* the same manner as how we are obligated by the new Torah created by the Baalei Mesorah, the possibility of differences is much less important than our confidence and emunah that this Torah is the right one FOR US. Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller on gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:19:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:19:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mesorah only through rashi Message-ID: <> Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against the concept. Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own interpretation and not rely or be bound by any text. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:29:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:29:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mimetism Message-ID: <> I understood mimetism and trying to follow the custom of one's family. This is of no help when the physical circumstances have changed. Would anyone suggest using outdoor toilets because that is what our ancestors did and would object to an indoor bathroom. Plumbing changed the halacha. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:25:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:25:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] splendor of clothes Message-ID: > Rav Soloveitchik further added that wearing a Yarmulke, a Kippa, is > more dignified than a baseball cap. He said, "If the President of the > United States suddenly appeared and wanted to take a picture with me, > would I wear a Russian hat, a baseball cap,- or a Kippa? That is the > way we should stand Shemoneh Esrei when addressing the King of the > Universe, HaKadosh Baruch-Hu. The average person would also not wear a black hat while taking a picture with the president. I have noted before there has become a new minhag of wearing a hat all the time not only when wearing davening or saying a bracha. I went this week to a charedi wedding and most of the men wore their hats throughout the meal. OTOH I also went to a shiur of Rav Zilberstein this week. Throughout the shiur he wore a kippah. In the break he took some food and put on his hat for the bracha and then removed it for the shiur. This is also what I observed from RYBS If so why do other rabbis insist on giving a shiur wearing a hat? [Email #2.] BTW I just received a copy of a formal photo of RYBS with Ed Asner. RYBS is wearing a black kippa -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 05:10:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 08:10:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] splendor of clothes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 3:25 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > I have noted before there has become a new minhag of wearing a hat all > the time not only when wearing davening or saying a bracha. I went this > week to a charedi wedding and most of the men wore their hats throughout > the meal. For me, at least, this is a practical matter: There is often no place to leave a hat, not even in the coat room; and certainly no place from which the hat can be easily retrieved before bentching. --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 16:16:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 19:16:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:49pm EDT, R Akiva Miller wrote: : I'm really very unsure what this thread is asking... Part of the difficult of this thread is that we came in mid-conversation. RGS quoted Qinot Mesorat haRav. The quote is long, so I'm just giving part: Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebe'al peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... This is a comment RYBS frequently made in shiur. Picture sitting in a brisker shiur, where every talmid needs a reference set of shas and Rambam. It is logical for the rebbe to need to remind people that they couldn't play this game of comparing that Yad back to shas if we didn't have Rashi and Tosados opening up shas to understanding. Interestingly, RGS compared this to the Yam Shel Shelomo: Rav Shlomo Luria, the Maharshal, famously said that Rabbeinu Tam was greater than the Rambam (introduction to Yam Shel Shlomo). In discussing Kinah 42, Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik suggests that the French and German Tosafists were more important than the Rambam, without discussing who was greater. The Maharshal was very opposed to the SA. He had a hostile attitude toward the whole notion of codification which goes way beyond RYBS's intent in ways RYBS wouldn't agree to. He and the Maharal (his brother) were of the "many" in RET's response. On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:19am IDT, R Eli Turkel wrote: : Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against the : concept. : Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own : interpretation and not : rely or be bound by any text. This coming in in the middle caused language confusion and consequent frustration for RnCL. On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:41:09PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the :> Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The :> parshan connects the past to the now. : That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. : Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation : handed over to the next. Yes, but if you want to know what RYBS meant, it requires knowing what the word means in RYBS's lexicon, with the connotations he assumed. Notice my suggestion about how "mesorah" was being used fits the quote from the qinos and the example of the Yerushalmi. I understand the frustration of thinking you were discussing a statement that meant one thing and only after formulating a log response being told that it likely meant something else. But that's a straightforward misunderstanding due to your being outside the target audience when RYBS was saying / learning Qinos, and therefore not being used to the connoctations he assumes; and Lewis Carrol refferences aren't needed. I intend to write a post on the meaning of the word "mesorah" as developed in RYBS's and RHS's thought as the start of its own thread. Because it not only comes up here, it comes up in the discussions raging elsewhere (Torah Musings, Cross Currents, Facebook) on RWMO's objections to Open O and feminism. RnCL argues for the importance of codes in that post: : So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no Rambam and no : Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any distinction at all between : the halacha of the Orthodox and the halacha as championed by the : Conservative movement? Is that not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would : of necessity lead (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent : than we have today... ... : But take the codes out of the equation : and *all* these multiple rishonic positions become tenable, allowing a : general free for all within the vastness of the parshanut tradition... ... : It is only those who also have an eye to the : codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in : the light of common practice. Actualy, it's only those who have an eye on common practice. After all, we discuss machloqesin between Rashi and the Rambam in halakhah lemasseh contexts all the time. And if Ashkenazim accepted Rashi's ruling, or one found in Tosafos, the Rama has no problem limiting his pesaq to that rather than that of the Rif, Rambam or Tur. And had there not been a Rama, then some shu"t or parshan could as well. For that matter, there is also the middle ground, the shu"t writer (eg the Ritva) who discusses halachic sevara and lomdus without either using a study of a pre-existing text as his organizing principle nor trying to codify a complete set of rulings. For that matter, the Beis Yoseif and AhS also sit in the middle ground -- code-like works that spend more space discussing how they understood the sources to get there. Returning to RAM's post for his reply to RnCL's question: : If you've been following me, then my answer to this should be clear: No! : This "much broader tent" is pure speculation. If we had no Rav ABC to guide : us, the void would have been filled by Rav XYZ, whose views might have been : to the right, to the left, or the same. And in *exactly* the same manner as : how we are obligated by the new Torah created by the Baalei Mesorah, the : possibility of differences is much less important than our confidence and : emunah that this Torah is the right one FOR US. Without the parshanim, there is no way to fill in the holes between se'ifim, to know how the conclusions were reached so that halakhah can survive beyond the limited set of cases in the Rambam or SA. However, without the codifiers, it's hard to find Rashi's ruling, but not impossible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 02:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:02:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha Message-ID: RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear as ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) 1) Prozbul - while the originial takanah was for individuals that made loans and meant a trip to bet din today it has become a piece of paper signed given to the rabbi or some ad hoc bet din (similar to hatarat nedarim). 2) nonJewish produce during shemitta - whther bought directly from nonJews or through heter mechirah the end result is that the consumer feels little difference between a shemitta year and a regular year. Only consumers that use Otzar bet din have to account for shemitta rules (of course it affects the farmer) 3) mechirat chametz - In the extreme one goes away for the entire Pesach, sells everything in the house and returns after Pesach to eat whatever is around, no need to even put away the chametz. For the rest of us it means putting what we sell in some closet and for some getting rid of "real" chametz like cakes 4) heter iska - again originally meant making a document for a specific loan and allowing a possibility pf loss. Today (in Israel) the banks and other financial insitutions have the document on the wall somewhere and most customers are not even aware of it. Because of court cases the heter iska has been refined so that the possibility of loss to the bank is essentially zero. In addition the heter iska today applies to non business loans - eg renovating a house, buying a car or going on a pleasure trip In addition to things that appear as cereonies to the average layman there are halachot called "ha-aramh" which is a trick way of avoiding the usual halacha. Again some eamples (again including inyana de-yoma" 1) paying the chazan for RH and YK for singing the first night of selichot 2) returning to shemitta - buying the lulav and throwing in for free the etrog 3) R Tarfon "married" 300 women so they could eat termah In an actual case involving yibum a couple without children and the husband was senile and near death while the brother-in-law lived in New Zealand. The solution was for the brother-in-law t "marry" the wife's sister and then divorce her but now the wife no longer needs a yibum or chaitzah. Note that pruzbol and heter iska began as ha-aaramah and later became a ceremony. I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview it. Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 11:57:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 14:57:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah Message-ID: <20150821185758.GA8815@aishdas.org> The word "mesorah" is overloaded with too many meanings. Literally, it's "that which was passed on". So logically, a common usage would make it synonymous with TSBP. And yet it's also used for the near opposite -- we speak of the mesoretic text, its vowels and its trope -- the ultimate in TSBK. And the collections of notes that describe that text are also called "mesorah". (So the mesorah describes the mesorah?! And you can join the email list if you wish to discuss the mesorah, diqduq, nusach hetefillah and the like.) More along the lines of the direction I want to head in, unlike talking about TSBP and thus focusing our attention on Divine origins, when we speak of mesorah we focus out attention on the chain of people. And so there is the usage of "mesorah" to mean mimetic tradition, and is often posed in contrast to textual TSBP. Notice R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik not only defines "mimetic tradition" as knowing what a kezayis is because you remember what your father and greandfather ate at the seder but also considers such cultural mesorah (my term) rather than textual transmission to be the carrier of value and emotion. It is the loss of mimetic tradition that he blames for the loss of dread of the Yamim Noraim and (in speech, not writing) for the loss of what his father RJBS called the "Erev Shabbos Jew" (from "On Repentance, pp 97-98): Even in those neighborhoods made up predominantly of religious Jews, one can no longer talk of the 'sanctity of Shabbat.' True, there are Jews in America who observe Shabbat... But it is not for Shabbat that my heart aches; it is for the forgotten 'erev Shabbat'.... There are Shabbat-observing Jews in America, but there are no 'erev Shabbat' Jews who go out to greet Shabbat with beating hearts and pulsating souls. There are many who observe the precepts with their hands, with their feet, and/or with their mouths - but there are few indeed who truly know the meaning of the service of the heart!" Then we speak of someone "having a mesorah" in two different uses: both if they have a received practice and cultural (as above) and if they have a known rebbe-talmid lineage. Still in contrast to texts, we're talking about the importance of all that Torah that doesn't fit into books. We also talk about those in the hands-on kelei qodesh, such as a sofer, a mohel, a shocheit, etc... also of "having a mesorah" from the one who taught them the craft. And that too is all about the kind of thing you need to learn with your senses and muscles, and not know from books discussing the topic in the abstract. To pasqen mar'os, a rav must also have a mesorah in that sense. It's a skill, a craft, that is learned from practice under the guidance of a mentor. Usually called "shimush". For regular pesaq too there is an element that is a craft, an art, a skill, the kind of thing one needs to learn from shimush, not by studying from abstract texts. Qara veshanah velo shamash TC, harei zeh am ha'aretz. ... - Sotah 22a This is why I like R/Dr Moshe Koppel's metaphor of laws of grammar for some usages rather than always comparing halakhah to civil law. (More as per his sefer "Metahalakhah" than in the essay "Judaism as a First Language" .) As I wrote in Feb : The "First Language" model is much like R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik's mimeticism, but also somewhat different. Halachic rules are an approximation of something that is inherently more complex in kind than rules and algorithms. Much the way grammar is only approximated by ever more complex rules which still never get a foreigner studying the language in class to the same feel for grammar that the native-speaker has. (And why TSBP loses something when not be'al peh.) So the ESL student may know what a past pluperfect is, and I don't, but the native speaker is more likely to know what is valid poetic license and what will produce non-English results. Similarly, a poseiq needs to pick up that feel, not the formal rules. Unstructured knowledge. I have two rather lengthy quotes that help create a feel for what I am talking about. They're quite beautiful, so I appreciate this excuse to share them. Notice how RYBS explicitly defines the word "mesorah" at the beginning of this first quote, UBiqashta miSham 10:1, pp. 63-65 (tr. RARR, The Rav, vol. I, pp. 247-250): Let me stress the idea of the Mesorah by telling you a personal story. I remember that when I was growing up I was frightened and lonely boy. I was afraid of the world. For me, the world was a cold and strange place. I imagined that everyone was mocking me. But I had one friend; do not laugh at me, it was the Rambam [Maimonides]. How did we become friends? Simply, we met. Rambam was a constant guest in our home. During the days when my father was newlywed, supported by my grandfather... father studied Torah day and night. A small group of outstanding young scholars gathered around him and eagerly absorbed his teachings. My father studied with his disciples in the room where my bed was located. My wont was to sit on my bed and listen to my father's words. He constantly quoted Rambam. His method was to first open the Talmud and analyze the text under discussion and the relevant commentaries. He would generally say: these are the explanations of Tosafot. Now, let us analyze the explanations of Rambam. My father would inevitably discover that Rambam rejected the basic explanation of the text and differed with Tosafot. My father would declare, as if to complain, that we cannot comprehend the approach and conclusion of Rambam towards the Talmud text. It was almost as if my father were directly saying to Rambam: "Rabbi Moshe, why have you taken this approach?" My father would continue, "at first glance, the Ra'avad (commentary on the Rambam) is correct at his criticism." The students would jump forward and each would express his thoughts. My father would carefully listen but would refute their proposed interpretations. Once again he would exclaim that the words of Rambam were incomprehensible. Nevertheless, my father would not give up. He would place his head on his hand and soon be engrossed in deep thought. The students would not disturb his thought process. Finally, my father would gradually lifts his head and begin to expound the true meaning of Rambam. Sometimes he would be lengthy, and on other occasions brief. I would strain my ears to catch my father's every word. In my young and impressionable mind, there developed a duel impression: First, that the Rambam was being attacked by enemies who wanted to hurt him, and second, that the Rambam's only defender was my father. I felt strongly that without my father, who knows what would happen to the Rambam? It was as if the Rambam himself were with us in the room, listening to my father's words. The Rambam sat next to me on my bed. What did he look like? I don't know exactly. He seemed to look like an exceedingly handsome and good father. His name was also Moshe, just like my father. Intensely following my father, the students absorbed his every word. Slowly but surely, the tension evaporated. My father continued his discourse with strength and courage. New ideas were clarified; the laws under discussion were classified and carefully articulated. A new light emerged; the questions were resolved and the topic properly explained. Rambam emerged triumphant, and my father's face was filled with happiness and delight. He had defended his friend, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon. The Rambam was comforted and smiled. I too was delighted and joined in the feeling of joy in the room. I would jump from my bed and run to my mother and cry out the good news: "mother, mother, the Rambam won; he beat the Raavad. Father helped him. Look how wonderful my father is!" But once in a great while my father did not succeed, and despite all his efforts the enemies of the Rambam defeated him. Their questions were as strong as iron. Although my father mustered all his strength, he could not save the Rambam from his detractors. Salvation did not come for the Rambam. Deep in thought, my father would lean on his head on the palms of his hands on the table. The students and I, and even the Rambam, waited in great tension for my father's words. But my father would raise his head and sadly state: "there is no answer. The words of the Rambam are difficult. The shiur ended with no explanation. The students were sad, and even my father was depressed. A sense of despair descended upon all of us. I cried. Even the eyes of the Rambam glistened with tear-drops. With a broken heart, I would walk slowly to my mother and cry out to her: "Mother, father cannot answer the Rambam. What will we do? He did not succeed today." And my mother would tell me: "Don't worry. Father will find and answer to the Rambam. If he does not succeed, then when you grow up perhaps you will find an answer to the Rambam. Always remember, my son, the important thing about Torah is to study it in happiness and enthusiasm." It is true that this story is part of my youth. It is not, however, the fantasy of a young child or the creation of mystical feelings. This story is an historic and psychological reality that guides me at all time. When I sit down to learn, the giants of the Mesorah are with me. Our relationship is personal. The Rambam sits to my right, Rabbeinu Tam to my left. Rashi sits at the head and explains, Rabbeinu Tam asks, the Rambam decides the halacha, and the Raavad objects. All of them are with me in my small room, sitting around the table. They look at me with fondness. They world the text out with me, and life a father, they encourage and strengthen me. Learning Torah is not just a didactic, formal, and technical experience whose purpose is the creation and exchange of ideas. Learning Torah is the intense experience of uniting many generations together, the joining of spirit to spirit, and the connecting of soul to soul. Those who transmit the Torah and those who receive the Torah are invited to meet one another at the same historic juncture. And Reflections of the Rav, vol II, pp. 21b-23 (original language in: RARR's The Rav vol II, pp 186-189) this quote winds up with mention of the mesorah: The old Rebbe walks into the classroom crowded with students who are young enough to be his grandchildren. He enters as an old man with wrinkled face, his eyes reflecting the fatigue and sadness of old age. You have to be old to experience this sadness. It is the melancholy that results from an awareness of people and things which have disappeared and linger only in memory. I sit down; opposite me are rows of young beaming faces with clear eyes radiating the joy of being young. For a moment, the Rabbe is gripped with pessimism, with tremors of uncertainly. He asks himself: Can there be a dialogue between an old teacher and young students, between a Rebbe in his Indian summer and students enjoying the spring of their lives? The Rebbe starts his shiur, uncertain as to how it will proceed. Suddenly the door opens and an old man, much older than the Rebbe, enters. He is the grandfather of the Rebbe, Reb Chaim Brisker. It would be most difficult to study Talmud with students who are trained in the sciences and mathematics, were it not for his method, which is very modern and equals, if not surpasses, most contemporary forms of logic, metaphysics or philosophy. The door opens again and another old man comes in. He is older than Reb Chaim, for he lived in the 17th century. His name is Reb Shabtai Cohen, known as the Shach, who must be present when civil law (dinai mamonot) is discussed. Many more visitors arrive, some from the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, and others harking back to antiquity -- Rabbeinu Tam, Rashi, Rambam, Raavad, Rashba, Rabbi Akiva and others. These scholarly giants of the past are bidden to take their seats. The Rebbe introduces the guests to his pupils, and the dialogue commences. The Rambam states a halacha; the Raavad disagrees sharply, as is his wont. Some students interrupt to defend the Rambam, and they express themselves harshly against the Raavad, as young people are apt to do. The Rebbe softly corrects the students and suggest more restrained tones. The Rashba smiles gently. The Rebbe tries to analyze what the students meant, and other students intercede. Rabeinu Tam is called upon to express his opinion, and suddenly, a symposium of generations comes into existence. Young students debate earlier generations with an air of daring familiarity, and a crescendo of discussion ensues. All speak one language; all pursue one goal; all are committed to a common vision; and all operate with the same categories. A Mesorah collegiality is achieved, a friendship, a comradeship of old and young, spanning antiquity, the Middle Ages and modern times. This joining of the generations, this march of centuries, this dialogue and conversation between antiquity and the present will finally bring about the redemption of the Jewish people. After a two-or three hour shiur, the Rebbe emerges from the chamber young and rejuvenated. He has defeated age. The students look exhausted. In the Mesorah experience, years play no role. Hands, however parchment-dry and wrinkled, embrace warm and supple hands in commonality, bridging the gap with separates the generations. Thus, the "old ones" of the past continue their great dialogue of the generations, ensuring an enduring commitment to the Mesorah. So there is a community of baalei mesorah that carries down a mimetic tradition of how to pasqen. A tradition of informal knowledge that cannot be codified into books and that creates a feel and emotional consequence. This is RYBS's usual usage of the word, "mesorah". No better or worse than any of the other usages, but more relevant to two of the conversations we've (we as in various members of the A/A chevrah, not necessarily here on Avodah) been having lately. In the discussion of feminism and Torah (which hasn't been here, but we have had identical cycles here before), RHS's piece "Preserving Our Mesorah in Changing Times" and others like it are often cited. RHS opens: What is Mesorah? Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today.[1] The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers.[2] 1. Avot 1:1. 2. For a more extensive discussion of mesorah, see Nefesh HaRav, pp. 34-58 and Beikvei HaTzon, pp. 21-37. Firmly in line with what we've seen from his rebbe, mesorah is used in the sense of the chain of transmission down time that conveys the art and culture of halakhah decision-making and Torah as a whole. And a bit further down he discusses "Who Is Authorized to Institute Change?" {emph mine): Changes in practice require delicate evaluations that only a master Torah scholar, a gadol baTorah, can properly conduct. Only someone with a broad knowledge and a deep understanding of the corpus of halachah, with an intimate familiarity with both the letter and the spirit of the law, WITH A MASTERY OF BOTH THE RULES AND THE ATTITUDES OF THE MESORAH, can determine when a change is acceptable or even required. The more wide-reaching the proposed change, the greater the expertise required to approve it. The evaluator must not only be a master of the mesorah, but he must also be able to consider new practices based solely on values internal to the mesorah, removing external influences from the deliberation.[14] 14. See Halakhic Mind, n. 98. But I think this example from a teshuvah (tr and poor title by YWN is more on-topic: Indeed, the Rav would often say (see drasha to Parshas Korach), that every person must recognize that he needs a Rav or a Rebbe. Even a Talmid Chochom whose Rebbe had passed away must constantly ask himself in truth (when they present questions to him) what his Rebbe would have said in such a scase, and what stance he would have taken. ... The expression that some of those who have permitted this utilize that according to the technical halacha a certain act is permitted, and that which people wish to prohibit it is because of political considerations is incorrect. For even a matter such as changing the mesorah the traditions of the Jewish people is in and of itself an integral section of halacha. When one rules on the donning of Tefillin for women it is not enough to merely examine the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch in Hilchos Tefillin and in the sources there and treat it as a simple question. The version of mesorah in RYBS's usage is the same concept RHS invokes to reject a "but it can be fit to the technical halakhah so your objection is merely political" attitude. Change must conform to mesorah to be valid, even if the textualists are satisfied. This is not an invocation of "daas Torah", because we're talking about questions of Torah, not politics or other metzi'us; we are invoking knowledge, if cultural and informal knowledge rather than book knowledge, and not invoking any metaphysical or mytical power; and because we do not expect a single correct answer that "the gedolim hold". But it still makes halachic decisionmaking when it comes to significant change subject to the skill of a few, and the rest of us are forced to submit to their understanding. The other use we've been knocking around, and this was here on-list, is RYBS's statement (Qinos Mesorat haRav, quoted by RGS here : Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebeal peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... RYBS identifies mesorah as the ineffible skill to think like a poseiq. And that we do get from those who explain how the prior generations developed the law, how the community down the ages conversed about the law, from living in the culture whose mimeticism is mesorah. And we saw Sotah's opinion of someone who learns without shimush. From only a little further down in that sugya (22a): Tanna: Hatannaim (those who repeat codified law) are swallowers of the world. Could you really think [they] are "swallowers of the world"? Ravina said: For they are morah halakhah from their repetition of the law. There is a a beraisa like this: R' Yeushua said, "And are they 'swallowers of the world? Aren't they settlers of the world, as it says 'halikhos olam lo' (Chavaquq 3)? Rather, because they are moreh halakhah from their repetition of the law. You can't pasqen from codes, from legal knowledge. It takes knowledge of how the codes reached their conclusion -- both textual knowledge obtained from the meforshim, and the skills to pasqen obtained by shimush. As R Yochanan quotes besheim Rashbi (Berakhos 7b), "gedolah shimushah shel Torah yoseir meilimudah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 22 16:06:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 00:06:16 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:41:09PM +0100, RMB wrote: :> Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the :> Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The :> parshan connects the past to the now. I replied: : That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. : Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation : handed over to the next. And RMB further replied: <> I read the quote and the original RGS posting before commenting on the thread because I generally try not to jump in mid-conversation without understanding what has previously been said. And that is precisely what I am objecting to. Because the RGS piece (including the quote) - is actually about our mesorah *regarding learning* (ie a much narrower slice of the wider definition). In that, as I said, I think it correct - our mesorah regarding how to learn - how to sit in Yeshiva and deal with the texts owes far more to Rashi and Tosphos than to the Rambam. But as stated in the quote, this suddenly becomes "our mesorah" in general and that is what I find problematic as I will try and articulate below. So let us look at the quote again: RGS quoted Qinot Mesorat haRav. The quote is long, so I'm just giving part: Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebe'al peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... The point I am making is that "any mesorah, "any chain of tradition" is much, much wider than what is done in Brisker yeshivas as part of the learning process. <> Now, if the point you are making is that RYBS was addressing yeshiva bochrim within a yeshiva setting (albeit explaining kinos on Tisha B'av) and hence explaining what it is that they do all day learning-wise- then the use of such language is probably excusable without the modifier - ie in this context mesorah is simply short for "mesorah with regard to how to learn". But the problem is that this language has now been pulled, by way of RGS's article (and lends itself to being pulled by its sheer breadth), into a wider application and wider audience, and not modified as such. It was then pulled across into Avodah, and the reference questioned, which I think it should be, because RGS's argument is implicitly if not explicitly far wider. And that I think is a problem, because what is true for one slice of "the mesorah" is not necessarily true for the whole. Whether this imprecision is RYBS's or RGS's is hard for me to be sure, as you say, this is a quote taken out of context. <> And this is where this slide from discussing one slice of the mesorah - what to do in Yeshiva, to a much wider slice of the mesorah becomes problematic, because of the implication you have just made which is that what is true of the section applies to the whole. And in this context you are dealing with what is called in common parlance the mesorah, not about conversations down time. So by slight of hand what you are doing is taking a definition which you acknowledge is a very limited and idiosyncratic one, but then sliding the conclusions that arise from that definition into the more standard debate, and claiming that was RYBS's opinion regarding the debate about what is more commonly known as "the mesorah". Let us therefore back up for a minute and discuss that aspect of RGS's post which in my view is unquestionably correct, even using the usual definition of mesorah: RGS comments that he and his father tried to learn meseches Nedarim just using the meforash, in the absence of Rashi, and were not able to do so (they were then only able to do it using the Ran, a much later commentary) - thus demonstrating the point of the post, which is, without Rashi, most of the Talmud Bavli would be a closed book to most people of average, and even above average, intelligence (like the Talmud Yerushalmi). This is unquestionably true. The Rambam was also aware of this problem (after all he learned all of Talmud Bavli without Rashi and everybody he knew either did so or tried to do so). His solution to RGS's problem was to tell RGS and his father, and people like him, not to try and learn Talmud Bavli, but to learn his, the Rambam's, Code instead. Ie instead of trying to tackle Maseches Nedarim, he would suggest that RGS and his father learn Hilchos Nedarim from the Mishne Torah. Now the truth is that if RGS and his father had in fact learnt all of Hilchos Nedarim from the Rambam, and all of the rest of the Mishne Torah, backwards and forwards and inside out - they are likely then to be well set up to tackle the Talmud Bavli without Rashi. Ie you *can* use the Rambam as a guide back into the Talmud if you are bright enough (because you have most of the concepts already explained by him), but it is not an easy way to do it. The Rambam assumed that the average person would stop with his Code, and only the best and brightest would need then to go back to the Talmud, to help determine the ambiguous cases not caught by his code, in a method not a million miles away from the one use by smicha students in learning Hilchos Shechita or Kashrus - first learn the Shulchan Aruch, then work your way back to the underlying gemoras so you are in a position to posken those cases the Shulchan Aruch doesn't catch. Our mesorah is like Rashi in this regard and not the Rambam (except when it comes to smicha students). We open up the Talmud Bavli even to children using Rashi and hundreds of thousands are sitting in yeshiva following Rashi. The problem is that people (it would appear including you) then generalise from "how we learn" to "how we posken" - which is what really is involved in the discussion regarding Open O and feminism. And they are not the same thing at all. Indeed, the fact that smicha students (those that are being set up to posken) are taught in a totally different way to the more general way of learning in yeshiva, and one that owes far more to the Rambam than to Rashi and Tosphos should alert you to that. I am then going to diverge a bit to discuss RAM's post, because he is discussing something completely different again: I wrote: > Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more of > them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the Rambam, were > able to formulate their halachic conclusions. And RAM replied: <> But you here (and it is even more explicit later) are discussing something completely different to what I was and am discussing. To best differentiate, I would say that you are discussing *content* and I am discussing *process*. Yes with regard to *content* it makes a difference which particular one of the Tosphosim were included on the page, and which weren't - but that is not what I am discussing. Rather I am discussing *how to learn* - ie how to make sense of this Talmud Bavli which (as RGS elucidated so eloquently) is so difficult for people to get into without help. What Rashi did was to provide a clear and simple explanation of the words on the page. What Tosphos did (and in this regard the whole commentary called Tosphos - despite the fact that it was made up of many different people, in fact teaches pretty much the same thing) was to teach people to say "hold on a minute, if we take the simple explanation provided by Rashi, then: a) there is a contradiction with what the gemora says somewhere else; or b) there is a contradiction with what in fact people do - so therefore we need to try and solve this problem. I then further goes on to teach people to say: very commonly we can solve this problem by: (i) re-interpreting this gemora; and/or (ii) reinterpreting that gemora; and/or (iii) finding some way of harmonizing the two gemoras, or the gemora and people's practice, or if we cannot manage to that (but only in extremis), (iv) working out that a certain gemora is more authoritative or the people are wrong. Note that when you are considering the process, it doesn't matter which particular sets of Tosphos' questions made it onto the page and which didn't - what is far more important is the fact that the commentary in general teaches people to ask these questions and mechanisms for trying to answer them. That is what a (eg child) who is first taught to study the gemora with Rashi suddenly encounters when he moves on to Tosphos. Hold on, Rashi's commentary may make a lot of sense in localised context, but we now have to try and consider the whole. Now of course the Rambam had not only to be his own Rashi, but he had to be his own Tosphos. He could not have written his Code if underneath the surface he did not deal with the fact that the gemora appears to contradict itself all over the place, and also to contradict what people are actually doing. The fundamental job of most meforshim on the Rambam is therefore (a) to explain how the Rambam understood the simple explanation of the gemora (ie what the Rambam would have said if he had written Rashi) and (b) how the Rambam resolved the contradictions in the various gemoras and with common practice (ie how the Rambam deals with the kinds of problems raised by the Tosphosim). But all of this is under the surface. All we have from the Rambam is the result, what we have from Tosphos are the questions. And it is the questions which give people a better window into how to learn gemora. So that is why, when discussing *process* it does not matter that: <> Because while we might have different Tosphos questions (ie content) on (or off) the page if hashgacha had gone in a different direction, or if there were gemoros on some of the mesechtos on which we have none, the process of *how* Tosphos (or the Rambam) would have dealt with that content is still the same. But if we would have had no Rashi and no Tosphos at all, ie the process they originated, but only the Rambam, we would all have learnt the code backward and forward, and a few bright sparks would have then used that to understand the gemora - a very, very different process of learning. In that regard our mesorah of learning comes from Rashi and Tosphos. On the other hand, RET is correct: <> Although I would modify that statement not to say "and not be bound by any text", as most at that point agreed that they should be bound by the gemora (and the Tanach as understood by the mishna/gemora), just not beyond that. And that is the point. There are two different concepts being discussed here, the mesorah of "how to learn" and the mesorah of "how to posken" (which then leads into what it is that people do). And when the Shulchan Aruch came out a lot of people strongly objected to the way of poskening that is a consequence of the codes. They thought that each posek should re-learn the relevant underlying gemoras, and work out their own harmonisation of them without being influenced, and certainly not bound, by what the Shulchan Aruch said. Some people perhaps thought that was a bit extreme, and that at least they should learn the underlying gemoras with all the rishonim, and, to the extent there was rishonic view, at least make a judgement within that spectrum (but not necessarily prioritise eg the Rambam, Rif and Rosh, or the Trumas HaDeshen and the Mordechai, being the most recent, over the others). The problem you have though is that - well, according to the gemora there are at least 50 ways of determining that a sheretz is kosher. Even if you then say that the gemora draws certain lines in the sand, there is no question that - well, let us take the hair covering question as illustrative. There are clearly (at least) two ways of reading the question: (a) hair covering for married women is an absolute and immutable d'orisa principle; (b) hair covering for married women is a tznius related convention - and given the convention at the time of the gemora (and earlier) it is required in those societies where it is practiced by modest Jewish women by virtue of rabbinic decree. If you can't see that the underlying sources (eg the mishna and gemora) *could* lead to either interpretation, then you are either wilfully blinding yourself or you can't learn. If you purely follow Rashi and Tosphos, then *if* you can read the underlying gemora sources in such a way as to harmonise with common practice today (even if you believe it is a bit of a dochek), then you would be free to do so, or at least, have no basis to criticise others who do this. However, nobody has that conversation today. The conversation you are having is about "how authoritative" are the various poskim (and from which tradition) who do appear to rule in one way or another. The power of Rav Broyde's article for example - is that he argues that the Rosh (and hence the Tur) and even the Rambam actually posken (b) out of the options, and this can be seen in the Shulchan Aruch. That is the kind of conversation we have today - with others of course rejecting that this is what can be read into the Shulchan Aruch. Hence I said: : It is only those who also have an eye to the : codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in : the light of common practice. And RMB replied: <> But neither Rashi nor Tosphos gave us any method of limiting where psak went, and indeed the Ri can hold one thing and Rabbanu Tam another within the same Tosphos. The Codes are far less open. And the language of the Shulchan Aruch is in the vast majority of cases the language of the Rambam thereby leading back to the thought process of the Rambam. The Rema then picks up a few of the cases where Ashkenazi practice differs and used a Code process to insert Rashi's explanation into the Code (although often where it had already been filtered through the Rosh and the Tur first). That is taking Rashi content and using it in a Rambam like way. Which is why the mesorah for how we posken is much closer to the Rambam than it is to Rashi. And what we do outside of the yeshiva is more about how we posken than about how we learn. Which is why I disagree: >Without the parshanim, there is no way to fill in the holes between se'ifim, to know how the conclusions were reached so that halakhah can survive beyond the limited set of cases in the Rambam >or SA. Of course there is, you have to go back to the original gemora - having first learnt through all of the related si'ifim in the Codes, and then make sure you understand how the rulings that are in the Codes relate to the underlying gemora. Once you have done that you can start to fill in the gaps, But only the select few who need to actually posken need to know this method - which is why it only needs to be taught to smicha students. But it is obvious that is the method used by the Rambam when answering questions outside of his own code in his teshuvos. <> And if you don't find it, it probably doesn't matter - because without the attitude of the codifiers, you really only need Rashi to understand the gemora and if you can do it without him, then great. And if you can't understand the gemora without him you wouldn't have a hope of formulating any ruling as the gemora would be a closed book. >Micha Shavuah tov Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 04:38:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:38:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Daf HaKashrus August 2015 Message-ID: <20150823113822.1203D183A0B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/daf_hakashrus_aug_2015.pdf This issue includes articles about bishul on Shabbos and dairy bread as well as other topics. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 02:10:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:10:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: [Email #1, in reply to R' Akiva Miller.] > My point is that while RMB and RCL are trying to imagine what Torah would > look like without Tosaphos, as I see it, even the Tosaphos that we do have > is a somewhat random document. I believe this is somewhat of an exaggeration. The school of Tosafot was basically begun by Rabbenu Tam followed by Ri (haZaken). Unfortunately we don't have much of their notes and Sefer haYashar is fragmentary. However, from Tosfat Shantz through Tosafot Tuch we have several manuscripts. It is true that the early publishers (or more exactly the rabbis chosen by these publishers) used whatever material they had however, I don't think that in most cases the differences between different talmidim were that great. Obviously some were more verbose and some less so and each included their individual rebbes and their own opinions. Nevertheless on the whole they were similar. Tosafot haRosh was the main version used in much of Spain. For reasons that are not clear to me this version was lost for many centuries before reappearing relatively recently. In individual cases one learns something new from Tosafot haRosh but I am not sure that on the whole it is that dramatically different from the printed versions [Email #2, in reply to me. -micha] > To pasqen mar'os, a rav must also have a mesorah in that sense. It's > a skill, a craft, that is learned from practice under the guidance of > a mentor. Usually called "shimush". I recall seeing recently (on avodah?) a machloket of poskim whether one needs shimush in order to pasken on maaros or it is sufficient to learn from seforim. In general some poskim feel that for many areas shimush is no longer needed now that we have detailed seforim. A number of gedolim of the 20th century essentially learned alone with minimal input from teachers. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 07:20:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 17:20:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] child conversion Message-ID: The recent court to allow conversion of under bar/bat mitzvah children is controversial. The bone of contention is whether it is considred a zechut for children to become Jewish when they grow up in a non-religious setting. R. Rosen recently gave a list of rabbis that allow it (at least bideved) and those that forbid it. I found the list interesting and not what I would have guessed Machmirim and not allowing the conversion: R Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor, Sridei Eish,R. Kook and R. Yisraeli Mekilim (at least bideved) Bet Yitzchak, Mateh Levi, Achiezer, RMF, R. Elyashiv, ROY -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 15:03:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:03:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150823220352.GA13158@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:10:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : In general some poskim feel that for many areas shimush is no longer : needed now that we have detailed seforim. A number of gedolim of the : 20th century essentially learned alone with minimal input from teachers. Well, RYBS's notion of "mesorah" is broader than that, as Rashi and Tosafos are considered part of it. Yes, shimush is more central to relaying a feel for how halakhah should be decided, but books that spell out past decisions also apparently play a role. But the truth is most of the gedolim in the 20th cent (Slabodka alumni aside) learned one-on-one often moving in with their rebbe. What you call "minimal" I would call "short and intense". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 25 18:27:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:27:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion Message-ID: The assumption is that it is better to be a non-religious Jew (thereby violating numerous halakhos) than a moral non-Jew. (I am being over simplistic as being non-Jewish citizen in Israel is more of a liability than elsewhere, so there may be a zechus to be a non-religious ger katan.) The irony as many have noted is that those who are most lenient about child conversion tend to be those who are also lenient in accepting that one could lead a perfectly good life as a non-Jew. Those who think that it is better to be Jewish than non-Jewish by extension should accept the conversion of a ger katan who will be raised by a non-religious family. The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for reasons of Nationalism. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 25 18:50:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:50:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) Message-ID: To parachute into an ongoing discussion, I have found that people use Mesorah in four different ways: 1) Personal Mesorah from a Rebbe to a Talmid. What a scholar or layman learns from his teacher. 2) Mesorah as the unbroken chain of Torah going back to Sinai. Rambam zt"l has the most famous mesorah chart, though I like Micha Berger's. (Parallels can be in Hadith transmission traditiona, Sufi traditions or the Catholic Church's assumption of an unbroken chain back to Peter). 3) Communal norms and traditions. This is how the term is commonly used in the Chareidi communities and also how it is being used in the ongoing discussion. This is the idea that there are legitimate practices, norms, values or halakhic understandings. For example different methodologies of learning. Or, as my brothers-in-law say to me, well if that is the mesorah of your community, then it is legitimate, even if they don't relate to this practice. (Personally, I do not relate to such a usage. Either an approach is valid/true or not valid/true.) I discussed the last category in an essay that Gil was kind enough to post: http://www.torahmusings.com/2011/07/two-types-of-orthodox-judaism/ There are probably other uses of the term *mesorah*, but I cannot think of them at the moment. Best wishes, Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 26 00:43:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:43:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] smart lighting Message-ID: can one use smart lighting on shabbat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_lighting -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 05:00:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:00:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov Message-ID: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? KVCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 10:37:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:37:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:00:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party : to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not : actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) My own lexicon: hakaras hatov: realizing that a good thing came into your life hoda'ah: acknowledging the one who / One Who provided that good Say Avi gives Berakhah a ball. Berakhah's hakaras hatov has an primary object, which is the ball -- the tov she received from Avi. Not taking life's gifts for granted. But her hoda'ah has a primary object -- which is Avi, and a secondary object, the ball. As in the grammar of "Modim anachnu Lakh al..."; the prespositional phrase giving you the secondary object is a list of all the things Hashem does for us. I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. Which, if you think about it, is what Chazal say about the early makos and how Moshe would not be the one to launch a makah that afflicts the water that saved him as a baby or the sand that hid the body. I'm not thrilled with the whole idea of exchanging favors, creating a market. It turns everything back on self-service -- every positive act is tainted by expectation of being repaid. : How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? Perhaps kibud av va'eim and kavod harav are their own concepts for a reason. And that hakaras hatov might explain the issur against hurting or cursing one's parents, but not kavod and yir'ah. I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 10:55:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:55:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". Tir'u baTov! -Micha Zechiyah uMattanah - Chapter Seven Translated by Eliyahu Touger Halacha 1 It is a universally accepted custom in most countries that when a man marries, his friends and acquaintances send him money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Then the friends and acquaintances who sent him this money come and eat and drink with the groom during all - or part - of the seven days of wedding celebration; everything should be done according to the accepted local custom. The money that he is sent is called shushvinut, and the people who send the money and then come and eat and drink with the groom are called shushvinin. Halacha 2 Shushvinut is not an outright gift. For it is plainly obvious that a person did not send a colleague 10 dinarim with the intent that he eat and drink a zuz's worth. He sent him the money solely because his intent was that when he would marry, he would send him money as he has sent him. Therefore, if the sender marries a woman, and the recipient does not return the shushvinut, the sender may lodge a legal claim against the recipient and expropriate the money from him. KVCT 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 12:01:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:01:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55DF5E92.9020405@sero.name> On 08/27/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". I believe the reference is to the law of shushvinin. But that is not a matter of hakaras hatov; it's an explicit quid pro quo arrangement. If you don't pay it back when it falls due, you're cheating the person of a quantifiable amount of money that you explicitly owe him, so he can sue you for it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 12:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <55DF64EA.6000201@sero.name> On 08/27/2015 01:55 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Mistranslation: This should be "...the expenses of the feast." -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 11:40:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 11:40:40 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus Message-ID: if there is a general assumption that one eats in another shomer shabbos' house without going thru their pantry, does the same hold in a shmitta year in israel where there are also multiple minhagim ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 14:08:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:08:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> On 08/28/2015 02:40 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > if there is a general assumption that one eats in another shomer > shabbos' house without going thru their pantry, does the same hold > in a shmitta year in israel where there are also multiple minhagim ? Lich'ora, since there is no consensus about shmita standards among shomrei shabbos, one who has a stricter practise can't assume that a randomly selected shomer shabbos is at least as strict as his. Therefore, without ascertaining this he can't eat those things which (according to his practise) are subject to shmita, but can eat those things which are not. Most importantly, though, he *can* eat from the other person's kelim, even if he *knows* that his shmita practices are more lenient than his own; for this purpose he can rely on "stam keilim einam benei yoman", even though normally one may only rely on this bediavad. This is the famous kula of "keilim divnei rhenus". -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 13:56:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:56:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov Message-ID: R' Micha Berger: <<< I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. >>> "Mah ashiv laShem, kol tagmulohi alai?" Akiva Miller On Aug 28, 2015 2:46 PM, "via Avodah" wrote: > Send Avodah mailing list submissions to > avodah at 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 at lists.aishdas.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." > > > A list of common acronyms is available at > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi > (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Child Conversion (Kaganoff via Avodah) > 2. Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) (Kaganoff via Avodah) > 3. smart lighting (Eli Turkel via Avodah) > 4. hakarat hatov (Rich, Joel via Avodah) > 5. Re: hakarat hatov (Micha Berger via Avodah) > 6. Re: hakarat hatov (Rich, Joel via Avodah) > 7. Re: hakarat hatov (Zev Sero via Avodah) > 8. Re: hakarat hatov (Zev Sero via Avodah) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:27:59 -0400 > From: Kaganoff via Avodah > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion > Message-ID: > oOARsdknGfHD5uwwUfKrmZGA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > The assumption is that it is better to be a non-religious Jew (thereby > violating numerous halakhos) than a moral non-Jew. > > (I am being over simplistic as being non-Jewish citizen in Israel is more > of a liability than elsewhere, so there may be a zechus to be a > non-religious ger katan.) > > The irony as many have noted is that those who are most lenient about child > conversion tend to be those who are also lenient in accepting that one > could lead a perfectly good life as a non-Jew. > > Those who think that it is better to be Jewish than non-Jewish by extension > should accept the conversion of a ger katan who will be raised by a > non-religious family. > > The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious > Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also > for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for > reasons of Nationalism. > > Yonatan > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150825/68f7e72c/attachment.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:50:52 -0400 > From: Kaganoff via Avodah > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) > Message-ID: > JWwz1eftmfgGuULn71A at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > To parachute into an ongoing discussion, I have found that people use > Mesorah in four different ways: > > 1) Personal Mesorah from a Rebbe to a Talmid. What a scholar or layman > learns from his teacher. > > 2) Mesorah as the unbroken chain of Torah going back to Sinai. Rambam zt"l > has the most famous mesorah chart, though I like Micha Berger's. (Parallels > can be in Hadith transmission traditiona, Sufi traditions or the Catholic > Church's assumption of an unbroken chain back to Peter). > > 3) Communal norms and traditions. This is how the term is commonly used in > the Chareidi communities and also how it is being used in the ongoing > discussion. This is the idea that there are legitimate practices, norms, > values or halakhic understandings. For example different methodologies of > learning. Or, as my brothers-in-law say to me, well if that is the mesorah > of your community, then it is legitimate, even if they don't relate to this > practice. (Personally, I do not relate to such a usage. Either an approach > is valid/true or not valid/true.) > > I discussed the last category in an essay that Gil was kind enough to post: > http://www.torahmusings.com/2011/07/two-types-of-orthodox-judaism/ > > There are probably other uses of the term *mesorah*, but I cannot think of > them at the moment. > > Best wishes, > Yonatan > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150825/4814ca39/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:43:29 +0300 > From: Eli Turkel via Avodah > To: Avodah > Subject: [Avodah] smart lighting > Message-ID: > < > CAGDtJ1GVgO0Ez55DoorrtQw_kfhbpGcPtQS8J8mV2rq-8rjYAA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > can one use smart lighting on shabbat > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_lighting > > -- > Eli Turkel > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150826/394e7ffd/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:00:05 +0000 > From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" > To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group (avodah at lists.aishdas.org)" > > Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: > <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de at VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party to > return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not > actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) > How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? > KVCT > 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. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150827/99422da9/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:37:32 -0400 > From: Micha Berger via Avodah > To: "Rich, Joel" , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <20150827173732.GA29088 at aishdas.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:00:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > : Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party > : to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not > : actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) > > My own lexicon: > hakaras hatov: realizing that a good thing came into your life > hoda'ah: acknowledging the one who / One Who provided that good > > Say Avi gives Berakhah a ball. > > Berakhah's hakaras hatov has an primary object, which is the ball -- > the tov she received from Avi. Not taking life's gifts for granted. > > But her hoda'ah has a primary object -- which is Avi, and a secondary > object, the ball. As in the grammar of "Modim anachnu Lakh al..."; > the prespositional phrase giving you the secondary object is a list > of all the things Hashem does for us. > > I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although > there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, > Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an > obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. > > Which, if you think about it, is what Chazal say about the early makos > and how Moshe would not be the one to launch a makah that afflicts the > water that saved him as a baby or the sand that hid the body. > > I'm not thrilled with the whole idea of exchanging favors, creating a > market. It turns everything back on self-service -- every positive > act is tainted by expectation of being repaid. > > > : How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? > > Perhaps kibud av va'eim and kavod harav are their own concepts for a > reason. And that hakaras hatov might explain the issur against hurting > or cursing one's parents, but not kavod and yir'ah. > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, > micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just > http://www.aishdas.org beginning. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:55:37 +0000 > From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" > To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group (avodah at lists.aishdas.org)" > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: > <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7 at VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > > Zechiyah uMattanah - Chapter Seven > Translated by Eliyahu Touger > > > Halacha 1 > > > It is a universally accepted custom in most countries that when a man > marries, his friends and acquaintances send him money to support the > expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Then the friends and > acquaintances who sent him this money come and eat and drink with the groom > during all - or part - of the seven days of wedding celebration; everything > should be done according to the accepted local custom. > > The money that he is sent is called shushvinut, and the people who send > the money and then come and eat and drink with the groom are called > shushvinin. > > > Halacha 2 > > > Shushvinut is not an outright gift. For it is plainly obvious that a > person did not send a colleague 10 dinarim with the intent that he eat and > drink a zuz's worth. He sent him the money solely because his intent was > that when he would marry, he would send him money as he has sent him. > > Therefore, if the sender marries a woman, and the recipient does not > return the shushvinut, the sender may lodge a legal claim against the > recipient and expropriate the money from him. > > KVCT > 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. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:01:38 -0400 > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > To: Micha Berger , The Avodah Torah Discussion > Group > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <55DF5E92.9020405 at sero.name> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > On 08/27/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > I believe the reference is to the law of shushvinin. But that is not > a matter of hakaras hatov; it's an explicit quid pro quo arrangement. > If you don't pay it back when it falls due, you're cheating the person > of a quantifiable amount of money that you explicitly owe him, so he > can sue you for it. > > -- > Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you > zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in > the street and commands me to surrender my purse, > I have a right to kill him without asking questions > -- John Adams > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:28:42 -0400 > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > To: "Rich, Joel" , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <55DF64EA.6000201 at sero.name> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > On 08/27/2015 01:55 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > > money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. > > Mistranslation: This should be "...the expenses of the feast." > > -- > Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you > zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in > the street and commands me to surrender my purse, > I have a right to kill him without asking questions > -- John Adams > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Avodah Digest, Vol 33, Issue 117 > *************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 30 20:32:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 23:32:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz - Lu'ach 5776 Message-ID: <20150831033207.C42DF1831DF@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 00:33:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 03:33:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz - Lu'ach 5776 Message-ID: <20150831073325.1618E182644@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 18:44:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 21:44:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: <20150901014419.GA6761@aishdas.org> Something I noticed... After the animal is shechted, a lung could be hollow, or full of liquid, and it's still kosher. But if there is a pinhole in both membranes around the lung, it's treif. Similarly the brain -- if the outside is solid, the inside could be rotten and the animal is still kosher. These are laws of tereifah that we refuse to change recardless of whether veterinary medicine disagrees about survivability. So I assume there is some point being made about chiyus in general in all this. However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is more important than penimius. Maybe something more like "fake it till you make it" -- as long as you keep the externals going, there is hope that the internals will fill in. But I'm fishing for better suggestions. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 19:18:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 22:18:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Factory Farming and Panicking the Animals Message-ID: <20150901021819.GA14109@aishdas.org> If the lung is tzemuqah (dried enough to be wrinkly like a raisin, but not dry enough to be called yeveishah)... There is a halakhah leMoshe miSinai that if it was due to fright caused by a person, the animel is tereifah if it's caused by HQBH (eg a lion attack), the animal is kosher. (AhS YD 36:70) If you do not know what the cause was, you check the lung -- man-made rei'ah tzemuqah won't rehydrate when soaked in water for 24 hours. But, this test is only used if the cause of the fright wasn't known (se'if 74); the cause of the stress is the iqar, not the dryness. Interesting is a comment at the end of se'if 70: Therefore it is correct that shoechtim be careful not to shecht one ba'al chai in front of another ba'al chai so that the lungs not get wrinkly and will require checking, ae will be explained. Also, there is tza'r ba'alei chaim in it ve'issur gamur hu and so wrote a number of gedolei ha'achronim. So I'm wondering, is our factory-style slaughter mutar? Can you say that this speed is a tachlis that makes the tza'ar needful, and thus mutar? Do people disagree with the AhS and his unnamed acharonim? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 20:52:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 05:52:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus In-Reply-To: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> References: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> Message-ID: <55E5210A.9050302@zahav.net.il> I would just add that like any other kashrut issue, a lot depends on why one has a particular practice. If one refuses to eat heter michira vegetables (that is the real issue) because he feels the HM is simply invalid, that is quite different than not using HM products because one wants to be machmir (assuming of course that not relying on the HM is a chumra). Ben On 8/28/2015 11:08 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > Lich'ora, since there is no consensus about shmita standards among > shomrei shabbos, one who has a stricter practise can't assume that > a randomly selected shomer shabbos is at least as strict as his. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 10:49:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 13:49:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another Tereifos Observation Message-ID: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> As I mentioned yesteday, any hole in the surface of the lung large enough to leak air would make the animal tereifah. What if the hole heals? AhS YD 36:7 (and elsewhere) says that a qerum (membrane) she'alah machmas makkah doesn't count. In se'if 14 he learns peshat in Rashi (Yavamos 76a "eino qerum") that there are two sevaros: 1- because this kind of closure isn't permanent 2- the closure is new. Akin to Chullin 68b "kivan shenitrefah, shuv ein lah heter) But in reality, the AhS says, "be'emes chad ta'amah hu" -- what makes the closure temporary is that it is made from the liquids of the makah. And therefore once the makah is healed, it has no cause. RYME notes that this is bedavqa when a new membrane is closing the hole. But if the side grow in until it closes, the lung is kosher. What about "kivan shenitrefah"? He writes "keshehaheter hayah mukhan be'eis hatarfus, lo chal alahh sheim tarfus ba'olam." Continuing what I wrote yesterday, that there must be much lehislameid from the halakhos of tereifos, given how we etched them in stone despite many of the rules losing their veterinary explanations.... We are told to have bitachon that before sending troubles, "Ein HQBH makeh es Yisrael ela im kein borei lahem refu'ah techilah" (Megillah 13b) This rule of tereifos, that the chalos sheim "tereifah" doesn't apply if the means by which the hole would close were pre-existing, seems to imply something further. In a sense, the makah itself isn't real because the refu'ah is already prepared. It is not that the bad times cause the good ones. Because they aren't permanent enough to be the root of permanent solutions. Rather, it is because it's all one process, the bad times being a bump in a road that from the moment you strarted traveling it leads to good. Or as Nachum ish Gam Zu said, "gam lu LEtovah" (emphasis mine), not "gam zu tovah". What redeems the bad times is that the route from them to tov is there before they even begin. ---- Language note: I noticed that rei'ah means "lungs", even though the term is in the singular and the translation is in the plural. There is no term of art for a single lung -- the main body of each lung is an omah and the lobes are onos or in Hebrew "aznayim". Tir'u baTov! -Micha Off-topic PS: I am seriously finding the beginning of YD turning me off to meat. -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 09:55:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 19:55:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Kosher Switch, Grama and Rav Osher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://podcast.headlinesbook.com/e/8-15-15-headlines/ where Rav Osher Weiss explains in detail his approach to grama, and electricity on Shabbos in general. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 11:17:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 14:17:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another Tereifos Observation In-Reply-To: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> References: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55E5EBB7.7060400@sero.name> On 09/01/2015 01:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Language note: I noticed that rei'ah means "lungs", even though the term > is in the singular and the translation is in the plural. There is no > term of art for a single lung -- the main body of each lung is an omah > and the lobes are onos or in Hebrew "aznayim". Yes, Chazal conceived of the lungs as a single organ. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 18:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 21:45:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > Similarly the brain -- if the outside is solid, the inside > could be rotten and the animal is still kosher. > ... > However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that > chitzonius is more important than penimius. > > Maybe something more like "fake it till you make it" -- as > long as you keep the externals going, there is hope that > the internals will fill in. > > But I'm fishing for better suggestions. I will offer another data point which also seems to suugest that chitzonius is more important than penimius. Mechaber 78:1 and Mishne Brurah 78:2,3 are obviously talking about a person who unfortunately suffers from incontinence. If he urinates while davening, he must pause, but can continue when the flow stops. This applies even if his legs and undergarments are totally wet, but NOT if the urine is on his outer garments. It seems that the cleanliness of one's outer garments is more important than the cleanliness of his undergarments, or even of his body itself. Similarly, if one needs to defecate, but he can hold himself for 4 mil, he will be yotzay davening b'dieved -- Mechaber 92:1. But that leniency is because it is mere pnimius; Mechaber 76:4,5 seems to be stricter once the tzoah has gone external. (Note: I think that it would not be difficult to show that chitzonius *is* important. The problem as I see it is that we've found some cases where it is *more* important than pnimius.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 00:17:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 10:17:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] bavli variants Message-ID: We are pleased to announce the launch of a new version (1.2) of the ' *Hachi **Garsinan*' Site for Variant-Readings of the Talmud Bavli. The site is freely accessible to all through the Friedberg portal: http://jewishmanuscripts.org . Version 1.1 of the website shows all hand-written text witnesses of the Talmud Bavli from the Cairo Genizah, with digital images (more than 4,600) and their transcriptions, in the framework of a software that allows the display of all text-witnesses of a specific Talmudic text in parallel columns in small units. Identical excerpts in a specific text-witness and in the Vilna can be marked, in order to spare the user the effort of comparing the texts. There are also additional helpful functions such as Save and Print, as specified in the website Homepage. *In the new version (1.2) - text witnesses from the following early printings have been added:* - *Guadalajara**(1480?), Spain / Portugal (Toledo? 1480-1490), Portugal (Faro? before 1498), Faro (1497?), Fez (1516-1521)* - *Soncino (1484-1489), Italy (1489-1498), Barco (1498-1499), Pesaro (1509-1516), Constantinople (1505-1509)* - *Venice** (1520-1523) * *(for details on tractates included in early printings - see Homepage). * *Furthermore, a function has been added to enable the user search for **terms or expressions in the Vilna** edition and each of the text witnesses that take part in the current version (Genizah and early printings) as well as a function to display the lexicon (**list of different words and their frequency**) of Vilna and of each of the other text-witnesses. Finally, the new version allows each user to alter the way that the text units are displayed on the variant-readings screen, using special editing tools designed for this purpose.* -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 05:05:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 08:05:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In my previous post, I cited some halachos which seem to demonstrate - surprisingly - that externals are *more* important than internals. Perhaps the source pasuk for those halachos might help us out. Devarim 23:15: "... v'hayah machanecha kadosh, v'lo yir'eh v'cha ervas davar..." "... your *camp* will be holy, and nothing unseemly will be seen in *you*..." We learn much from each of these phrases, but does anyone compare the relative importance of the reisha to that of the seifa? Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 08:31:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 11:31:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150902153128.GB27954@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 09:45:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Mechaber 78:1 and Mishne Brurah 78:2,3 are obviously talking about a person : who unfortunately suffers from incontinence... : Similarly, if one needs to defecate, but he can hold himself for 4 mil, he : will be yotzay davening b'dieved -- Mechaber 92:1. But that leniency is : because it is mere pnimius; Mechaber 76:4,5 seems to be stricter once the : tzoah has gone external. I am not sure these are examples. It may have to do with when tzo'ah smells, or when it starts being "tzo'ah" rather than part of the person. : (Note: I think that it would not be difficult to show that chitzonius *is* : important. The problem as I see it is that we've found some cases where it : is *more* important than pnimius.) Thinking about it more, I have more confidence in my earlier guess, that chitzonius is a better indicator of future penimius than current penimius is. Someone who is a passionate eved H', but for some reason isn't acting on it will likely lose that passion, and someone who develops the right habits in attempt to develop the feelings, mitokh shelo lishimah, ba lishmah. So it's not that it's more important; it's still of derived value. And yet, this reasoning explains Yahadus's focus on halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 18:30:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 21:30:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In Avodah V33n118, R'Micha wrote: > However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is more important than penimius. < Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what can be seen? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 06:30:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:30:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We recently had a thread which discusses the meaning of the word "mesorah". Coincidentally or not, I'd like to ask about the meaning of the verb "moser" as it occurs in the context of the Prozbul. I'd like to begin by giving two different *colloquial* uses of "moser": It can refer to the act of literally handing a fellow Jew to the authorities, but it can also refer to merely informing the authorities about a fellow Jew. My question about Prozbul is this: When the Prozbul says that the lender is "moser" the loans to Beis Din, does he actually hand them over, or does he merely inform? For decades, I had thought that the lender actually gives the loans to the Beis Din, in a manner similar to how anyone can use a commercial collection agency: Usually, if someone owes me money, I can sell that debt to a collection agency, but in the context of Shmitta, I give it as a gift to the beis din. Then, the beis din authorizes me to collect the debt on their behalf, and will allow me to retain 100% of it as my service fee. With the above, I have accomplished three important things: (1) When Rosh Hashana arrives, no one owes me anything, so I have no possibility of violating any halachos of Shmitas Kesafim. (2) When I collect from the borrower, I'm merely acting as an agent of beis din, to whom Lo Yigos does not apply, so I'm not violating anything. (3) Although the lender did not repay anything to me directly, my finances did not suffer, and future Shmitos will not influence to me avoid lending. BUT - From what I've learned, when a Prozbul is done, no kinyan ever occurs between the lender and the Beis Din, not even a kinyan sudar of the sort that I do when authorizing the rav to sell my chometz. Without a kinyan, I can't see how the loan ever leaves the ownership of the lender. So it is clear to me that Prozbul does NOT follow the "collection agency" model. Is there some other model that it does follow? The Mechaber Choshen Mishpat 67:8 talks about a situation that I will presume occurs before Erev Rosh Hashana: "If one claims money, and the other denies it, and the first sues in beis din and wins, and the psak din is that the second one must pay - this is a gibui, and shmita does not cancel it." If I'm understanding this correctly, then when a court verdict declares the A must pay B, this is not the sort of debt that shmita cancels, because the requirement to pay does not come from any interaction between the two men, but directly from the beis din's power. In other words, the lender can ask the borrower for money, but he is not asking for the loan to be repaid; rather, he is enforcing the court's ruling. This is a new obligation upon the borrower, which was created by the court, and is therefore exempt from Shmitas Kesafim. Perhaps this is how Prozbul works: Without any evidence or documentation, or even an itemized list, a person approaches the beis din and tells them that there are debts which are owed to him. The beis din responds with a court order that those debts must be paid. He can now collect them, because it is the *Beis Din* that wants them to be paid (irrespective of the fact that the lender wants them paid). This explanation solves the problem of Lo Yigos: The lender is not pressing the borrower for repayment of a personal loan; he is pressing the borrower to pay the court judgment. But the personal loan does still exist, doesn't it? The lender would still have an obligation to be personally m'shamet the loan at some point, but I think most people think that the Prozbul relieves them of that obligation. I'm stumped. When the lender is "moser" the loan to Beis Din, exactly what is happening? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 11:26:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 18:26:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0b20dda77d534fbdbec18095eaf0ce72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> We recently had a thread which discusses the meaning of the word "mesorah". Coincidentally or not, I'd like to ask about the meaning of the verb "moser" as it occurs in the context of the Prozbul. Akiva Miller ================================= Listen hear for discussion on point http://www.torahbase.org/prozbul-concept-halachos-5775/?lang=en Rav Asher Weiss-Prozbul ? Concept and Halachos 5775 Kvct 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 13:07:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:07:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch Message-ID: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> S"A O"C 55:11 as recorded in the 1st volume of the mishna brurah (it's not in my regular S"A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of the S"A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn't apply "now" because dina dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? KVCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 14:41:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2015 23:41:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What am I missing? Message-ID: <55EB6184.5050706@zahav.net.il> Re prozbul, I seem to be missing something. Personally I haven't loaned out any huge sums such that if I don't get them back, I would be reticent about loaning in the future. If I did loan out something small, why should I sign the prozbul? If the borrower doesn't pay me, well he doesn't have to (right?). If the borrower does pay me, he gets a bracha and everyone is a winner. What am I missing? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 21:10:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 00:10:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <55EBBC9C.9070304@sero.name> On 09/04/2015 04:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > S?A O?C 55:11 as recorded in the 1^st volume of the mishna brurah (it?s not in my regular S?A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of the S?A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn?t apply ?now? because dina dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? The note appears in the first edition, so presumably it was put there by the original publisher, in order to get it past the censor. Or perhaps it was inserted at the censor's insistence. In any case it houldn't need saying that it was not intended to be taken seriously by the intended audience. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49623&pgnum=170 (BTW, the censor's approval is dated 23-Dec-1882, the Hebrew date on the front page is 5683, but the secular date on the front page is 1884. Presumably that's how long publishing took.) -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 21:04:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 00:04:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Factory Farming and Panicking the Animals Message-ID: From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> If the lung is tzemuqah (dried enough to be wrinkly like a raisin, but not dry enough to be called yeveishah)... There is a halakhah leMoshe miSinai that if it was due to fright caused by a person, the animel is tereifah if it's caused by HQBH (eg a lion attack), the animal is kosher. (AhS YD 36:70) ....Interesting is a comment at the end of se'if 70: Therefore it is correct that shoechtim be careful not to shecht one ba'al chai in front of another ba'al chai so that the lungs not get wrinkly and will require checking, ae will be explained. << Micha Berger >>>> I remember reading that Temple Grandin had designed a spiral ramp with high walls for cattle to walk along before reaching the slaughtering spot. The design was such that the animal could not see out the sides or very far ahead as it walked, and would thus not witness other animals being slaughtered. This was meant to keep the animal calm and not frightened. I did not find the article with a quick google search but I am sure it's available somewhere. Temple Grandin is a famous expert in humane methods of animal slaughter. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 01:19:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 11:19:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? Message-ID: Most of selichos is us beseeching Hashem (poetically) for forgiveness and declaring that we are unworthy and sinners. However, the main part of selichos is the recitation of the 13 middos. However, the recitation of the 13 kiddos seems like almost magic, something we say because Hashem told us to as we say in the preceding paragraph "Hashem you commanded us to say the 13 [middos] ... as you told Moshe [the anav] ...". What is our kavannah supposed to be when we say the 13 middos? What should we be thinking? Why is saying the 13 middos so important? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 16:25:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 19:25:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150906232531.GA15175@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 11:19:51AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Most of selichos is us beseeching Hashem (poetically) for forgiveness and : declaring that we are unworthy and sinners. However, the main part of : selichos is the recitation of the 13 middos. However, the recitation of the : 13 kiddos seems like almost magic, something we say because Hashem told us : to as we say in the preceding paragraph "Hashem you commanded us to say the : 13 [middos] ... as you told Moshe [the anav] ...". What is our kavannah : supposed to be when we say the 13 middos? What should we be thinking? Why : is saying the 13 middos so important? Actually, the wording in the gemara is Whenever Israel sins *ya'asu* lefana keseder hazaeh, and I will pardon them. The point isn't to say the 13 Middos, they're just a reminder that we're supposed to do them. If we remember the essential, to be merciful people in His Image, HQBH is ready to pardon everything else. (I am defining "mocheil" as pardon as in being mochel a debt, in contrast to full forgiveness. That's a choice among how acharonim take selichah, mechilah and kapparah, so your mileage may vary.) I passionately recommend printing up and keeping it with your selichos and YK Machzor. It's a summary of the 13 Middos as per Tomer Devorah mapped to the version of the Thirteen Middos in Shemos that we say in Selichos. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 16:58:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 19:58:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 08:07:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : S"A O"C 55:11 as recorded in the 1st volume of the mishna brurah (it's : not in my regular S"A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of : the S"A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting : for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn't apply "now" because dina : dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. However, the MBs Poland wasn't it. Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 07:31:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 10:31:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: Let's go back to one of the sources: Yoma 72b - "Any talmid chacham whose tocho (inside) is not like his baro (outside) is not a talmid chacham." Is this speaking only of one who appears fine externally, but is deficient internally? Or does it also apply to one who is fine internally, but doesn't look it to an outside observer? If it applies to both, does anyone compare the two? I have always presumed that the one who is not-so-good on the inside is a bigger problem than the one who is okay on the inside. But if I understood them correctly, RMB and RMP brought independent reasons why one should focus on the externals. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 01:32:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 11:32:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What am I missing? Message-ID: R' Ben Waxman asked: > Re prozbul, I seem to be missing something. Personally I haven't loaned > out any huge sums such that if I don't get them back, I would be > reticent about loaning in the future. If I did loan out something small, > why should I sign the prozbul? If you have money in the bank in Israel then you have lent the bank money and therefore Shemitta will cancel your loan and the bank could keep your money. Now, the fact is that all the banks in Israel have a hater iska so that they can pay interest, but even with a heter iska half the amount is an iska but half is a loan, so the half that is a loan would be cancelled by shemita. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 17:56:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 20:56:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> I passionately recommend printing up . It explains the 13 Middos as found in Shemos and therefore Selichos in terms of the version in Michah and the Tomer Devorah thereon. Rather than repeating the same words / names over and over throughout selichos and much of Yom Kippur, it can become an opportunity to commit and recommit to emulating them. As the gemara (RH 17b) says Whenver Israel sin, they shall perform before Me like this structure (ya'asu lefanai keseider zeh), and I will forgive them. Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:27:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:27:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 08:56 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > As the gemara (RH 17b) says > Whenver Israel sin, they shall perform before Me like this structure > (ya'asu lefanai keseider zeh), and I will forgive them. > > Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:18:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:18:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55ECF3DF.8090003@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 04:19 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > However, the recitation of the 13 middos seems like almost magic, > something we say because Hashem told us to as we say in the preceding > paragraph Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we say them and invoke that promise. Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a magical power that the holy ketores has. The Malach Hamaves told Moshe Rabbenu about this trick, and when the occasion arose Moshe told Aharon to use it. "There are more things in heaven and earth..." -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:22:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:22:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was > written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? No. > Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law > and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't > practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. > > However, the MBs Poland wasn't it Yes, it absolutely was. > Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 12:08:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 15:08:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dr. Leo Deutschlander - Father of the Bais Yaakov Movement Message-ID: <20150907190830.A1951181640@nexus.stevens.edu> The name of Sarah Schneirer is invariably associated with the Bais Yaakov Movement. However, she was not the only one who was responsible for the success of the movement before WW II. Sarah Schneirer was an idealist who decided that religious schools for girls were needed in Poland and who set out to found such schools. However, WADR to Sarah Schneirer, she had a very limited academic background and her Jewish education was quite basic. (This was the case for most girls who lived when she did.) Thus others were needed to assist her in the development of the Bais Yaakov Movement. One such person was Dr. Leo Deutschlander. Up until today I knew very little about him. I did know that there had been an article in the Jewish Observer about his life, but I did not have access to it. Today a friend mine, who has a complete collection of all issues of the JO, brought me a copy of the article about Dr. Deutschlander. I have put it at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/deutschlander.pdf Note that other people who helped Sarah Schneirer with the development of the Bais Yaakov movement are mentioned and almost all of them have a Frankfurt background which means they attended the school that RSRH started in Frankfurt that educated both boys and girls. Thus in a certain sense RSRH is to be considered the grandfather of the Bais Yaakov Movement. Judith nee Rosenbaum Grunfeld played a key role in the development for the Bais Yaakov movement. See her article about Sarah Schneirer at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/sara_schenierer.pdf Anyone really interested in the history of the Bais Yaakov movement should read Rabbi Abraham Atkin's PhD thesis which is titled The Beth Jacob Movement in Poland 1917-1939. I have put this document at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/beth_jacob_movement_poland.pdf Note that the article about Dr. Deutschlander says that he never had children. To the best of my knowledge, he never married, yet he taught Bais Yaakov girls of seminary age and perhaps even younger, something that would be considered scandalous today! Given that Dr. Deutschlander never married, I find him being characterized by Chaim Shapiro as the "Father of the Bais Yaakov Movement" somewhat amusing. >:-} YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 11:41:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 14:41:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar Message-ID: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> Please click here to download a back issue of Halachically Speaking on eating before Shofar. ---------- From the article Custom of Some Gedolim The Steipler zt"l used to recite the zohar and other tefillos during the break. In his later years he recited portions of tehillim.[1] He did not make kiddush before tekios.[2] Harav Moshe Feinstein zt"l did not eat before tekios.[3] Harav Elyashiv zt"l [4] and Harav Yisroel Belsky Shlita do not eat or drink before tekios. [1] Orchos Rabbeinu 2:page 182:4. Refer to Darchei Chaim V'sholom 716:page 251. [2] Orchos Rabbeinu 2:page 181:1. Refer to Chelek Levi 189. [3] As related by Harav Aron Felder Shlita. [4] As quoted in Chag B'chag page 113:footnote 79. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 14:13:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 17:13:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar In-Reply-To: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <55EDFE13.7010505@sero.name> I have to admit that this is one of the Lubavitcher customs that puzzle me. All year, not just on Shabbos but also on weekdays, the official Lubavitch minhag is to allow eating before davening (after saying sh'ma, on weekdays in tefillin), on the grounds that it's difficult to daven properly without it. In the Tzemach Tzedek's words, "it's better to eat in order to daven, than to daven in order to eat". If you find that you're davening in order to get to breakfast, you'd do better to get breakfast over with and then daven with kavanah. And yet on Rosh Hashana, when one often doesn't get to kiddush until 2 or 3 in the afternoon, and when one needs kavanah in davening more than ever, Lubavitchers fast until kiddush! I don't understand it. If you can make it on Rosh Hashana, why not on any other day? And if you can't daven on an empty stomach on a weekday without thinking about breakfast, then how can you daven on an even emptier stomach on Rosh Hashana without thinking about lunch? -- Zev Sero KVChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 16:32:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:32:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:18:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. : Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we : say them and invoke that promise. : Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores : to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a : magical power that the holy ketores has.. Where is this made explicit? On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:27:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. : That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". Who said that remembering something in tefillah, unlike lekhishah, talks about the words themselves without internalization? What's the verb for tefillah, anyway? In any case, the idea that it's about saying the words until we're committed to emulating them isn't mine, it's R' Elimelekh miLetzhinsk's, the Chafeitz Chaim's and R YL Chasmin's. The latter two relate this gemara to "mah Hu 'Rachum' af atah..." Hashem is not only just, He's not a Vatran. The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 16:43:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:43:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:22:37PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was :> written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? : No. Source? :> Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law :> and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't :> practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. :> However, the MBs Poland wasn't it : Yes, it absolutely was. Again, source? Actual excommunications were commonplace. Comes up in teshuvos on agunah. :> Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. : Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could : be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the : MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. In the CC's hayday, Radun was in the Vilna Voivodship, Poland. And I didn't ask about censortship, I asked about autonomy, as in having courts empowered to punish, and the Jewish community certainly did. At least, azoi shteyt YIVO The Polish government never recognized Jewish communal autonomy de jure, but autonomy existed de facto in hundreds of local communities, school systems, and youth movements during the interwar period. Because regardless of whether this appeal to dina demalkhusa was real or to satisfy a censor, the mileau that created this footnote had to have such a law. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 17:42:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 20:42:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EE2EF6.2060509@sero.name> On 09/07/2015 07:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:18:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. > : Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we > : say them and invoke that promise. > > : Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores > : to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a > : magical power that the holy ketores has.. > > Where is this made explicit? It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell? Also, the gemara deduces that this is where Moshe must have got it, because how else could he possibly have known about it? Now if it was about the kavanos or the zechus of the mitzvah stopping plagues, then why couldn't Moshe Rabbenu have worked it out from first principles? This shows that it isn't anything that could be worked out, there's no reason why it should be so, it just is. In other words, magic. > > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:27:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. > > : That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". > > Who said that remembering something in tefillah, unlike lekhishah, talks > about the words themselves without internalization? What's the verb for > tefillah, anyway? "Lehazkir" doesn't mean to remember, it means to mention, to pronounce words. For that matter, the word "yaasu" that you're basing yourself on refers not to the midos themselves but to the "seder tefillah", i.e. the ritual of naming the midos. > Hashem is not only just, He's not a Vatran. The notion of magic words > that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah > would be very problematic. But that is what the gemara seems to say. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 18:06:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 21:06:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EE34A8.7060303@sero.name> On 09/07/2015 07:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:22:37PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was > :> written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? > > : No. > > Source? There is no source that it was banned then. Why would you even imagine that it would be? There is no such note in any edition of the Shulchan Aruch. In any case, the concept of banning cherem doesn't seem to have come up until the late 18th century. http://t95.el.sl.pt > :> Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law > :> and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't > :> practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. > > :> However, the MBs Poland wasn't it > > : Yes, it absolutely was. > > Again, source? Actual excommunications were commonplace. Comes up > in teshuvos on agunah. Catherine the Great banned cherem in 1795. Of course they ignored the law and did it anyway, but to get a sefer past the publisher they had to pretend to be obeying the law, so if the sefer mentioned cherem they had to note that this was written before it became illegal. > :> Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. > > : Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could > : be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the > : MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. > > In the CC's hayday, Radun was in the Vilna Voivodship, Poland. What Poland? There was no such place as Poland. It was Russia, and there was no autonomy. > And I didn't ask about censortship, I asked about autonomy, as in having > courts empowered to punish, and the Jewish community certainly did. > At least, azoi shteyt YIVO > > The Polish government never recognized Jewish communal autonomy de > jure, but autonomy existed de facto in hundreds of local communities, > school systems, and youth movements during the interwar period. Read what you just wrote: "The Polish government". What period could this paragraph possibly be talking about? The period when there was a Poland and a Polish government. IOW not the time we are discussing. And indeed if you look at the page again, you will see that it is explicitly discussing the interwar period, after Polish independence. > Because regardless of whether this appeal to dina demalkhusa was real > or to satisfy a censor, the mileau that created this footnote had to > have such a law. Yes, it did. Catherine's law that I mentioned above. And it also had a strict censorship law, which this sefer was subject to. If you need any further convincing, note the language of the censor's stamp. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 20:16:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 23:16:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Joel Rich wrote: > Listen hear for discussion on point > http://www.torahbase.org/prozbul-concept-halachos-5775/?lang=en > Rav Asher Weiss - Prozbul - Concept and Halachos 5775 Thank you very much for showing me this. I listened to it a few times, and it seems that he gives his conclusions right at the beginning: (00:42 to 01:05) "The takana of Pruzbul is that there is no need to physically give over your notes to Beis Din and there is no need Beis Din should be the ones to collect your money. Hillel was metaken: it is enough if you declare, either orally or in writing, Mosrani lachem..." (02:00-02:24) "The takana of Hillel was: It is enough if you write 'Mosrani lachem ploni v'ploni'. It is considered AS IF you transferred your notes to Beis Din, and when you collect the money, you would be considered AS IF you would be shliach of Beis Din even though it's not really the real thing in practicality. But that was the takana of Pruzbul." But how does it work? He clearly says (at 8:40 to 9:23) that the functions of a Beis Din do not include acting as a collection agency. There ARE (9:49 to 10:30) are very limited circumstances where Beis Din does have that function, such as collecting for yesomim, because that *is* one of the roles of the Beis Din, as "avi yesomim". One the other hand, (10:30 to 10:52) yesomim do not need to make a pruzbul at all, because Beis Din is *automatically* the Avi Yesomim, and their loans will not be cancelled by shmitta. So he suggests (12:19 to 12:40) that although it is not Beis Din's practice to accept the responsibility of collecting loans except for unusual cases, perhaps the difficulties posed by Shmitta put other loans in this category, and so if someone would be moser his loans to Beis Din, then Shmitta will not cancel them. But exactly why are such loans exempt? He explains (14:20 to 14:40), "You have to be m'shamet loans, but the moment you gave your notes, your loans over to Beis Din, it is k'gavui dami - it is as if those monies were already collected." He then compares this situation to the case where the lender has collateral for the loan, and that too is "already collected" and exempt from Shmitas Kesafim. It seems to me that this is how Rav Weiss understands the Pruzbul: The loan was and remains property of the lender, but Beis Din accepts the responsibility to go to the borrower to demand payment. From that point, it is considered as "already collected". Since it is already collected, not only is he allowed to request the money after Rosh Hashana, but there's no need to even state "M'shamet Ani". There is no need for any kinyan, because the loan remains property of the lender, and the role of Beis Din is simply to accept responsibility for collecting the loan; this occurs automatically at the inception of the loan where the lender is an orphan, and it also occurs automatically at the execution of a Pruzbul per Ezra's takana. ON THE OTHER HAND, over Shabbos a friend lent me his copy of Sefer Dinei Shviis Hashalem, published by Keren Hatarbut Degel Yerushalayim, which contains a photo of a pruzbul on the stationery of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and (apparently) in his handwriting, dated 29 Elul 5754. It contains a very interesting clause. Other pruzbuls avoid details, and simply say something like "I am moser my loans to beis din", but this one adds some very significant points. Here is the full pruzbul, as best as I can render it: "[B'mosav tlasa bei dina k'chada havinu] We were three dayanim sitting together, [uva l'faneinu...] and R' Aharon Dovid Goldberg came [v'amar lanu] and said to us: [Hen shana zu hee shnas hashviis] This year is the seventh year, [v'yesh li chovos b'shtar uv'al peh] and I have loans - both in writing and orally - [al ayzeh anashim] against certain people. [V'hareni moser lachem pruzbul] I am now moser a pruzbul to you, [viyhavis l'chon b'matana] and give it to you as a gift [b'kinyan dalet' amos karka] with a kinyan of four amos of land, [me'arah d'ees li] from the ground that is mine. [V'al gabayhon] And through that, [arshees yas'chon] I give you permission [limigbah kol chovos] to collect all my loans, [d'ees lee al inshee] which I have against people. [Mayatah t'havoon li daiyna] Henceforth you will be my dayanim, [v'sagbuhu uskabluhu li] and you will collect and accept payment for me. [V'im lo tagbuhu atem] And if you do not collect it yourselves, [mayata kayvan shemasarti lachem pruzbul zeh] then since I was moser this pruzbul to you, [ani goveh kol chov] so I can collect any loan [sheyesh li ad hayom etzel kol adam] which I have up to today against anyone, [kol zman she'ertzeh] any time I want. [next paragraph] - "[Anachnu beis din] We the court [shamanu dvarav] heard his words, [veefinu kocho] and affirm its validity, [shelo t'shamet lay] that he will not have a cancellation, [v'yigbeh kol chovosav] and he can collect all his loans, [al ydei pruzbul zeh] via this pruzbul, [k'takanas Hillel v'Chazal] in accordance with the takana of Hillel and Chazal. [next paragraph] - "[Banu al hechasum] We have signed below [yom kaf"tes l'chodesh Elul, shnas heh-tav-shin-nun"dalet] this day, 29th of Elul 5754 [poh Ir Hakodesh Yerushalayim] here, the holy city of Yerushalayim. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach [I cannot read the other two signatures]" (end of pruzbul) I don't understand the purpose of the four amos of land. (Yes, I'm quite aware of the requirement in halacha, I just don't understand why that requirement was included. That's a topic for another thread.) And I quite likely made some errors in the transliteration and the translation. But I think that I understood it well enough to state with confidence that it seems that RSZA does indeed subscribe to the "collection agency" model, which Rav Asher Weiss had so clearly rejected. RSZA explicitly uses the word "kinyan". One could argue that the "matanah" which the lender is giving to the beis din is merely the pruzbul and not the loans. One could also point out that after the kinyan has occurred, the lender continues to refer to the loans (which beis din would collect) as "MY loans", suggesting that they are still owned by the lender and not the beis din. But if that is so, then what does it mean to make a kinyan on the *pruzbul*? This pruzbul is merely a record of the court proceedings, and it seems very likely to me that the intent is for the court to acquire the loans themselves, in very much the same way that a modern collection agency works. If anyone disagrees, and feels that RSZA does *not* subscribe to the "collection agency" model, please explain how you think this pruzbul works. And if anyone does agree with me, then I wonder if any other poskim hold that way, because every explanation of pruzbul that I've seen describes the document itself, and no one ever mentions any requirement of kinyan. Thank you Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 02:10:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 05:10:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar Message-ID: And if you can't daven on an empty stomach on a weekday without thinking about breakfast, then how can you daven on an even emptier stomach on Rosh Hashana without thinking about lunch? Kal v?chomer, how can you daven on T?B and Y?K when you wake up without having even drinking or eating and then must go another good 12 hours on an empty stomach? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 03:51:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:51:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote; > "It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that > ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to > have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there > the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so > obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. > How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell?" Rashi in Chumash quoting the Mechilta offers a second explanation of why the ketores was used to end the plague. Bnei Yisrael were complaining about the ketores that it was a sam hamaves, that it killed people. The ketores killed Nadav and Avihu, it killed the 250 people, therefore Hashem said watch that it can stop the plague and that sin is what really kills people. We see clearly from this explanation that there was nothing magical about using the ketores, rather Hashem wanted to make a point to the Jewish people about the ketores. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 07:35:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:35:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very problematic. (Or perhaps "confusing" would be a better description, as it moves the focus away from a "problematic halacha", chalila, and towards my obligation to understand it.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 08:14:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 11:14:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:35:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a : measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very : problematic... And I don't believe there is such a thing, so I have no problem. I suggested twice now 2007 http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol23/v23n174.shtml#12 and 2010 http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n130.shtml that itzumo shel yom mechaperes only someone who acknowledges and embraces the etzem shel yom. >From 2007: > My understanding is that itzumo shel yom is mechapeir, but without inuyim, > one isn't connected to that etzem. IOW, someone who eats on YK doesn't > get kapparah, but someone who observes YK gets kapparah from YK itself, > not the zekhus of observance. > And it's clear from R' Elazar ben Azaryah on Yuma 86a that YK is never > effective in and of itself. > - For an asei, teshuvah is effective > - For a regular lav, teshuvah must first achieve selichah (removal of > onesh) before YK can effect kaparah > - For a chayav kareis, one needs teshuvah and YK for selichah, and onesh > brings kaparah > - For chillul Hashem, only misah brings kaparah. > The philosophical problems are > (1) The justice in YK being mechapeir > (2) Given a ba'asher hu sham approach, why would onesh or misah in and > of itself help? > I couldn't make heads or tails of it without stretching the notion, > and saying that YK is mechapeir to the extent that one allows oneself to > experience the soul-changing nature of YK, and thus change the ba'asher > hu sham. Similarly oneshim or misah. I know all this could be seen as dachuq BUT, Divine Justice is the 11th iqar. I would prefer to take a number of chazal's statements as colloquial shorthand for more nuanced ideas than to dismiss what we have blessed as a defining feature of Yahadus. Or IOW, given that Ani Maamin and Yigdal made it into the siddur, I feel the burden rests on those who take itzumo shel yom in its simple sense. (And yes, "problematic" should be tken as "a problem for us to understand.") Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 10:08:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:08:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 midos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55EF15F0.8060200@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 06:50 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote; >> "It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that >> ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to >> have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there >> the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so >> obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. >> How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell?" > Rashi in Chumash quoting the Mechilta offers a second explanation of > why the ketores was used to end the plague. Bnei Yisrael were > complaining about the ketores that it was a sam hamaves, that it > killed people. The ketores killed Nadav and Avihu, it killed the 250 > people, therefore Hashem said watch that it can stop the plague and > that sin is what really kills people. > > We see clearly from this explanation that there was nothing magical > about using the ketores, rather Hashem wanted to make a point to the > Jewish people about the ketores. Yes, this is an alternative explanation, offered because the primary explanation leaves some question unanswered. But it is the second explanation rather than the first, because the problem with it is obvious: Hashem didn't tell Moshe to do this. Moshe told Aharon on his own initiative, which is why the gemara wonders how he knew that it would work. This is also why the Malach Hamaves challenged Aharon's right to stop him; if the instruction had come from Hashem he would have had no reason to object to being stopped. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 12:04:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:04:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55EF3124.3060704@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 05:10 AM, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: > Kal v?chomer, how can you daven on T?B and Y?K when you wake up > without having even drinking or eating and then must go another good > 12 hours on an empty stomach? Absolutely. But you don't have a choice. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 12:07:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:07:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> References: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EF31E7.5090303@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 11:14 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:35:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > : True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a > : measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very > : problematic... > > And I don't believe there is such a thing, so I have no problem. > > I suggested twice now 2007 > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol23/v23n174.shtml#12 and 2010 > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n130.shtml that > itzumo shel yom mechaperes only someone who acknowledges and embraces > the etzem shel yom. Rebbi is the one who says Itzumo shel yom mechaper, and he explicitly says that one who eats on YK is automatically forgiven the moment he swallows the food, so that the only way to get kares for eating on YK is to choke on the food and die before swallowing it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 10:18:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:18:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] thermostats Message-ID: as thermostats for the house get more sophisticated do they present a shabbat problem? http://www.cnet.com/products/nest-learning-thermostat-third-generation/?ftag=CAD1acfa04 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 10:37:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:37:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 12:11:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 15:11:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> References: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F08476.8010605@sero.name> On 09/09/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay > (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan. Whether it's allowed is a different question from how it works. Moser Shtorosav leveis din worked even when shmitah was d'oraisa. Tosfos says that Hillel didn't invent it, he merely legitimised it. Before his day it was known, but it was considered unethical, and no reputable beis din would go along with it. To do it required finding a fly-by- night beis din willing to entertain it, so upstanding lenders didn't take advantage, and instead were reluctant to lend. Then Hillel decreed his "solution for rich and poor", which was to instruct botei din to accept and even encourage such applications, so that people would be willing to lend. And he only felt comfortable doing so because shmita was d'rabonon. -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 15:32:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 18:32:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 09:30:46PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V33n118, R'Micha wrote: :> However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is :> more important than penimius. : Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what can : be seen? How is the surface of a lung or brain more visible than the innards? The only difference is how much cutting is required. In general, halakhah only deals with what can be seen in principle, not what happens to be visible in this instance. You can't eat unchecked lettuce any more readily because the light bulb blew in the room you're in. And in principle, these things can be checked. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 17:23:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:23:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> Re: Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom - Rabbi Natan Slifkin From: Ben Rothke via Areivim <_areivim at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:areivim at lists.aishdas.org) > >> "The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom" is the latest book by Rabbi Natan Slifkin. I found it to be a fascinating work. My review is here: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/book-review-the-torah-encyclopedia-of-the-ani mal-kingdom Let me know what you think. << --Ben Rothke >>>>> I think the book is magnificent. I've seen the first volume and read a good chunk of it (the projected second volume is not out yet). It is a fascinating work based on tremendous research, and also aesthetically beautiful. The first volume is about wild animals mentioned in the Torah. The projected second volume I believe is about domestic and kosher animals. The book definitively answers, at least to my satisfaction, a question I've wondered about for a long time: What is a re'em? According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). In Moshe's brachos to the shevatim he says Yoseph has "the horns of a re'em" (Dev. 33:17). Bil'am says when Hashem took the Jews out of Egypt He had "like the strength of a re'em" (Bamidbar 23:22). R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs, a huge and powerful horned animal, a wild ox, nearly the size of an elephant, that lived in Europe, Asia and North Africa. It went extinct only about 400 years ago. The last recorded aurochs died in Poland in 1627. BTW a description and drawing of the aurochs can be seen on pages 17 - 18 of a lovely 28-page monograph that is particularly appropriate for this season. See *Exotic Shofars: Halachic Considerations* by R' Natan Slifkin. http://zootorah.com/assets/media/essays/ExoticShofars.pdf --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 21:37:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:37:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> ------------------------------ I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem?s love for His people: ?If you sin, even if you?re not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here?s a ?ticket? of sorts that I?m giving you _now_ to show my love for you, that if you ?remind? me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate that you see yourselves as close to me, and I?ll give you some measure of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah.? The best Mashal I could think of for this is a PBA placard ? you buy it and put it in your car, and when the cop pulls you over for speeding, you show it to him and he goes easy on you, because he sees that you?re really a friend of the police. NOT because you demonstrated regret for speeding, necessarily. Does that make sense? KT, MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:14:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:14:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Thinking about, knowing about, and knowing G-d In-Reply-To: <000601d0eb81$09d77c90$1d8675b0$@gmail.com> References: <20150901180343.GC11612@aishdas.org> <20150903002115.GA1793@aishdas.org> <55F08884.3010503@sero.name> <000601d0eb81$09d77c90$1d8675b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150910191452.GD3345@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:27:43AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Areivim wrote: : R' ZS: :> The Nachum in your story is too busy to think about HKBH, and that's not :> good, but OTOH HKBH Himself said "I wish they would forget me and keep my :> Torah", so this Nachum is better than someone who is constantly :> thinking about HKBH but doesn't keep mitzvos. But this is why Tanya :> (ch 41) says to interrupt ones learning once an hour to think about why one :> is learning. : This discussion reminds me that there's another step - not only to think : about Hashem, but to _know_ about Hashem, as in the old story (excerpted : from a piece I wrote for "A Daily Dose of Torah"): : R' Levi Yitzchok of Berditchev studied for an extended period of time with : the Maggid, R' Dov Ber of Mezeritch. When he returned, his father-in-law - : who did not approve of R' Levi Yitzchok's leanings towards chassidus - asked : him, "What did you learn there?" R' Levi Yitzchok answered, "I learned that : Hashem exists." His father-in-law, annoyed, protested that everyone knows : that, and to prove it, asked the maid, "Does Hashem exist?" She answered, : "Certainly!" : "She says it," R' Levi Yitzchok responded, "but I know it!" : Certainly pertinent to Malchiyos. I often quote something R/Prof Shalom Carmy wrote in (Aug '01): > [RGStudent: ] >> However, in his Al HaTeshuvah (pp. 195-201), R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik >> investigates what it means to "know" God. As he points out, it is >> impossible to know God. Rather, the Rambam means that we are obligated to >> constantly recognize God's existence. As it says in Mishlei (3:6), "In all >> your ways know Him." Cf. Rabbeinu Yonah's commentary to Mishlei, ad loc. > People who throw around big words on these subjects always seem to take > for granted things that I don't. > The people who keep insisting that it's necessary to prove things about > G-d, including His existence, seem to take it for granted that devising > these proofs is identical with knowing G-d. > Now if I know a human being personally the last thing I'd do, except as > a purely intellectual exercise, is prove his or her existence. RMYG's point is similar to that in the quote from RGS. There is a difference between knowing about Gcd and knowing Gcd. The latter is experiential, and doesn't demand proof. And IMHO more related to Malkhios. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:23:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:23:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150910192331.GA25852@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 04:56:04PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger: :> I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although :> there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, :> Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an :> obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. : "Mah ashiv laShem, kol tagmulohi alai?" I do not see obligation here. Rather, how can I possibly repay, given that everything I have is from Him. Even if voluntarily. Therefore (next pasuq), I will simply recognize what He gave me (kos yeshu'os esa) and that He was the One Who gave it (uvsheim H' eqra), follow through on what I already promised.... Do you see new obligations in this pereq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:47:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:47:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:02:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. : I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear as : ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) ... It's an intersting point, but relating it to RYBS's position just confuses the matter. You're using the word "ceremony" in nearly the opposite sense. And while you note that: : I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview it. : Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not : ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view This isnt' merely an answer, it's an indication that you're discussing two different topics. There is no question, just a miscommunication. Anyway, the contrast between the usages of the word "ceremony" interested me. You listed a number of cases where a halachic legality can be accomplished through something the lay-person considers meaningless ritual: pruzbul, mechiras chameitz, heter isqa, ha'aramos, etc.. RYBS made that statement about ceremony in the sense of ritual in which the person finds meaning, but lacks halachic structure. The two examples that most readily leap to mind are (1) his disparaging kiruv that focuses on white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos candelabra, and (2) his modifying the minhagim of the Three Weeks and Nine Days because leshitaso, the minhagim must follow the same forms as ones found in hilkhos aveilus. I posted about this in Aug '08 at . I also noted in 2011 that RYBS's position that minhag must mirror halachic structure is in opposition to the Brisker Rav's (his uncle's) shitah. RYZS holds that one makes berakhos on minhagim that have a cheftzah shel mitzvah (eg lighting a Chanukah menorah in shul), and that the Rambam and Rabbeinu Tam don't argue about that. What they do argue about is whether Chatzi Hallel is close enough to Hallel to qualify for a berakhah. However, leshitas RYBS, there are no such minhagim that wouldn't require a berakhah. If Chatzi Hallel didn't require a berakhah because it's not close enough to the cheftzah shel mitzvah, it would be "ceremony", and not a valid minhag. He therefore would have to reject his uncle's chiddush. Neo-Chassidus is basically a MO rebellion to this kind of Halakhic Man approach to Yahadus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 10:54:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:54:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle Message-ID: <20150910175503.5E910182948@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6500 Picture, if you will, the hallowed halls of almost any Yeshivah, almost anywhere in the world, on Rosh Hashanah morning. As the strains of Shiras Chanah conclude, followed by the post-Haftarah brachos, there suddenly is a loud bang on the Bimah and the Gabbai calls out "Kiddush!" Most of those assembled take a break for a quick Kiddush and then return for the day's main Mitzvah - the Tekiyas Shofar, the Blowing of the Shofar. The reciting of 'Lamnatzeach' soon reach a crescendo, not unlike a deafening roar, as the congregation eagerly anticipates and prepares for the Shofar Blowing. Although this is indeed the common custom in almost every Yeshivah, curiously, the idea of making Kiddush and eating prior to the main Mitzvah of the day is considered an anathema to some. In fact, the Matteh Efraim, who is considered the authority on issues relating to the Yomim Nora'im, writes that it is actually prohibited to eat before Tekiyas Shofar, barring if one is weak, and, even only then, a small 'Te'imah', tasting of food, in private, is allowed.[1] If so, why do so many make Kiddush[2] and eat before Tekiyas Shofar? To sum up the matter, and although this dilemma is quite complicated, one must ascertain from his knowledgeable halachic authority, as well as taking his personal situation, strength level, and minhag into account, as to what to do on Rosh Hashanah morning.[23] Postscript: One interesting upshot of this machlokes seems to be the recent proliferation of Vasikin Minyanim on Rosh Hashanah. In this way, it is possible to daven all of Shacharis and Mussaf and still be able to make Kiddush after completing davening but still before Chatzos, as well as gain all the spiritual benefits of 'Davening Haneitz'.[24] A seemingly excellent way to avoid spiritual conflict on the Day of Judgment, all the while literally fulfilling the Rambam's famous dictum (Hilchos Teshuvah Ch. 3: 4) of 'Uru Yesheinim Mi'shnascham, Wake up you slumberers, from your sleep', for the clarion call of the Shofar. See the above URL for more. ---------- Any one living in Flatbush is welcome to come to the YI of Ave J Haskama Minyan on RH morning. We start at 7:15 and davening will be over by 11:30 (with Musaf). Then there is plenty of time to go home and make kiddush before Chatzos. Davening is on the second floor in the Simcha Hall. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 08:46:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:46:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha responded to me: >> Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what >> can be seen? > How is the surface of a lung or brain more visible than the innards? > The only difference is how much cutting is required. And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an external tool is required in order to 'see' something. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 13:00:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:00:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:46:32AM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: : And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external : magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an : external tool is required in order to 'see' something. You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying glass. To me that seems obvious. But to articulate it, I find myself going to words like cheftzah, which is a bit too technical to be appropriate language for relaying why I find it self-evident. The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. The magnifying glass compensates for the fact that water bears and other microscopic beasties are not in the realm of experience. We aren't getting the situation right, we are compensating for something with the cheftzah itself. To put it another way, maggot eggs do not have halachic existence. Do tiny crustaceans cease to exist and come back into existence if you flip the light off or on? (This is just different kind of appeal to cheftzah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 13:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:19:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha noted: > You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. < I omitted the blown lightbulb because IMHO the level of required light is a murky subject (poor attempt at humor :)). > I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying glass. < And I am disagreeing: you need an external tool to reach that inside area. Since you're pushing your "kasuv hashelishi", you also need to define what level of light is "normal" -- surely you're not saying that a bug which can only be 'seen' when the level of light exceeds *olam-hazeh* norms (e.g. the lumen level exceeds that of the sun at its strongest) qualifies as visible? > The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. < I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:46:32AM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: > : And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external > : magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an > : external tool is required in order to 'see' something. > > You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen > by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. > > I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing > the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying > glass. > > To me that seems obvious. But to articulate it, I find myself going > to words like cheftzah, which is a bit too technical to be appropriate > language for relaying why I find it self-evident. > > The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, > the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside > the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an > aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is > within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. > > The magnifying glass compensates for the fact that water bears and > other microscopic beasties are not in the realm of experience. We aren't > getting the situation right, we are compensating for something with the > cheftzah itself. > > To put it another way, maggot eggs do not have halachic existence. > Do tiny crustaceans cease to exist and come back into existence if > you flip the light off or on? (This is just different kind of appeal > to cheftzah.) > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole > micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." > http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, > Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 17:40:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:40:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911004049.GA29555@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 05:20:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> The recent court to allow conversion of under bar/bat mitzvah children is :> controversial. The bone of contention is whether it is considred a zechut :> for children to become Jewish when they grow up in a non-religious setting. I thought we dissuade geirim (non-qetanim) in part because this is not true. Alternatively: How do the meiqilim justify this practice, particularly in venues (Golden Age of Spain, much of the world today) where there is comparatively little antisemisim? Rashi (Yevamos 74a, "de'amar) is concerned about the sinning convert's influence on other Jews. This being R' Chelbo's "qasheh ... kesapachas". Tosafos understand R' Chelbo as referring to the extra issurim of mistreating a geir, or that they make us look bad. The Semag (Lav 116, quoted by the BY YD 268) says we dissuade the ger to make sure he knows exactly what he is accepting, avoiding a "meqach ta'us" (my term). On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:27:59PM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious : Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also : for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for : reasons of Nationalism. Or, that being a Jew in Israel is so much better that zakhin le'adam shelo befanav applies. IOW, not by reasons of nationalism, but by taking nationalism into account as part of the metzi'us. Similar to those who rule that we do not dissuade a non-halachic convert, since they will be living among the Jews and their children will quite likely marry Jews either way. And in the latest volume of IM (vol 9, EhE 14), RMF similarly tells a BD to be proactive in convertain someone who thought until now they were Jewish. He even invoked the case of Timna, saying that to not do so would be to be repeating the avos' mistake. So we do see that facts on the ground about whether it is beneficial for the life they will be leading do matter. The bigger problem I have is qabbalas ol mitzvos. RnCL and I argued at length about whether the following qualifies as QOM, but whatever you want to call it.... Upon reaching adulthood, the geir has to affirm their acceptance of the mitzvos. While people pictures this means coming to BD on their 12th or 13th birthday, that is impossible -- the affirmation would have to be tokh kedei dibur of growing shenei sa'aros. Instead, BD sees if during that span of their lives they were observant, and if they were, we consider the geirus affirmed. This din is real enough that the gemara asks about a giyores from when she was less than 3, who is married of to a kohein as a qetana may be given terumah. After all, she might annull the geirus, in which case should would retroactively not have been an eishes kohein! The gemara answers based on rov (most children do not choose to convert out of the religion they were raised with), not that the affirmation is optional. So, what's going to happen to these qetanim when they reach adulthood? How can they be said to have effectively accepted ol mitzvos? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 17:20:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:20:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan >>> Agreed. But there still has to be rules, logic, framework. My original post was a request for help in identifying those rules. (And for now, Rav Asher Weiss' explanation seems quite plausible.). Example: If the streets in my town are a reshus harabim, there's no way to carry on Shabbos without actual walls. If the streets are merely karmelis, then we can make a haarama to say that the area is surrounded by a series of doorways. But they have got to be real halachic doorways; if even one lechi has the string on the side instead of above, forget it. So too here. I don't mind being moser to beis din, if only I was clear on what it is that I'm giving them, and how that happens, and what it accomplishes. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:04:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:04:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911010426.GA12008@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 08:20:47PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I actually thought pruzbul only works because : ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan >>> : : Agreed. But there still has to be rules, logic, framework... I was mostly dismissing your mentioning the lack of qinyan sudar. We can make a shaliach without one, for a ha'aramah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:25:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:25:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> References: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150911012558.GA18449@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:37:41AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: :> The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without :> necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> : I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem's love for His people: "If you : sin, even if you're not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, : here's a "ticket" of sorts that I'm giving you now to show my love for : you, that if you 'remind' me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate : that you see yourselves as close to me, and I'll give you some measure : of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah." But spending time demonstracting our desire for or actual closeness to HQBH is itself arguably a measure of teshuvah. And in any case avoids my problem with ascribing power to a sequence of syllables in and of themselves. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:29:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:29:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:23:44PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job : 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and : 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). : R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs... He argues that it's an auroachs. Calling any identification of this sort a "demonstration" is overly confident. Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we can use mythical creatures as metaphors. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 20:00:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:00:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I was mostly dismissing your mentioning the lack of qinyan sudar. We can make a shaliach without one, for a ha'aramah. >>> I presume you mean like how I can make the rav my shaliach for mechiras chometz without any kinyan. (In practice we do make a kinyan, but only as a chumrah.) So I don't need a kinyan at pruzbul either, and I can make the beis din a shliach without any kinyan. Okay. But if so, then exactly what is it that I'm making the beis din my shaliach FOR? What are they doing on my behalf? If I am making them my shaliach to collect my loans on my behalf, then that sounds like Rav Asher Weiss' explanation. Sure, beis din is patur from lo yigos, but it was a big chidush to me that that's enough to exempt me from being m'shamet a loan that I still own. (But if one wants to go with the Collection Agency idea, then shlichus is irrelevant - beis din would need to own the loan.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 20:51:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:51:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: <1a9316.271c37fb.4323a9c7@aol.com> In a message dated 9/10/2015 9:29:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, micha at aishdas.org writes: Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. >>> That is a fascinating and insightful point! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 02:00:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:00:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha In-Reply-To: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> References: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > Please elaborate BTW The Jewish Action had a recent article on the popularity of MO neo-chassidut. I went to a wedding this week where the chatan learns in a yeshiva from Ofra. To my sight it looked like a Breslov Yeshiva. Big white kippot with extreme dancing. The boys mostly has long peyot. The Rosh Yeshiva/mesader kedushin put on a tallit for the chuppa which I had never seen. He stressed that the chatan's tallit had techelet and he should make a shecheyanu but no bracha on the tallit since it was night, etc However, this was a RZ wedding with a bracha for the soldiers etc. On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:02:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > : RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. > : I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear > as > : ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) > ... > > It's an intersting point, but relating it to RYBS's position just > confuses the matter. You're using the word "ceremony" in nearly > the opposite sense. And while you note that: > : I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview > it. > : Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not > : ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view > > This isnt' merely an answer, it's an indication that you're discussing > two different topics. There is no question, just a miscommunication. > > Anyway, the contrast between the usages of the word "ceremony" interested > me. > > You listed a number of cases where a halachic legality can be accomplished > through something the lay-person considers meaningless ritual: pruzbul, > mechiras chameitz, heter isqa, ha'aramos, etc.. > > RYBS made that statement about ceremony in the sense of ritual in which > the person finds meaning, but lacks halachic structure. > > The two examples that most readily leap to mind are (1) his disparaging > kiruv that focuses on white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos candelabra, > and (2) his modifying the minhagim of the Three Weeks and Nine Days > because leshitaso, the minhagim must follow the same forms as ones found > in hilkhos aveilus. I posted about this in Aug '08 at > . > > I also noted in 2011 that RYBS's position that minhag must mirror halachic > structure is in opposition to the Brisker Rav's (his uncle's) shitah. RYZS > holds that one makes berakhos on minhagim that have a cheftzah shel > mitzvah (eg lighting a Chanukah menorah in shul), and that the Rambam > and Rabbeinu Tam don't argue about that. What they do argue about is > whether Chatzi Hallel is close enough to Hallel to qualify for a berakhah. > > However, leshitas RYBS, there are no such minhagim that wouldn't require > a berakhah. If Chatzi Hallel didn't require a berakhah because it's not > close enough to the cheftzah shel mitzvah, it would be "ceremony", and not > a valid minhag. He therefore would have to reject his uncle's chiddush. > > Neo-Chassidus is basically a MO rebellion to this kind of Halakhic > Man approach to Yahadus. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, > micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just > http://www.aishdas.org beginning. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 09:03:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:03:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> I have been asking this question to various people, and several have suggested that the answer is somewhere in the range of "hefker bes din" and "amiraso legavoah kimsiraso lahedyot". IOW, beis din doesn't need to make a kinyan; its inherent power is sufficient to take possession of your loans as soon as you verbally relinquish them. -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 08:02:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:02:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony Message-ID: <> It would seem that RYBS's definition of a ceremony is almost a tautology. If it is anything of religious significance then its not a ceremony. Otherwise who cares. It is only modern customs that present a difficulty because we don't establish new categories. In the old days customs like lighting the menorah in shul or havdala in shul became invested with religious significance because they were public customs Question minyana d-yoma Is the custom of "simanim" on RH a ceremony? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:53:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:53:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911175305.GC18449@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 06:02:04PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : It would seem that RYBS's definition of a ceremony is almost a tautology. : If it is anything of religious significance then its not a ceremony. If a ritual is of halachic significance then it's not a ceremony (as RYBS used the word in coining the aphorism we're discussing). Now, to Halakhic Man, one can say there is no Yahadus except halakhah, and therefore ceremony is not part of Yahadus. So, RYBS's position on ceremony is a natural consequence of Halakhic Man, but they aren't a tautology according to other derakhim. To other hashkafos, white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos licht may not define Shabbos, but they can for many help foster the atmosphere hilkhos Shabbos create. Which is why I mentioned the spread of Chavaquq-like Judaism in YU. Because Chassidus is big on ritual. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 05:49:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:49:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. >>> R' Michael Poppers responded: <<< I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. >>> The lungs of a *dead* cow are easily accessible if one has a knife; no super-vision is needed there. It is only the lungs of a *living* cow where one would need super-vision (especially if I need the cow to stay alive for more milk next week). Hmmm... Do we consider the lungs of a living cow as visible like a large insect, or as nonexistent like beitzei kinim? The nafka mina is the kashrus of that cow's milk. I would *like* to say that the lungs are invisible and inconsequential. But IIRC we can drink the milk because of rov - most lungs are kosher. There is a real possibility that the lungs are treif, and we deal with that possibility in a manner *other* than "lo nitna Torah l'malachei hashareis". Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 09:47:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:47:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] asmachta Message-ID: see point 5 , on the idea that could asmachta be a talmudic example of , well let the reader decide http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/09/artscroll-and-more.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:23:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:23:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? Message-ID: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, but again whatever Hashem does is good.) Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 11:06:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:06:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150911180646.GE18449@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 01:23:04PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" : (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever : Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the : year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, : but again whatever Hashem does is good.) >From my blog post at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov :-)BBii! -Micha Shetir'u baTov The Bostoner Rebbe (of Boston) commented once on the expression "Shanah tovah umsuqah - a good and sweet new year", which is related to the famous custom of having apple and honey on Rosh haShanah.What does "umsuqah -- and sweet" add, beyond the notion of "tovah -- good"? As Rabbi Aqiva often said, "All that the All Merciful does, He does for the good". An echo of the words of one of his rabbeim, Nachum ish Gamzu, who would greet events that would disappoint or depress most of us with "Gam zu letovah -- this too is for the best." So actually, wishing one another a good year could be thought of as being redundant. Everything is good, how could this year be any different? However, not everything I was told was "for my own good" was particularly pleasant. Therefore, the rebbe teaches, we wish that the year not only be tovah, good, but also be mesuqah, sweet to our perception as well. Along the same lines, I had a thought about a phrase in Shabbos and Yom Tov davening : Our L-rd, and the L-rd of our fathers, sanctify us bemitzvosekha (through Your mitzvos), and put our portion beSorasekha (in Your Torah), satisfy us mituvekha (from Your Goodness), and make us (or: our souls qua living force) biyshuasekha (in Your salvation)... The predicate prefix has an oddity: it says bemitzvosekha, beSorasekha, and later, beyshu'asekha. But by goodness, the prefix is "mituvekha" -- "from", not "be-" ("in" or "through") like by the others. The reason, I believe, is because we are asking for something inherently different. We can ask G-d to make us more holy by allowing us to do more mitzvos, or give us the opportunity to learn more Torah, or make us happier by saving us more often. This is "be-", we are asking for more of a gift by asking for more of the vehicle He uses to give it to us. Since everything G-d does is good, we can't be asking for G-d to give us more good, and thereby make us more satisfied. There is no more good for us to get. Rather, we are asking for more satisfaction with the goodness He already provides. This is why the "mi-" prefix is used. This is also in contrast to Rebbe's words (Berakhos 50a) about benching, that a wise person says "uvtuvo chayinu -- and through His good we live", and a boor, "umituvo chayinu -- and from His good, we live". Rebbe says that "umituvo" is incorrect because it says that we live through some of His Good, implying that Hashem gives meagerly. Perhaps it's different here, when we ask for happiness, because the truth is that if we had a full realization of even a small part of His Good would be enough to satisfy. Like the piyut we sing at the seider. We list fifteen things Hashem did for us when taking us out of Egypt. But had He done any one of those 15 alone, "Dayeinu"! R Shelomo Wolbe^zt"l would part someone's company wishing him "shetir'u batov -- may you see the good!" Because the tense of "tir'u" is ambiguous, this is both a berakhah and a mussar shmuess. Taken in the future tense, "May you see", it becomes a blessing that Hashem allow him to see all that's good in his life. In the imperative, the same work becomes "Look", advice to the person to take the initiative and seek out the good of every situation. To aspire to the middah of Nachum ish Gamzu and Rabbi Aqiva of realizing the Hand of G-d in everything, and looking to see how even the tragedies in our lives are necessary steps to something bigger which He has in store for us. The two together yields a profound combined meaning. Live is the product of a partnership between myself and G-d. It is the sum of my free-willed decisions and the hand Hashem deals me. "Shetir'u beTov" addresses both at the same time, by praying that Hashem show the person good, and that the person look to find it. A greeting that recognizes the fundamental covenant by which man is redeemed. It's a beautiful greeting, one worth adopting. Wishing others could taste the sweetness. Shetir'u baTov! (With thanks to RYGB for helping me find the gemara.) Like this: Like Loading... Related You may also like... * [13]3 [14]The Devastating Power of Leitznus ? ???? ???? - December 28, 2006 * [15]0 [16]The Desire to Desire ?? ????? ???? - August 28, 2007 * [17]0 [18]Nine Qavim at the Buffet ?? ????? ???? - March 27, 2008 2 Responses * [19]Comments1 * [20]Pingbacks1 1. Anonymous says: [21]? ????? ???? - September 29, 2006 at 1:25pm Possibly related - stolen waters are described as sweet, which tells us something unpleasant about the human condition. Perhaps what we are requesting is not only an objectively good year, but the ability to appreciate that goodness, similar to the way in which we regrettably now enjoy the prohibited. - Moishe Potemkin [22]Reply 1. [23]Aspaqlaria ? Blog Archive ? ?? ???? ???"? ?? ????? ???? - September 5, 2007 [...] berakhos for a Shanah tovah umsuqah, as the Bostoner Rebbe put it, a year that is we not only conceptually know to be good, but has a sweetness we can taste and [...] And your thoughts...? [24]Cancel reply IFRAME: [25]jetpack_remote_comment Follow: * * * * * [26]Next story Sweet Charoses * [27]Previous story Nine Qavim at the Buffet ____________________ Subscribe Name: ____________________ email: ____________________ * [28]Entries * [29]Comments * [30]PodCast New & Popular * [31]Recent Posts * [32]Popular Posts * [33]Recent Comments * [34]My Life as a Pendulum ? ????? ???? - September 3, 2015 * [35]Copyright ?? ??? ???? - August 13, 2015 * [36]What does Hashem ask of you? ?? ??? ???? - August 7, 2015 * [37]?? ?????? ???? ? ??? ???? - July 23, 2015 * [38]Gratitude and Thankfulness ?? ????? ???? - July 16, 2015 * [39]Emunah Peshutah vs Machashavah ?? ????? ???? - November 30, 2004 * [40]Balancing Simplicity and Authenticity ? ????? ??? - July 1, 2010 * [41]The Kuzari Proof, part I ?? ???? ???? - December 22, 2004 * [42]What is Frumkeit? ? ???? ? ???? - February 9, 2014 * [43]The Curriculum at Volozhin ? ????? ???? - May 23, 2012 * David Zalkin says: [44]Regarding giving precedence to the Aruch HaShulchan over the MB, my... * Eliezer Eisenberg says: [45]Excellent. Thanks for sharing. * Ilana Sober Elzufon says: [46]Intriguing. I really value the all-women's spaces that Orthodox Judaism provides,... * micha says: [47]You're right. A poor choice of words. Correcting.Thank you. * Dr. Yitzchok Levine says: [48]You wrote, "Shul looks like a boy's club because it was... Aspaqlaria ? 2015. All Rights Reserved. Powered by [49]WordPress. Theme by [50]Alx. * * * * IFRAME: [51]likes-master %d bloggers like this: References Visible links 1. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/feed 2. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/comments/feed 3. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov/feed 4. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 5. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/sweet-charoses 6. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ 7. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/category/mussar/middos 8. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#comments 9. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/author/admin 10. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#stbt 11. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/01/vetaheir-libeinu.shtml 12. http://www.aishdas.org/rygb 13. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus#comments 14. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus 15. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire#comments 16. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire 17. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet#comments 18. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 19. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#commentlist-container 20. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#pinglist-container 21. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov/comment-page-1#comment-72 22. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov?replytocom=72#respond 23. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/09/%d7%9b%d7%92-%d7%90%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%9c-%d7%aa%d7%a9%d7%9e%d7%90.shtml 24. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#respond 25. http://jetpack.wordpress.com/jetpack-comment/?blogid=11004584&postid=134&comment_registration=0&require_name_email=1&stc_enabled=1&stb_enabled=1&show_avatars=1&avatar_default=identicon&greeting=And+your+thoughts...%3F&greeting_reply=Leave+a+Reply+to+%25s&color_scheme=light&lang=en-US&jetpack_version=3.7&sig=04e58004b358ee700890b798c328f7cfd8e7fee6#parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aishdas.org%2Fasp%2Ftireh-betov 26. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/sweet-charoses 27. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 28. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/feed 29. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/comments/feed 30. http://feeds.feedburner.com/AspPodCast 31. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-recent 32. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-popular 33. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-comments 34. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/my-life-as-pendulum 35. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/copyright 36. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask 37. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/%d7%91%d7%9f-%d7%97%d7%9e%d7%99%d7%a9%d7%99%d7%9d-%d7%9c%d7%a2%d7%a6%d7%94 38. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gratitude-thankfulness 39. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/emunah-peshutah-vs-machashavah 40. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/balancing-simplicity-and-authenticity 41. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/kuzari-proof-part-i 42. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-is-frumkeit 43. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-curriculum-at-volozhin 44. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/textualism-mb/comment-page-1#comment-60227 45. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask/comment-page-1#comment-60184 46. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60105 47. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60102 48. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60101 49. http://wordpress.org/ 50. http://alxmedia.se/ 51. http://widgets.wp.com/likes/master.html?ver=20141028#ver=20141028 Hidden links: 53. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus 54. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire 55. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 56. http://www.facebook.com/micha.berger 57. http://www.linkedin.com/in/rmsberger 58. https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MichaBerger 59. http://www.twitter.com/aishdas 60. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/textualism-mb/comment-page-1#comment-60227 61. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask/comment-page-1#comment-60184 62. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60105 63. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60102 64. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60101 65. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov 66. http://www.facebook.com/micha.berger 67. http://www.linkedin.com/in/rmsberger 68. https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MichaBerger 69. http://www.twitter.com/aishdas From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:01:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:01:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> Message-ID: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when shmitta is d'Orayta again? On 9/11/2015 7:03 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > I have been asking this question to various people, and several have > suggested that the answer is somewhere in the range of "hefker bes din" > and "amiraso legavoah kimsiraso lahedyot". IOW, beis din doesn't need > to make a kinyan; its inherent power is sufficient to take possession > of your loans as soon as you verbally relinquish them. > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:05:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:05:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F56682.4070005@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 04:01 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when > shmitta is d'Orayta again? Why wouldn't it? Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din declares it unethical. And I don't think that will happen, because such a declaration wouldn't stop it, it would just drive it to the disreputable batei din. Now that everyone knows about it you can't make people forget it; Hillel uncorked the idea and it can't be pushed back into the bottle. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:05:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:05:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> On 9/11/2015 4:29 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:23:44PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: > : According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job > : 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and > : 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). > > : R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs... > > He argues that it's an auroachs. Calling any identification of this sort a > "demonstration" is overly confident. Agreed. > Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever > sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim > who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we > can use mythical creatures as metaphors. How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty plural to me. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:02:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:02:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you won't experience that as a good thing. On 9/11/2015 8:23 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A > good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever > Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the > year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, > but again whatever Hashem does is good.) > > Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." > > Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. > > YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 02:22:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 05:22:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:02 AM 9/13/2015, you wrote: >On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But if >you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you won't >experience that as a good thing. Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries. If your injuries are not severe, and you collect a hefty sum from the driver's insurance company, then you may indeed view it as a good thing! All things have to be considered in context. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:57:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:57:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 05:22:08AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: :> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But :> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you :> won't experience that as a good thing. : Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries... We're getting off point. I believe Lisa's reponse was similar to my repeating the distinction between "shanah tovah" and "umsuqah", without leading to the problem of the "wrong" word being used in "Leshanah tovah tekhaseivu". We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- what ra? I thought there is no ra? It would seem we often speak of tov vara in terms of how they're experienced, rather than some abstract reality in which we know (or should know) "gam zu letovah". Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:57:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:57:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 05:22:08AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: :> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But :> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you :> won't experience that as a good thing. : Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries... We're getting off point. I believe Lisa's reponse was similar to my repeating the distinction between "shanah tovah" and "umsuqah", without leading to the problem of the "wrong" word being used in "Leshanah tovah tekhaseivu". We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- what ra? I thought there is no ra? It would seem we often speak of tov vara in terms of how they're experienced, rather than some abstract reality in which we know (or should know) "gam zu letovah". Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 06:39:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:39:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. In RM's opinion, shmitta won't be d'Orayata again until the Messiah comes. Ben On 9/13/2015 10:01 AM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when > shmitta is d'Orayta again? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:46:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:46:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: <<< Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din declares it unethical. >>> Perhaps. But I would think that the impropriety of using pruzbul in a d'Oraisa time was pretty implicit (perhaps even explicit) in how Hillel promoted it, and there is no need for a future beis din to point it out. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 06:41:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 09:41:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor Message-ID: <09a801d0ee29$ef34d030$cd9e7090$@com> The sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor is avail for free download at - http://hebrewbooks.org/53838 review of sefer - http://seforim.blogspot.ca/2015/09/review-of-dovid-bashevkins-sefer.html Review of Dovid Bashevkin's Sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor By Rabbi Yitzchok Oratz Rabbi Yitzchok Oratz, a musmach of Beth Medrash Govoha, is the Rabbi and Director of the Monmouth Torah Links community in Marlboro, NJ. God knows the nature of every generation, Rabbi Dovid Bashevkin has written a Sefer uniquely appropriate for the nature of ours[1]. Take a trip to your local Jewish bookseller during this time period, and you will find numerous seforim, old[2] and new[3], on the themes of sin and repentance. Although they certainly vary in style and quality, a common denominator among many is the heavy reliance on Rambam's Hilchos Teshuva and Sha'arey Teshuva of Rabbeinu Yonah of Gerondi[4]. And this is to be expected. Timeless classics, these works of the great Rishonim are unmatched in their systematic and detailed discussion of sin and punishment, free will[5] and repentance, and are a prerequisite study for any serious discussion of Teshuva. But therein lays the dilemma. For although Rabbeinu Yonah maps out the exalted levels of Teshuva that one should certainly strive for, they seem not to be for the faint of heart. Is our generation really up to the task of embracing the sorrow, suffering, and worry, the humbling and lowering oneself[6], without allowing for the concomitant sense of despair[7] and despondence[8]? And how many of us can honestly stand before the Creator, and proclaim that we will "never return" to our negative actions, to the extent that God Himself will testify that this is the case[9]? If confession without sincere commitment to change is worthless[10], does repeating last year's failed commitments not require choosing between giving up and fooling ourselves? This is where B'Rogez Rachem Tizkor comes in. Based heavily on the thought of Izbica in general, and Reb Tzadok ha-Kohen of Lublin in particular, it discusses the value of spiritual struggle, the interplay between determinism and free will, the redemptive potential of sin, and the status of those who have not yet arisen from their fall. Overall, the sefer is a good introduction to R' Tzadok for those who are not familiar with his thought, and offers many insightful and fascinating comments even for those who are. My main critiques are that some of the discussion of the more controversial statements of Izbica required more elaboration[14], the lack thereof leads to a seeming conflating of two similar, yet far from identical, concepts, and more contrasting and supporting texts (both from within Izbica and R' Tzadok's thought and without) would have made for a stronger case and deeper understanding. My hope is to fill in these gaps in some small measure. Hopefully it will further enlighten those whose appetite was whet by this fine work. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:05:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:05:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F59EAF.30104@sero.name> See Tanya chapter 26. There is really no such thing as bad; there is merely the good that we can see and the good that we can't see. But we'd much prefer the kind that we can see, and we ask Hashem to give us that kind of good rather than the other kind. http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7905/jewish/Chapter-26.htm -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:11:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:11:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F5A021.4040809@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 08:46 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The >> only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right >> to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when >> shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din >> declares it unethical. > > Perhaps. But I would think that the impropriety of using pruzbul in a > d'Oraisa time was pretty implicit (perhaps even explicit) in how > Hillel promoted it, and there is no need for a future beis din to > point it out. How so? He didn't say anything about it being improper when shmita is de'oraisa, he merely said here is a solution we can use. The question is why nobody did it before, and the answer is because batei din considered it unethical. Now when were these batei din considering it unethical? In the time of Bayit Rishon?! No, it was in Hillel's day, which is why he needed to make his takanah. And in his day it was already derabbanan. The only relevance of it being derabanan is that had it been deoraisa in Hillel's day, he would not have felt he had the right to promote a way around it, no matter how great the need he saw. But since it was derabanan, and he saw a problem that needed fixing, he was bold and publicised this trick, and declared that nobody should feel guilty about using it. There's no indication that he mentioned shmita's drabanan status at all. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 08:52:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:52:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In Avodah V33n123, RAkivaM responded to me: >> I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. << > The lungs of a *dead* cow are easily accessible if one has a knife; no super-vision is needed there. It is only the lungs of a *living* cow where one would need super-vision (especially if I need the cow to stay alive for more milk next week). < A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the human eye without opening it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 11:55:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:55:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150913185550.GC10636@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 08:57:35AM -0400, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: ::> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But ::> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you ::> won't experience that as a good thing. ... : We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- : what ra? I thought there is no ra? Addenda in response to private email: Well, I didn't mean to get all Izhbitz... I meant the evil we experience, the tragic, and not the evil that we do, the wrong.. But I did buy into more univeralistic models of hashgachah peratis, that at least every person's fate is subject to HP (pace the Rambam or Or haChaim), and thus the tragic has a point. If not itself tovsh, it is letovah. Which still leaves us with R/Prof Levine's original question sbout blessing others with shanah tovah. ... : Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be : experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even : that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) But even the evil that we do is more like a missed opposrtunity for good than a beryah. Much the way Yeshaiah pairs evil with darkness "yotzeir or uvorei choshekh ... uvorei es hara." Althouh it's possible that Yeshiah considered darkness to be a beryah, the way Chazal talk about the thick darkness of makas choshekh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 12:00:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:00:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:52:48AM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the : human eye without opening it. The sun is also an external tool. This is wh I think we need more nuance here. It might depend on whether a hollow inside the lung is judged as a lung that is defective in a way we can't see without a knife, or the hole is a mum that we could be able to see ourselves if the ourside of the lung weren't in the way. But in either case, I still csn't articulste what seems to me to be a obvious difference. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 07:07:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 10:07:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akeidah of the Mind Message-ID: <20150913140741.CE67A180E46@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from pages 588 - 590 of Rav Schwab on Chumash. Please note the words "Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave the human being a mind to understand Him. Whatever one studies in the world, be it science, history, economics, mathematics, or anything else, it is actually the study of the revelations of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Our mind is given to us to enable us to understand as much about C-d as is humanly possible. This is borne out in many places throughout Torah and Nach ... This means that we are not merely to accept that which our forefathers have taught us about C-d but we are to attempt to know, to understand as much as we can about Hashem ... The Rav (Rav Shimon Schwab, ZT"L) was firmly convinced that since Moshe emes v'Toraso emes, the Torah and our Rabbinic mesorah are inviolable and, one day, answers would be found answers these questions. He would say that sometimes one must offer his mind as an "akeidah" to Hakadosh Baruch Hu where human reasoning has not yet found answers to apparent contradictions between the inviolable eternal truth of the Torah, the truthful writing (Daniel 10:21), and historical or scientific finds which are subject to change. In his lectures on Iyov, he offered the following comments on this subject. "... By accepting C-d's command, Avraham Avinu had sacrificed his own mind to comply with the will of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. While Avraham attempts to understand C-d, nevertheless, when C-d1s command contradicts that understanding, Avraham sacrifices his mind to the will of C-d, just as one would forfeit his life if the halachah required it, rather than violate the three cardinal sins. "Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave the human being a mind to understand Him. Whatever one studies in the world, be it science, history, economics, mathematics, or anything else, it is actually the study of the revelations of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Our mind is given to us to enable us to understand as much about C-d as is humanly possible. This is borne out in many places throughout Torah and Nach ... This means that we are not merely to accept that which our forefathers have taught us about C-d but we are to attempt to know, to understand as much as we can about Hashem ... "... This is why the mitzvah of learning Torah is so important; in fact it is our most important mitzvah. When we learn Torah, we employ our mind in the service of Hakadosh Baruch Hu by studying C-d's will as revealed to us in the Torah. And if we have questions or contradictions, we must use our mind to the best of our capacity to attempt to resolve them within the parameters of Torah study. "... So, while we are encouraged to use our mind, as much as reason allows, to serve C-d, to understand Him, and to answer questions, nevertheless, when all reason fails us, and we cannot go any further with human understanding, when our mind is staggered, we must be prepared to I/sacrifice our mind/I to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. We must throw up our hands and say that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is right whether we understand it or not. One could call this 'the akeidah of the mind.' "When science poses questions which seemingly contradict our basic truths, we must make an effort to answer these questions. But if the answers are elusive, we must sacrifice our mind and subjugate it to the revealed truths of the Torah. Fortunately, baruch Hashem, as yet, I have not found any questions of this sort- for instance, regarding the age of the universe, evolution, ancient civilizations- for which I have not found possible answers. But it could happen, and one has to be ready for it. If suddenly a scientific discovery were to arise which clearly seems to contradict the Torah, we would then have to admit that the question is excellent but nevertheless, the Torah is right because it is the revealed wisdom of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. It is "Toras Emes, 11 absolute truth, all questions notwithstanding. Answers will no doubt eventually be found to such contradictions, but in the meantime, by accepting the veracity of the Torah without reservations, we will have offered our mind as an 'akeidah' to Hakadosh Baruch Hu.'' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 11:36:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:36:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? Message-ID: <1f9d87.3cc2b5a7.43271c34@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, but again whatever Hashem does is good.) Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. YL >>>>> When others wish you well you should wish them well too, mipnei darkei shalom. A long philosophical treatise about how even illness, accidents and financial losses are actually all good things will not endear you to anyone. Another answer to your question is: we wish our friends (and ourselves) brachos from the Ribono Shel Olam that are sweet and obvious even to our limited human eyes, and not the other kind. Certainly we appreciate that the dentist's drill or the surgeon's knife is doing us a favor and repairing what needs repairing, but we prefer not to have the cavity and not to need the surgery in the first place. However if you simply cannot bring yourself to utter a blessing that seems philosophically dubious to you, I would suggest that you overcome that feeling, bentsh your fellow Jews anyway, and may Hashem in turn overcome His philosophical doubts and bless you and all of us in kind. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 07:15:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (RCK via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 17:15:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty > plural to me. >Lisa Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book *Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew * [image: Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] [image: Academia.edu] [image: Google Scholar] [image: LinkedIN] [image: Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:00:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:00:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F59DB4.6080103@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 04:05 AM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >> Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever >> sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim >> who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we >> can use mythical creatures as metaphors. > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty > plural to me. Because Yosef is a shor, not a re'em, even if each of his horns is that of a re'em. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 12:29:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:29:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 10:15 AM, RCK via Avodah wrote: > Lisa wrote: >> How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty >> plural to me. > Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=11650&pgnum=227 I don't understand the Bachur's comment. Surely the Radak explicitly addressed his objection, so why does he still raise it? (Unless these notes were not written on the Shorashim at all, and some printer decided to mash them together at random.) -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 13:59:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 16:59:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> References: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha replied: > The sun is also an external tool. < Which is why I previously differentiated between the sun _or_ a substitute light source no brighter than it and between what I call "external tools." > This is wh I think we need more nuance here. < My theory is that anything we, a 6th-Day "creation", can see with the tools provided as part of the *b'riyah* (or, again, a fair substitute) is within our Halachic field of vision. Best wishes for a *shanah tovah umsuqah* from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:52:48AM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: > : A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the > : human eye without opening it. > > The sun is also an external tool. > > This is wh I think we need more nuance here. > > It might depend on whether a hollow inside the lung is judged as a lung > that is defective in a way we can't see without a knife, or the hole is > a mum that we could be able to see ourselves if the ourside of the lung > weren't in the way. > > But in either case, I still csn't articulste what seems to me to be > a obvious difference. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea > micha at aishdas.org of instincts. > http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter > Fax: (270) 514-1507 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 15 10:01:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (RCK via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:01:11 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> References: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> Message-ID: It's a good question, in fact, the Bayis HaGadol (also known as Biur) on Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer (end of ch. 19) asks this on HaBachur. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book *Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew * [image: Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] [image: Academia.edu] [image: Google Scholar] [image: LinkedIN] [image: Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/13/2015 10:15 AM, RCK via Avodah wrote: > >> Lisa wrote: >> > > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty >>> plural to me. >>> >> > Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. >> > > http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=11650&pgnum=227 > > I don't understand the Bachur's comment. Surely the Radak explicitly > addressed his objection, so why does he still raise it? (Unless these > notes were not written on the Shorashim at all, and some printer decided > to mash them together at random.) > > -- > Zev Sero KvChT > zev at sero.name > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 15 17:45:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:45:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150916004501.GA21666@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 04:59:29PM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: :> This is wh I think we need more nuance here. : My theory is that anything we, a 6th-Day "creation", can see with the tools : provided as part of the *b'riyah* (or, again, a fair substitute) is within : our Halachic field of vision. You mean, like a sharp rock? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 01:43:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:43:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: R' MYG wrote: "I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem?s love for His people: ?If you sin, even if you?re not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here?s a ?ticket? of sorts that I?m giving you _now_ to show my love for you, that if you ?remind? me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate that you see yourselves as close to me, and I?ll give you some measure of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah.? The best Mashal I could think of for this is a PBA placard ? you buy it and put it in your car, and when the cop pulls you over for speeding, you show it to him and he goes easy on you, because he sees that you?re really a friend of the police. NOT because you demonstrated regret for speeding, necessarily. Does that make sense?" Not really, Hashem is perfect and all knowing, you can't bribe him. Why should you need to remind him of anything? Hashem knows exactly who you are and how close you are to him. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 02:35:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:35:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916093543.GA10685@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:43:35AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Not really, Hashem is perfect and all knowing, you can't bribe him. Why : should you need to remind him of anything? Hashem knows exactly who you are : and how close you are to him. That's ust an inherent limitation in the mashal. (Any mashal where the nimshal is G-d, is going to be limited for the same reason you give.) Lemaaseh, He may Remember everything, but I don't. Going through the exercises keep my own beliefs more conscious and reinforces them. Setting up a pointless reminder to remind Him has function in that it reminds me. Which is how I understood RMYG's original answer: that reciting the 13 middoes is "more of a symbol of Hashem's love for His people: 'If you sin, even if you're not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here's a 'ticket' of sorts that I'm giving you _now_ to show my love for you...'" We need to remember the closeness, to keep it real in our minds, which then deepens our belief in it. Which is why I then said that this in itself is a minimal teshuvah, and not merely reciting words. IOW, if someone said the 13 Middos and didn't even think "these are G-d's 13 Middos of lovingkindness that He gave us", would they still be guaranteed not to leave empty-handed? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 01:58:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:58:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > There's no indication that he mentioned shmita's drabanan status at all. The simple reading of the Gemara in Gittin 36a-b which is the source of pruzbul says that pruzbul only works when shemitta is d'rabbanan and in fact this is how the Rambam understands the Gemara and how he paskens. The Gemara first states that Hillel was mesaken pruzbul and then asks how could Hillel be mesaken pruzbul and say that loans are not cancelled when the Torah says that they are? Abaye answers shemitta nowadays is derabban. The Gemara then asks how could the Chachamim be mesaken shemittas kesafim medrabban (and cancel loans) and Rava answers hefker beit din hefker. The simple reading of the Gemara is that the whole takana of pruzbul only works when shemitta is derabbanan. Rashi and the Raavad however understand the Gemara that Rava's answer also answers the first question of how could Hillel be mesaken pruzbul when the Torah cancels loans based on hefker beis din hefker and that pruzbul works even when shemmita is d'oraysa. [Email #2] R"n Lisa Liel asked: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when shmitta > is d'Orayta again? and R' Zev Sero asked why wouldn't it? Actually this is an explicit machlokes the Rambam and the Raavad and Rashi and Tosafos (Gittin 36a-b). The Rambam writes in Hilchos Shemitta V'Yovel (chapter 9) v'ein haprozbul moeel ela b'shmitas kesafim shehee midvrei sofrim aval shemitta shel torah ayn haprozbul moeel bo The Raavad there argues that prozbul will work even when shemmita is d'oraysa based on his understanding of Rava's answer of hefker beis din hefker (like Rashi in Gittin). From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 02:50:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:50:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916095007.GD14423@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:00:56PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : If I am making them my shaliach to collect my loans on my behalf, then that : sounds like Rav Asher Weiss' explanation. Sure, beis din is patur from lo : yigos, but it was a big chidush to me that that's enough to exempt me from : being m'shamet a loan that I still own. (But if one wants to go with the : Collection Agency idea, then shlichus is irrelevant - beis din would need : to own the loan.) The big problem is that the difference in sevaros may make a particular pruzbul text valid or not. For example, how does hefqer BD hefqer work today, when courts do not have a central Sanhedrin organizing them? I am giving the loan to three hedyotos. Which 3? The three I named? (Are we invoking Beis Shammai's notion that one can be mafqir only to a given person or set of people? [Ymi Pei'ah 6:1 19b]) Then how is it HBDH and not a simple matanah? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 03:09:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:09:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20150916100941.GE14423@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 03:39:14PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey : wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of : Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all : those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the : number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. : : In RM's opinion, shmitta won't be d'Orayata again until the Messiah comes. Also, the machloqes Rashi and Tosafos as to whether "kol yosheveha aleha" is by sheivet. I don't know what Tosafos do with the machloqes (Sanhedring 110b) about whether the lost shevatim will ever be restored. If they hold like R' Aqiva, this would have to refer to the descendents of those refugees from Malkhus Yisrael who fled to Malkhus Yehudah. Or, is that in itself enough reestablishment of the shevatim to contradict R' Aqiva? The masqanah of the gemara appears to be Rabba bb Chana (citing R' Yochanan) refuting R' Aqiva's position in favor of R' Eliezer -- that the missing shevatim will be restored (quoting Yirmiyahu 3:!2). Maybe they just consider the question closed. The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority of Benei Yisrael. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 05:08:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:08:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: from wikipedia Thus, if one would agree that shmita does not apply when Israelites are dispersed,[6] Hillel, great as he was, would not have changed a law of the Torah in order to fit the needs of his time. He and his beth din would have enacted a rabbinic exception to a rabbinic law. As the Rambam notes in Shmita V'Yovel chapter 9, when most Jews again live in the Land of Israel and the observance of the sabbatical and jubilee years are Toraitic commandments, the prozbul will no longer be able to be used. According to this theory, Prozbul, like `eruv , is a rabbinic exception to a rabbinic enactment. Prozbul cannot be used to get around the Torah commanded shmita and yovel, just as `eruv cannot be used to get around the fact that Torah prohibited carrying in the public domain. I recently saw the opposite question: There are many ways to avoid the problem of shmitta annulling laws without resorting to prozbul. One simple example is to make the loan end immediately after RH of this year. There are many other options. So the question is why the need for prozbul The only answer I saw was that the general population was not aware of the alternatives or else they were too cumbersome [Email #2] > In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench > that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the > true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people > who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is > much higher than we believe it to be. I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even for direct maternal descendants. i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. I would assume that a descendant of annusim would be Jewish since they kept their Jewish identification through various customs -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:40:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:40:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:36:20PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were :> exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on :> Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority :> of Benei Yisrael. : How do you know? (I assume you mean the reisha about yovel and therefore shemittah de'oraisa ending when eiver hayardein was conquered, not my last sentence.) Eirachin 32b Rambam, Hil Shemitah veYovel 10:8. GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 09:36:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:36:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> On 9/13/2015 4:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey > wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of > Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all > those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the > number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. On the contrary. The number of people who identify as "Jewish" in polls who are actually non-halakhic "converts" or children of non-Jewish mothers is vast, so the number of Jews is much *lower* than we believe it to be. [Email #2] On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were > exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on > Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority > of Benei Yisrael. How do you know? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:40:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:40:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F9A97D.2080405@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 08:08 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> >In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench >> >that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the >> >true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people >> >who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is >> >much higher than we believe it to be. > I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that > once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with > yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even > for direct maternal descendants. > > i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim > through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. That is an extreme daat yachid, with a very tenuous basis. Nobody else agrees with him, so there's no reason to expect R Melamed to take this view into account, or even to be aware of it. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:49:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:49:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Moderator Vacation Message-ID: <20150916174900.GC6146@aishdas.org> While Areivim has a team of mods, Avodah is still entirely dependent on me. Which makes me feel an obligation to forewarn y'all before I go on vacation. Tomorrow I will be leaving for 3 weeks in Yerushalayim ih"q. (Barring messianic intervention, to leave again the day after chutznik Simchas Torah.) I do not know what my internet access will be like, but it's quite likely moderation approval delays will increase. Please be patient. Yerushalayim crew: Avodah/Areivim Simchas Beis haSho'eivah anyone? Discussion on Areivim...) GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 11:30:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:30:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916183023.GD6146@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 03:08:53PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that : once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with : yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even : for direct maternal descendants. This was his famous teshuvah on the Brother Daniel case. That there are limits even on maternal descent. I found a nice summary by R/Dr Judah Goldberg : i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim : through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. >From there, RAL's meqoros in shas: In Yevamot 16b, Rav Assi states that if a gentile betroths a Jewess, we cannot dismiss the validity of the marriage, for perhaps he descends from one of the ten lost tribes. When Shmuel heard this ruling, however, he responded, "They did not move from that place until they made [the descendants of the lost tribes] into absolute gentiles, as it says, 'They have betrayed God, for they have begotten alien children' (Hoshea 5:7)" (17a). Similarly, Chullin 6a tells how Rav Ami and Rav Assi discovered that the Samaritan community, which had long been suspected of engaging in pagan worship, was no longer observing Jewish law at all. In response, They did not move from that place until they made [the Samaritans] into absolute gentiles. He cites three shitos from rishonim, although the Rambam's pesaq is as explacated by R' Chaim Brisker. 1- Rashba: The Samaritan's conversion was annulled, not that one can stop being a Jew. R Pinchas Horowitz (Sefer Ha-mikna) applies parallel reasoning to the 10 shevatim -- they didn't stop being Jews, they are just an ignorable mi'ut that only a derabbanan kept us from ignoring. And that was repealed. 2- A mi'ut hold that the geir who stops believing ceases being a geir, but we have to worry about what's really going on in his head, so lechumerah we have to acknowledge his marriage. 3- The Rambam as explained by RCB (contrasting Ishus 4:15 with peirush on Niddah 7:4, where he says a dead Samaritan is not metamei tum'as ohel) that someone who gives up his self-identity as a Jew and acts on it is But in either case, the hypothetical Ephramite is a machloqes amoraim. Unless you agree with the author of the Hafla'ah that it's just an issue of mi'ut, and therefore the one who could prove he is in the mi'ut would be Jewish. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless micha at aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 13:39:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:39:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Moderator Vacation In-Reply-To: <55F9B9EA.70600@sero.name> References: <20150916174900.GC6146@aishdas.org> <55F9B9EA.70600@sero.name> Message-ID: <43db8966934f6c727f16a67e6896f9cb@aishdas.org> It is much easier when my mechutan's work address is "1 Kotel Plaza" -- Yeshivat Netiv Aryeh. Thanks for the _berakhos_. _Gemar chasimah tovah_! On 2015-09-16 2:50 pm, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/16/2015 01:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > >> Tomorrow I will be leaving for 3 weeks in Yerushalayim ih"q. > > Mazal tov. Even if Moshiach doesn't come in the next week or so, > you can still fulfil a zecher to hakhel. I was there 14 years > ago at the "hakhel" rally at the kotel, but unfortunately I was > unable to be there 7 years ago, and barring either Moshiach (and > the real hakhel) or a lottery win I will not be able to be there > this year either. > > (Actually I'm not aware of any source that Moshiach will provide > transportation, so even if he comes today it may be impossible > for everyone to get there in time for hakhel.) _Tir'u baTov_! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 11:54:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:54:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> On 9/16/2015 8:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:36:20PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: > : On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were > :> exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on > :> Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority > :> of Benei Yisrael. > > : How do you know? > > (I assume you mean the reisha about yovel and therefore shemittah de'oraisa > ending when eiver hayardein was conquered, not my last sentence.) Actually, I meant your last sentence. How do you know that the area of the 2.5 shvatim didn't include a majority of Bnei Yisrael? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:47:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:47:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 09:54:59PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : Actually, I meant your last sentence. How do you know that the area : of the 2.5 shvatim didn't include a majority of Bnei Yisrael? Because the gemara has to explain why 2-1/2 shevatim needed as many arei miqlat as the rest of BY. And the answer is because those who settled for land on that side of the Yardein built a more careless culture. (See Rashi Bamidbar 35:14 which is based on Abayei Makos 10a, and the Maharal on the Rashi to explain that Rashi [and Abayei] assume that the number who need galus will be greater whent he number of murderers does.) Notice the answer was NOT "because HQBH knew there would be at least as many people Mei'eiver haYardein before bayis rishon ended". It would also take a notable statistical anomaly for the largest population to grow out of a small initial state, and yet never get a navi telling them anything, etc... GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your micha at aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender, Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:41:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:41:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question Message-ID: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: > Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking around at books and online. I see no > discussion whatsoever on whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, e.g. books > I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an > obligation to return a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? Thanks, Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:54:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:54:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F9E518.5090701@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 05:47 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Because the gemara has to explain why 2-1/2 shevatim needed as many arei > miqlat as the rest of BY. And the answer is because those who settled > for land on that side of the Yardein built a more careless culture. Do you understand that question and answer? How do the population *or* the number of manslaughterers affect the number of arei miklat needed? Surely the only determinant is geography. A manslaughterer has to cover the same distance regardless of how sparse the population, or how careful they are. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 12:37:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:37:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: I was asked to provide a list of (me-possible) mitzvaot which were considered kiyumit. Does anyone know of such a list? GCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 15:07:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:07:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 05:41 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: > >> Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking >> around at books and online. I see no discussion whatsoever on >> whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, >> e.g. books I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that >> addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an obligation to return >> a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? > I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? Shemita applies only to halva'ah, not to she'elah. English uses the same word, but they are very different transactions. It's actually strange that English, which is usually the most precise language, does not distinguish them. A book is a she'elah; the book remains her property, and she expects the borrower to return it. Thus it is not at all affected by shemita. It is also not subject to the prohibition on ribbis; not only is there absolutely nothing wrong with charging people to borrow your stuff, the Torah explicitly endorses it as one of the four forms of shemirah. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 15:29:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:29:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Li Nir'eh Message-ID: <20150916222914.GE26081@aishdas.org> In AhS YD 39:48, RYME draws a conclusion from the fact that the Rama in Darkhei Moshe says "nir'eh li" rather than "veli nir'eh". "Veli nir'eh" implies he is choleiq with the BY? Anyone hear before of a distinction between the two idioms? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 16:20:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:20:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:06:16AM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> I intend to write a post on the meaning of the word "mesorah" as developed :> in RYBS's and RHS's thought as the start of its own thread. See http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/what-does-masorah-mean : And this is where this slide from discussing one slice of the mesorah - what : to do in Yeshiva, to a much wider slice of the mesorah becomes problematic, : because of the implication you have just made which is that what is true of : the section applies to the whole... Well, that's sort of it, isn't it? You're making a distinction between learning in a semichah shiur and learning how to pasqen. I don't think RYBS would. IOW, his whole point about needing mesorah is because he denies your premise. Leshitaso, you pasqen more from lomdus than from codes; or to put it more clearly -- you need a Rashi and a Tosafos to teach you how to fill in between the data points of a Yad or SA. For that matter, this is clearly the AhS's approach to pesaq. And the entire school which runs from Gemara to Rambam vs Rosh (at al) to Tur, BY, SA, Rama, Shach, Taz (et al)... This is how pesaq comes to be. Not from deciding between codes but from using the flow of mesorah to decide between them. Otherwise, shu"t would read like surveys; and even ROY doesn't end with his survey. : RGS comments that he and his father tried to learn meseches Nedarim just : using the meforash, in the absence of Rashi, and were not able to do so : (they were then only able to do it using the Ran, a much later commentary) - : thus demonstrating the point of the post, which is, without Rashi, most of : the Talmud Bavli would be a closed book to most people of average, and even : above average, intelligence (like the Talmud Yerushalmi). Actually, RYBS said that. : This is unquestionably true. : : The Rambam was also aware of this problem (after all he learned all of : Talmud Bavli without Rashi and everybody he knew either did so or tried to : do so). His solution to RGS's problem was to tell RGS and his father, and : people like him, not to try and learn Talmud Bavli, but to learn his, the : Rambam's, Code instead... Not really. His code is mishnah, not gemara. He tells beginners to do their shelish bemiqra in his code. And then you should be able to graduate from it, and from the whole need to divide one's time into thirds. ... : Our mesorah is like Rashi in this regard and not the Rambam (except when it : comes to smicha students). We open up the Talmud Bavli even to children : using Rashi and hundreds of thousands are sitting in yeshiva following : Rashi. Huh? Rashi didn't expect kids to start with Tanakh? Where does this come into the whole discussion? : The problem is that people (it would appear including you) then generalise : from "how we learn" to "how we posken" - which is what really is involved in : the discussion regarding Open O and feminism. And they are not the same : thing at all. Indeed, the fact that smicha students (those that are being : set up to posken) are taught in a totally different way to the more general : way of learning in yeshiva, and one that owes far more to the Rambam than to : Rashi and Tosphos should alert you to that. I do not believe the closing sentence. RYBS was giving one shiur to cover both. But that's RYBS, not my own leanings. I do see lomdus, in which the goal is to justify every opinion, and pesaq, in which the goal is to decide which opinion is most justified, to be different. But again, one doesn't pasqen from codes without the tools learned from lomdus. For that matter, if it's a halakhah pesuqah, one isn't pasqening at all. : What Rashi did was to provide a clear and simple explanation of the words on : the page. : What Tosphos did ... And the Me'iri opened the gemara in a third way. That seems to be a pretty complete taxonomy of parshanim. Then there are codes. Then there is shu"t. And most recently, encyclopedias / collections. ... : On the other hand, RET is correct: :> Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against :> the concept. :> Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own :> interpretation and not rely or be bound by any text. : Although I would modify that statement not to say "and not be bound by any : text", as most at that point agreed that they should be bound by the gemora : (and the Tanach as understood by the mishna/gemora), just not beyond that. The Maharal's actual objection: To decide halakhic questions from the codes without knowing the logic of the ruling was not the intent of these authors [Rambam, Tur, SA, et al]. Had they known that their works would lead to the abandonment of Talmud, they would not have written them. It is better for one to decide on thebasis of the Talmud even though he might err, for a scholar must depend solely on his understanding. As such, he is beloved of God, and preferable tothe one who rules from a code but does not know thereason for the ruling; such a one walks like a blind person. See Nesivos Olam, Nesiv haTorah ch 15. (I invoked the above thought about shelish bemishnah only being for beginners [from Hil TT] and the MT only being a replacement for the hoi palloi to justify the Maharal's statement WRT the Rambam. See RMRabi's and my months-long discussion.) Actually, what I think won the day for the SA was that the SA stopped being a code when they started publishing everyone on the sides. That's what it seems from the Maharal. Presumably his brother, the Yam shel Shelomo, would agree. ... : And RMB replied: :> Actualy, it's only those who have an eye on common practice. After all, we :> discuss machloqesin between Rashi and the Rambam in halakhah lemasseh :> contexts all the time. And if Ashkenazim accepted Rashi's ruling, or one :> found in Tosafos, the Rama has no problem limiting his pesaq to that rather :> than that of the Rif, Rambam or Tur. And had there not been a Rama, then :> some shu"t or parshan could as well. : : But neither Rashi nor Tosphos gave us any method of limiting where psak : went, and indeed the Ri can hold one thing and Rabbanu Tam another within : the same Tosphos. The Codes are far less open... But they only cover specific cases. They don't teach how to extent beyond those cases. So in general, the codes are more open than Rashi, the Ri or Rabbeinu Tam who help you by providing a why that tells you how far to take the point. A code is way open except for the cases they covered. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 16:38:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:38:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: References: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150916233829.GA3601@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 08:01:11PM +0300, RCK via Avodah wrote: : It's a good question, in fact, the Bayis HaGadol (also known as Biur) on : Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer (end of ch. 19) asks this on HaBachur. Since you clearly saw it, and some of us are kind of busy (and about to take leave of my library), could you please summarize the discussion there? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 18:31:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:31:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55FA17E2.6020200@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 07:20 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > That's > what it seems from the Maharal. Presumably his brother, the Yam shel > Shelomo, would agree. The Maharshal was not a brother of the Maharal! AFAIK they were not related. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 19:19:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:19:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel quoted Wikipedia: > ...According to this theory, Prozbul, like > `eruv , is a rabbinic exception > to a rabbinic enactment. Prozbul cannot be used to get around the > Torah commanded shmita and yovel, just as `eruv cannot be used to get > around the fact that Torah prohibited carrying in the public domain. As few days ago, I was thinking about comparisons between Prozbul and Eruv, and it seems clear to me that while Eruv *is* an exception to an enactment, Prozbul is a whole 'nother thing. I think it makes no sense for Prozbul to be "an exception to an enactment", because "why bother?" If the agricultural Shemitta stops being d'Oraisa, then Chazal can certainly enact it on a d'rabanan level. But to do that for Shemitas Kesafim means to legislate the following three things simultaneously: 1) Enact a law requiring cancellation of loans 2) Loans are exempt from cancellation if Prozbul is done 3) For the benefit of both poor and wealthy, everyone should do a Prozbul Why enact such a set of laws? Wouldn't it be far simpler to just let Shmitas Kesafim lapse, and NOT be enacted on a d'rabanan level? Regardless of whether one holds Prozbul to work on a d'Oraisa level, I think everyone can agree that Prozbul was enacted specifically because (as the Torah feared) too many people refrained from lending money as Shmitta got near. Therefore, it seems clear to me that IF Shmitas Kesafim was enacted as a d'rabanan, THEN Prozbul was enacted LATER, and not at the same time. In sharp contrast, I understand that Eruvin was a real "exception to an enactment": Simultaneously to the new law which prohibited carrying in a karmelis, an exception was included exempting certain areas under certain condiitons, allowing the carrying there. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 20:25:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:25:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55FA328E.1080708@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 10:19 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > In sharp contrast, I understand that Eruvin was a real "exception to > an enactment": Simultaneously to the new law which prohibited > carrying in a karmelis, an exception was included exempting certain > areas under certain condiitons, allowing the carrying there. An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. I don't know who prohibited carrying in a karmelis, but there's no reason to suppose it was Shlomo. Shlomo prohibited carrying in a *reshus hayachid with multiple owners*, and instituted eruv as a way around that prohibition. (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 05:01:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:01:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and > thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. My language was not precise. I apologize. What I meant was that prior to the establishment of these d'rabanans, one was allowed to carry from an unwalled non-thoroughfare to either a walled area or to a major thoroughfare. But it was easy to get confused between the general outdoors and a main road, so the general outdoors was made into a Reshus Harabim D'rabanan, with the following exception: Whereas a Reshus Harabim d'Oraisa requires actual walls to allow carrying, for a Reshus Harabim d'Rabanan it is sufficient to surround an area with doorways (tzuras hapesach). > I don't know who prohibited carrying in a karmelis, > but there's no reason to suppose it was Shlomo. Shlomo > prohibited carrying in a *reshus hayachid with multiple > owners*, and instituted eruv as a way around that > prohibition. I'm fuzzy on the history too. The law as I described it above may or may not have been part of the same legislation that RZS described here. What we have here are two distinct - but easily and often confused - d'rabanans within the melacha of hotzaa. It doesn't really matter which came first, or if they came together. My point was that they are excellent examples of an exception being built into the law from the very beginning, as opposed to Prozbul, which (if shmitas kesafim is d'rabanan) was a separate enactment from shmitas kesafim (because if they were done at the same time, the goal of Prozbul could have been acheived even more easily by simply not enacting shmitas kesafim). > (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an > eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple > owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) I'm not sure if there is a rigorous definition of "loophole". (The wikipedia article is a great place to start.) I tend to think that it is a general pejorative to describe any leniency that one has an emotional objection to. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 05:17:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150917121734.GA8567@aishdas.org> Li nir'eh the difference is that by eruv, it was all done in one sitting of beis din -- when they assered a karmeelis, they also promulgated the idea of eruv. IOW, explicitly they only assured a karmelis that didn't have an eruv. (A conscious exemption more than a loophole, as I would use the terms.) Pruzbul was a loophole in an earlier taqanah and that was and promulgated by a later beis di GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 09:58:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:58:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55FAF148.5080904@sero.name> On 09/17/2015 08:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and >> thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. > My language was not precise. I apologize. > > What I meant was that prior to the establishment of these d'rabanans, > one was allowed to carry from an unwalled non-thoroughfare to either > a walled area or to a major thoroughfare. But it was easy to get > confused between the general outdoors and a main road, so the general > outdoors was made into a Reshus Harabim D'rabanan, with the following > exception: Whereas a Reshus Harabim d'Oraisa requires actual walls to > allow carrying, for a Reshus Harabim d'Rabanan it is sufficient to > surround an area with doorways (tzuras hapesach). Mid'oraisa a set of four tzuros hapesach works in reshus harabim too. It was the rabanan who said "ein me'arvim reshus harabim bekach", and only allowed it in a karmelis. Whether they did this at the same time that they forbade carrying in a karmelis, I don't know. My impression is that it was later, because the first we hear of it is in a braisa, and it's subject to machlokes, whereas the concept of karmelis is taken for granted by all. > My point was that they are excellent examples of an exception being > built into the law from the very beginning, as opposed to Prozbul, > which (if shmitas kesafim is d'rabanan) was a separate enactment from > shmitas kesafim Yes, this is clear. > (because if they were done at the same time, the goal of Prozbul > could have been acheived even more easily by simply not enacting > shmitas kesafim). You don't need to go there. It's obvious that shmitas kesafim midrabanan preceded Hillel, because if it hadn't then how could he have observed the problem that resulted? Clearly it long predated him, presumably all the way back to the end of shmita d'oraisa, or at least to the return from Bavel. But the *efficacy* of pruzbul is not Hillel's takana at all. It's de'oraisa (Sifri, quoted by Tosfos Gittin 36a dh Mi Ika Midi) >> (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an >> eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple >> owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) > I'm not sure if there is a rigorous definition of "loophole". > (The wikipedia article is a great place to start.) I tend to > think that it is a general pejorative to describe any leniency > that one has an emotional objection to. The WP article is seriously defective (WP:OR for one thing) and needs to extensive a rewrite for me to bother with. A loophole is built into a wall; it's *meant* to be there. There's nothing pejorative about it. An exception to a law is a case where the law doesn't apply; a loophole is where the law *does* apply, and this is how it applies. It's not that an eruv permits one to carry in a RHY with multiple owners, it's that an eruv turns it (for this purpose) into a RHY with a single owner. Similarly eruv techumin doesn't allow you to walk more than 2000 amos from your residence, it merely moves your residence. That's not an exception, it's a loophole. If you want an example of an exception, look to eruv tavshilin. The chachamim, whether because of kevod shabbos or kevod yomtov, forbade the ha'arama of cooking for guests whom you aren't really expecting, *unless* you make an eruv. The eruv is an exception built into the original takana. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 03:33:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 13:33:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "I think it makes no sense for Prozbul to be "an exception to an enactment", because "why bother?" If the agricultural Shemitta stops being d'Oraisa, then Chazal can certainly enact it on a d'rabanan level. But to do that for Shemitas Kesafim means to legislate the following three things simultaneously: 1) Enact a law requiring cancellation of loans 2) Loans are exempt from cancellation if Prozbul is done 3) For the benefit of both poor and wealthy, everyone should do a Prozbul Why enact such a set of laws? Wouldn't it be far simpler to just let Shmitas Kesafim lapse, and NOT be enacted on a d'rabanan level?" If you look at the sugya of pruzbul (Gittin 36a-b) these points are all addressed: The Gemara starts out with the fact that Hillel was mesaken pruzbul. Then the Gemara asks how could he do that if the Torah (shemitas kesafim) cancels the loan? Abaye answers that Hillel only made his takana of pruzbul when shemittas kesafim was derabbanon. The Gemara then asks how could the Chachamim be mesaken shemmitas kesafim derabbanon if min hatorah the lender has to pay back the loan? Rava answers hefker beis din hefker. We see clearly from the Gemara that the historical progression was 1. Shemmita ceased being min hatorah 2. Chachamim were mesaken shemitta miderabbonon including shemittas kesafim 3. After shemitta derabbonon was already established Hillel saw that people were not lending money and therefore was mesaken pruzbul In other words these things did not happen simultaneously, pruzbul was enacted after shemmitas kesafim was already established. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 06:03:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 09:03:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] An Important Clarification Regarding Some Relevant Halachos for Yom Kippur Message-ID: <20150921130412.485F3183A12@nexus.stevens.edu> [] Some Relevant Halachos for Yom Kippur: A Clarification The following is an excerpt from the article on selected halachos relative to Yom Kippur: "At the conclusion of Yom Kippur, one may not do melachah (labor prohibited on Shabbos/ Yom Kippur) until one recites (or hears) Havdalah over wine (or the equivalent) or recites A ttah Chonantanu in Ma'ariv, or says Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol. Although reciting any of these allows one to do melachah, one may not eat until after reciting (or hearing) Havdalah over wine (or the equivalent). Accordingly, married men should hurry home after Ma'ariv on Motza'ei Yom Kippur to recite Havdalah so that their wives will be able to eat." Clarification : Following the conclusion of Yom Kippur, after one recites Attah Chonantanu in Ma'ariv or says Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol, one may drink water even before reciting (or hearing) Havdalah. Thus (for example), a woman whose husband is delayed in coming home after Ma'ariv on Motza'ei Yom Kippur may recite Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol after nightfall and drink water before hearing Havdalah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 15:18:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 23:18:00 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> Message-ID: A summary of Pruzbul I have in front of me (written by Rabbi D Tugendhaft, London) says: "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" On 16 September 2015 at 23:07, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 09/16/2015 05:41 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > >> A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: >> >> Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking >>> around at books and online. I see no discussion whatsoever on >>> whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, >>> e.g. books I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that >>> addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an obligation to return >>> a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? >>> >> > I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? >> > > > Shemita applies only to halva'ah, not to she'elah. English uses the > same word, but they are very different transactions. It's actually > strange that English, which is usually the most precise language, does > not distinguish them. > > A book is a she'elah; the book remains her property, and she expects > the borrower to return it. Thus it is not at all affected by shemita. > It is also not subject to the prohibition on ribbis; not only is there > absolutely nothing wrong with charging people to borrow your stuff, > the Torah explicitly endorses it as one of the four forms of shemirah. > > -- > Zev Sero GChT > zev at sero.name > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 06:53:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:53:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Haqeil Message-ID: <55FC174B.6090900@zahav.net.il> Anyone here understand sound? Assuming best case scenarios (loud voices, no background noise, good hearing), how many people could possibly hear the king read at Haqeil? It would seem that there is no way the king could project his voice so that most could hear him (????). If few actually came to the tekes, OK, but if most people came how could it possibly work? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 07:57:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:57:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] From Medieval Ashkenaz Techinah Supplication to Iconic Segulah: The Chasidic Transformation of G-d of Abraham Message-ID: <20150918145828.8F30C183A9B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/pwg839c From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 10:20:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 20:20:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] vort on teshuvah Message-ID: 1) Rambam in hlichot teshuva (7:6) discusses the effect of teshuva yesterday (emesh) i was far from G-d hated ... and now I am beloved RYBS asks why the Rambam here uses such poetic language in particular using "emesh" instead of "etmol" . He asnwers that "etmol" indicates a 24 hour period while "emesh" can be a fraction of second between being hated by G-d and being loved by G-d 2) Someone who marries on a woman on condition that he is a Tzaddik the marriage is valid even if it is known that he is a rasha perhaps (shema) he did teshuva. Someone in the shiur noted that "shema" read backwards is "emesh" . Meaning that rasha who proposed marriage did teshuva a fraction of a second before the proposal -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 10:15:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 13:15:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reciting 100 Brochos Daily Message-ID: <20150918171648.24C57181A25@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/njmnbgn From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 15:12:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shmuel Weidberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:12:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? Message-ID: Hello everybody. I haven't been active on this list in a long time. I just had a look around the internet to see if there was anything new with the Kosher Switch, and I remembered an issue with it that I haven't seen discussed anywhere. The makers say that there is a certain amount of randomization involved in whether the light flashes into the detector and whether the detector detects the light. There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create random numbers. They create pseudo-random numbers which means they take a seed number and perform a complex calculation on it to get the next number, which looks like it bears no relation to the first number, but which in fact is completely determined by the first number. Computer can get real random numbers, by generating the seed by looking at actions that take place that the computer cannot predict such as when somebody presses a key on a keyboard, or when some other sensor is activated. Alternatively, they can get random numbers from a special piece of hardware that is designed to physically make random numbers. However, I believe such pieces of hardware are quite specialized and if there actually was one in the switch it would be advertised. In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. Regards, Shmuel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 10:59:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:59:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> Message-ID: <56004574.4040004@sero.name> On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour > because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in > its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to she'elah. Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 11:29:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:29:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. ------------------------------- Yes, much as a complete understanding of the physics involved would determine the roll of the dice as it left one?s hand. Yet we call this ?random? (and iirc statisticians can?t prove any set of numbers was truly random, only that they appear likely so. Gct 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 22:35:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 01:35:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <063901d0f4f8$8c2cd700$a4868500$@gmail.com> R? Shmuel Weidberg: The makers say that there is a certain amount of randomization involved in whether the light flashes into the detector and whether the detector detects the light. There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create random numbers. They create pseudo-random numbers which means they take a seed number and perform a complex calculation on it to get the next number, which looks like it bears no relation to the first number, but which in fact is completely determined by the first number. In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. --------------------------- Isn?t the lomdus of their approach that you, the person flicking the switch, doesn?t DO anything because you?re only covering a light pulse without knowing when it will come next? So it doesn?t really matter if it?s random, it matters that you don?t know when it will next illuminate. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 07:04:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:04:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56004574.4040004@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> Message-ID: <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. On 9/21/2015 8:59 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > >> "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour >> because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in >> its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" > > Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to > she'elah. > Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 11:00:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:00:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> Message-ID: <56019748.5060907@sero.name> On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 9/21/2015 8:59 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: >>> "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour >>> because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in >>> its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" >> Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to she'elah. >> Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. > But a book, you return the same one. Usually. Not usually, always. There are two utterly different kinds of transaction for which the English language uses the same words: loan, borrow, lend. This is surprising, since usually English is a more precise language than most, but it is so. She'elah: I give you my property, with permission to use it. It remains my property, and you must return it on the agreed-upon date, or when I ask for it, in reasonable shape given the time you had it and the use to which you put it. In other words, in slightly worse shape than when I gave it to you. I may do this as a favour, but there is no mitzvah for me to do so. I am entitled to charge you for it, in which case the transaction is called "sechirus", or in English, "rental". Shemitah does not apply to this transaction. Common examples: a book, a car, a tool, a pen. Halva'ah: I give you my property, and it becomes yours. I do not expect it back, ever. On the agreed-upon date, or when I ask, you must give me something exactly like what I gave you. Since you are a Jew, I have a mitzvah to do this as a favour for you, and am forbidden from charging you anything for it, and you are forbidden from paying me anything for it, in any form. Shemitah applies. Common examples: $100, a cup of sugar, a rubber band. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 12:48:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 22:48:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56019748.5060907@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> <56019748.5060907@sero.name> Message-ID: <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > >> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. > > Not usually, always. Several years ago, we borrowed a book from my brother-in-law. A while later, we wanted to return it, but we couldn't find it. So we bought another identical copy and returned that in its place. So I'm going to stick with "usually." Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 19:11:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 22:11:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> <56019748.5060907@sero.name> <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> Message-ID: <56035BCF.7000400@sero.name> On 09/23/2015 03:48 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> >>> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. >> >> Not usually, always. > > Several years ago, we borrowed a book from my brother-in-law. A while > later, we wanted to return it, but we couldn't find it. So we bought > another identical copy and returned that in its place. So I'm going > to stick with "usually." Your obligation was to return the exact same book. Once that became impossible, you became liable as a shomer; a shomer sachar and a socher are liable for geneiva va'aveida, so at that point you became liable to pay the value of the lost book, and that sum became a milveh, and thus subject to shemitah and ribbis. -- Zev Sero Gut Yomtov zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 12:09:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:09:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a > random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the > time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it > simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. Do you know whether the Star-K-certified "Sabbath mode" ovens use pseudo-random numbers or true random numbers? (Thermal noise would do fine; and many processors, even some embedded ones, have such a random number source.) --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 12:03:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 15:03:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150924190308.GA28981@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 06:12:07PM -0400, Shmuel Weidberg via Avodah wrote: : I just had a look around the internet to see if there was anything new with : the Kosher Switch... : There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't : computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create : random numbers... I don't think this particular distinction makes a halachic difference. The question is whether the person doing the action has a reasonable chance of predicting the outcome. Actual mathematical randomness might not be at issue. As long as I can't know what my flipping the switch would do, I would think it should all be the same. (Think of it as a first cousin to ignoring water bears and other zooplankton that can only be seen with a magnifying glass when drinking water.) ... : Computer can get real random numbers, by generating the seed by looking at : actions that take place that the computer cannot predict such as when : somebody presses a key on a keyboard, or when some other sensor is : activated... Actually, that's not really random, just less predictable because the seed generation is outside the machine. A specially designed can get truly random numbers by using quantum effects. Such as picking up on the brownian motion of molecules due to heat. But really, I don't think we have to worry about the difference between "random" and "not humanly predictable". Also a side note: I might point out that there are numerous hashkafos in which every event, or at least every event that impacts a human being, is subject to hashgachah peratis. And thus, nothing we ever experience is actually random. Or alternatively, that the word "random" needs a different translation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 14:20:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:20:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shemittah beyond Shemittah Message-ID: <20150924212050.B6B10182CED@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://cor.ca/view/720/shemittah_beyond_shemittah.html From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 14:37:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:37:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shemitta Sheilos: Using Arbah Minim of Sheviis - Parts I and II Message-ID: <20150924213723.28661183A0D@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://ohr.edu/6522 and http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6527 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 25 00:32:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:32:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Buying minim from a child Message-ID: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> When I was in yeshiva, we were told to refrain from buying any of the four minim from a child. If the product was stolen, a child can't take possession via shinu reshut or ma'aseh. Therefore the theft falls on the buyer and his minim are pasul. Thinking about during my jog, I had a few questions: 1) Is this a real chashash or simply are we trying to cover all halachik corners? Meaning, if I do buy from a child do I really have anything to worry about? And if it isn't a real concern, then why am I not being oveir on "chosheid b'kesheirim"? 2) If it is a real chashash (the presence of stolen minim in the market) than why buy from an adult? Buying stolen goods is also a sin. At the very least, one can only buy from a place with a heksher. 3) Or can one? Can we assume that the kashrut agencies really check were their minim come from? 4) Who determines if there is a significant presence of stolen goods in the market every year? I assume that the amount of stolen goods has to be above a certain minimum for there to be a real issue? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 21:44:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 00:44:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur Message-ID: In the case where an ill person is eating on Yom Kippur, the Magen Avraham 618:10 brings varying views on whether he needs Lechem Mishne, whether he includes Yaaleh V'yavo in bentching, and whether he must make Kiddush. Kaf Hachaim 618:60 repeats much of that, with some changes and additions, and in 618:61 he points out that the same would apply to children and women who have recently given birth. Similar things appear in the other nosei keilim on that se'if. I got the impression that the pros and cons on these questions were based mostly on practical and halachic concerns, such as whether or not these halachos were ever enacted for Yom Kippur. I'd like to know if the *historical* side is discussed anywhere. I'm focusing now specifically on Lechem Mishne, and I'm now ignoring Kiddush and Birkas Hamazon. Here are my questions of historical fact: During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the children eat? There are several possible answers I can think of: Perhaps mon fell on Yom Kippur, but only at the homes where where children or yoldos live. Perhaps mon did not fall on Yom Kippur, but those homes got a double portion on Erev Yom Kippur. Perhaps neither of the above happened, and the children and yoldos had to make do with whatever other food might have been available. (This possibility seems odd to me, as it throws a curve ball into the whole "40 years of miracles" idea: Exactly once each year, the children had no choice but to eat non-miraculous food, and the day for this chinuch was Yom Kippur.) I suppose I should also include another possibility, which is that everyone received their normal supply of mon on Yom Kippur just like on every other day, but that seems like quite a waste. Perhaps they ate it on Motzaei Yom Kippur. In which case I'd wonder if only a half-portion might have fallen that morning. I also question whether Hashem would have placed such a michshol at the doorways, leaving their mon in the reshus harabim. Does anyone know of any Midrashim or other sources that might talk about this? Akiva Miller (PS: I only asked about children and yoldos in the midbar, and I did not ask about other cholim. That's because I think that in the miraculous Midbar, no one was ever sick, and no one died except on the night of Tisha B'Av. If anyone wants to discuss this, please begin a new thread.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 20:33:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ken Bloom via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 23:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? Message-ID: Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in depth than Sefer HaToda'ah. Does anyone know of something analgous to how the Maharal's Gevurot Hashem explains Pesach, or have other recommendations about the holiday? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 22:19:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 01:19:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: : Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better : understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully : understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in : depth than Sefer HaToda'ah. Does anyone know of something analgous to how : the Maharal's Gevurot Hashem explains Pesach, or have other recommendations : about the holiday? RYHutner's Pachad Yitzchaq. (Although the volumes are arranged around Shabbos & YT, and thus would seem particular to those topics, I would consider it one of the canonical Jewish philoosphy works of the 20th cent. Not to be skipped by anyone serious about learning hashkafah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 30 12:53:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:53:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Whole Hallel on Sukkos Message-ID: <20150930195335.GA18194@aishdas.org> I just noticed something that is likely to be meaningful. We say whole Hallel every day of Sukkos because the qorban mussaf differs each day. The mussaf differs by the number of cows, which total 70 across the YT. The 70 cows are keneged the 70 nations. Among the things we would have otherwise skipped was "Lamah yomeru hagoyim..." So... Because we bring qorbanos on behalf of the 70 nations over the course of Sukkos, we pray for their abandonment of AZ on each day of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 30 13:03:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:03:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Buying minim from a child In-Reply-To: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> References: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <560C400E.6080206@sero.name> On 09/25/2015 03:32 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > When I was in yeshiva, we were told to refrain from buying any of the > four minim from a child. If the product was stolen, a child can't > take possession via shinu reshut or ma'aseh. Therefore the theft > falls on the buyer and his minim are pasul. > > Thinking about during my jog, I had a few questions: > > 1) Is this a real chashash or simply are we trying to cover all > halachik corners? Meaning, if I do buy from a child do I really have > anything to worry about? And if it isn't a real concern, then why am > I not being oveir on "chosheid b'kesheirim"? > > 2) If it is a real chashash (the presence of stolen minim in the > market) than why buy from an adult? Buying stolen goods is also a > sin. At the very least, one can only buy from a place with a heksher. > > 3) Or can one? Can we assume that the kashrut agencies really check > were their minim come from? > > 4) Who determines if there is a significant presence of stolen goods > in the market every year? I assume that the amount of stolen goods > has to be above a certain minimum for there to be a real issue? The chashash is not for actually stolen goods, but that the land on which the minim were grown was stolen hundreds or thousands of years ago, and since karka eina nigzeles it still belongs to the rightful heirs of the original owner. Thus the person who harvests the minim is technically the gazlan, ye'ush happened a long time ago, so we need a shinuy reshus, which happens when you buy from the "gazlan", but not if he's a katan. If he bought it from someone else then this problem doesn't exist, but there's another problem: it won't be shelachem, which it needs to be for the first day. This is also why one should not use minim one cut oneself, but rather sell those and buy ones that someone else cut. All of this only applies in countries where land title is uncertain; where it can be traced directly back to a valid kibush milchama, there is no problem. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 07:15:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 10:15:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <5593124A.2040905@sero.name> References: <20150630.152626.19374.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> <5593124A.2040905@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150701141526.GB24797@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 06:03:54PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/30/2015 03:26 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : >>From what I've seen, it is NOT said even if a minyan says Birkas Hamazon, : : Why would it? When a minyan says Birkhas haMazon, the zimun changes, it creates a minyan one may not break (by benching on their own or with a normal zimun), but no Qaddish. When a minyan says Pesuqei deZimra, nothing changes, there is no specific issur on leaving in the middle, and yet it is closed with Qaddish (even if you lose the minyan during PdZ). I think RAM's question why is quite fair. It would be nice to think the minhag follows some well-defined rule. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 05:35:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:35:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bio of RSRH Message-ID: <20150701123548.93E2D182CC3@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/p5h866u From this URL. When Rav Yisroel Salanter read a copy of The Nineteen Letters in 1873, he said that it should be translated into Russian and Hebrew. He also remarked, "Is there a Gan Eden big enough for Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch?" See the above URL for more. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 14:33:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:33:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakarat Hatov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 03:56:25PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Does Hakarat Hatov engender a measurable "liability" (e.g. require a : marginally greater action) between the recipient and the provider of the : "Tov", or is saying "Thank you, I appreciate it" the only requirement? Moshe isn't the trigger for the first makkos because he "owed" the Ye'or and the sand for saving him in the past. As Chazal put it (BQ 92b) WRT "velo sesaeiv Mitzri ki ger hayisa ve'artzo", it justified the common saying "bira deshasis mineih, lo tashdi beih kala" (into a well from which you once drank, don't throw clods of dirt). That said, I don't think reducing gratitude to *nothing more than* a favor-economics is healthy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness, micha at aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom. http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 14:37:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:37:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakarat Hatov In-Reply-To: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> References: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150701213753.GA24874@aishdas.org> PS: I started with the aggadic story and didn't say why I opened with a medrash rather than a gemara. The Nile and the sand wasn't actors. Moshe didn't really owe them anything. It's like "not embarassing" the challah by covering it. Apparently the notion of repaying a favor is so important, HQBH expects us to practice it for a middah exercise even when the other side isn't a real 2nd party. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 12:08:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 15:08:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish with mixed seating Message-ID: Following up upon my earlier post about the permissibility of saying the *kaddish *of a *siyyum* at a dinner with mixed seating. I spoke to RIETS RY last week and he said that we only require *mechitzah* in a *Shul*, based upon the *Gemara* in *Succos*, which requires separate seating at a *shul*. This is clear from the original textual source of mechitzah, the Gemara in the fifth perek of Succos, that the basis of *mechitzah* is the *Bais ha-Mikdash*. As our Synagogues are modeled after the Bais ha-Mikdash, we apply the principals underlying the *Gemara* in Succos to our Shuls. (Similarly, *Tosfos* justifies the practice of bringing children to Shul using the model of *Hakhel*.) As the Kaddish for a Siyyum has nothing do to with a Shul there is no need for separate seating. I also spoke to one of the Dayanim in our community he did not even think that saying *kaddish* with mixed seating was an issue as he thought that mixed seating was only an issue in a *Shul*. Others told me the same (i.e. that only a *shul* requires separation) in the name of Rav Schachter *shlit?a* . However, I saw Rav Herschel Schachter *shlit?a* at shacharis this week so I asked him my question. He responded that it would be better if they would have the *siyyum* before the dinner. I asked why and he responded ?*Davar She?bekedushah*?. I asked him so why do people recite *Kedushah* after a *siyyum* with mixed seating. And he responded, ?Nu, Nu?. (Which is a common response from Rav Schachter to questions of that sort.) Interestingly enough the Gemara in Succos brings a ?proof? for separation of men and women from a non-?*Davar She?bekedushah*? the funeral in *Zecharyah*. Of course we are not discussing whether a particular practice is good or bad or even ?best practices?, but rather whether it is required or not. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 08:32:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 11:32:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] From Succot to Moshiach Message-ID: Ma tovu ohalecha: ?Tents? are temporary and refer to olam hazeh ?.mishk?nosecha: ?Dwelling places? refers to olam haba. In other words, we are first in the antechamber, the temporary abode, which tents symbolize; then, once we leave our temporary homes, we hopefully ascend to our permanent ?dwelling place.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 14:44:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 17:44:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Historical Bil'am Message-ID: <20150703214448.GA32213@aishdas.org> H/T RYGB, see http://www.livius.org/source-content/deir-alla-inscription He asks on his blog: Why isn't this more widely known? The full article includes an image of the instription and a complete translation. This is just the opening. :-)BBii! -Micha Livius.org Articles on ancient history Deir 'Alla Inscription Deir 'Alla Inscription: inscription, found in the Iron Age town of Deir 'Alla, mentioning the Biblical prophet Balaam. Deir 'Alla is situated in western Jordan, about eight kilometers east of the river Jordan, and about a kilometer north of the Jabbok. The excavators found a very large Bronze Age sanctuary that had suffered in the period of wide-spread destruction in the thirteenth/twelfth centuries. Unlike other settlements, which were abandoned, Deir 'Alla remained in use well into the fifth century BCE. That is remarkable. Even more remarkable, however, was the discovery of a painted text that contained a prophecy by Balaam... (The site of Deir 'Alla is, technically, on the [11]Ammonite side of the river Jabbok.) The text refers to divine visions and signs of future destruction, in a language that is close to that of the Bible. For example, we read about the "Shaddai gods", an expression that is close to the Biblical El Shaddai, "God Almighty". On the other hand, the setting is not monotheistic: we read, for instance, about a gathering of a group of gods. The word elohim, which in the Bible (although plural) refers to one God, refers to more than one god in the Deir 'Alla text. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 15:16:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 18:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> In a recent blog post, R' Aryeh Klapper (Cc-ed) writes http://moderntoraleadership.wordpress.com/2015/07/03/chok-mishpat-and-obergefell Imagine pre-snake Adam and Eve walking into the Jewish camp. They would not praise the Jews for their modesty, and they would have no idea why the tents' openings did not face each other. For Bilaam to praise the Jews' virtue, even in the context of his deep and unremitting hatred, he had to be capable of understanding that modesty was a relevant evaluative category. What would it take for Bilaam to have this capacity? Unlike the prelapsarian original couple, he would have to be conscious of his own sexuality, and experientially aware that sexuality could be associated with shame. He might nonetheless choose exhibitionism for himself, and for his culture. He might decide that sexual shame is the root of neurosis and dedicate himself to its cultural eradication. But he would understand what he was eradicating. Perhaps there would even be moments when he regretted his victory. My tentative suggestion is that the Torah teaches us here that there is a value in making our moral premises intelligible even to our enemies; this is part of our mission to be the light of the nations. I want to be clear that this value is not pragmatic, and that we are not safer, or less likely to be hated, if we are understood. Like Bilaam, the world may use its understanding of our virtue to learn how best to undermine us. It is simply part of our job to enable as much as we can of humanity to make informed moral choices. I suggest further that perhaps we can understand the Seven Noachide Commandments as intended not to provide a formal code of behavior, but rather to identify a set of moral premises. Perhaps our mission is particularly to make those premises universally intelligible. Making premises intelligible is not accomplished through rational argumentation. Rational arguments depend on mutually intelligible premises. ... One core premise: let us identify it with the Noachide commandment against forbidden sexual relationships, or arayot -- that is no longer intelligible to many Americans is that sexuality can be evaluated in nonutilitarian terms, that a sexual act can be wrong even if no one gets hurt. We have replaced sexual morality with sexual ethics. Conversations on topics such as chastity, masturbation, and adultery are wholly changed from what they were even two decades ago, and tracts from back then can seem less contemporary than prehistoric cave art. There are many reasons that traditional rationales in the area of sexuality have moved rapidly from self-evident to unintelligible. Here are two: (1) Effective birth control and in vitro fertilization have broken the connection between intercourse and procreation. It is no longer self-evident to speak of intercourse as potential recreation, or as inevitably associated with the risk of pregnancy. (2) Many human beings with homosexual orientations have told compelling personal stories of pain and alienation. In the secular world, the natural reaction to a premise's social unintelligibility is the repeal of any laws that depend on it. In the Orthodox world, where immediate repeal is rarely a viable option, one reasonable reaction is what I call "chokification," or the declaration that laws that once depended on the now-unintelligible premise should be regarded as either beyond human comprehension or else as arbitrary rules intended to train us to obedience. Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. I utilized the following "Lonely Man of Faith" based idea to open "The Talk" with my sons.I wanted them to understand the sanctity of sex, so before getting into the mechanics of it, I tried to open by setting a religious context. As far as I can tell, the Torah gives two purposes for marriage: 1- In Genesis 1, the goal is to procreate and raise children. This is Adam I's drive "to fill the earth and conqure it", his place at the end of a sequence of creation -- above the animals, but more quatitatively than qualitatively. 2- In Genesis 2, the goal is to reunite the two halves, Adam and Eve, who were originally created as a single unit. Adam II seeks redemption through community. In this case, romantic love. Sex in its role of making a bond between people. And therefore a problem of premarital sex is that one thereby learns to minimize the bond thereby created. It weakens that function of sex, so it won't be as effective once you are married. Either alone -- procreation or the romantic reunification of the two halves of the original Adam (which again, I mean psychologically, not mystically) would be sufficient reason to justify sexual intimacy. But without either, it's the pursuit of our mamalian drives for insufficient reason. The objectification (or at least animalization) of the self. In order to buy into #2, one needs to believe that gender (as opposed to biological sex) is an innate set of existential and psychological differences, and not just a role imposed by convention. And therefore Adam and Eve are distinct and different halves of a whole. That this is an existential and deep-psychological truth, which will hold no matter how much society attempts to change those roles and bury gender differences. Notice that despite the social trends that brought the Supreme Court to conclude last week that traditional sexual morality (in contrast to sexual ethics) is irrational and thus prejudicial bias, the above implies that the Torah's ban on homosexuality can be explained in mishpat terms. On a different note, the shift from morality to ethics is typical for postmodernism. When all narratives are equally valid there is no way to insist there is an absolute moral code. Never mind determine what it contains. Therefore, one encourages a freedom to act as an end itself, rather than as a means to greatness. (Which is a logical progression from the American legal system, the concept of rights-based law taken to its extreme. It's notable that a society that values a "maavir al midosav" would not laud taking rights as far as all that. As a legal philosphy, though, it is the best we've come up with to avoid "ish es rei'eihu chaim bal'o", which is the central role of a secular gov't, no?) However, the lack of establishment of a common moral code is itself damaging to society. No one private violation of moral code, whatever the society holds it to be, will necessarily harm others. But living in a society that doesn't promote morality, that doesn't work toward aiming that autonomy toward some higher end, is harmful. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 15:20:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:20:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> References: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is the purpose to make things even worse? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 16:28:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 19:28:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> References: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150705232816.GA29598@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:20:08PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. : Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a : moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is : the purpose to make things even worse? As I quoted from RAK, because they classically were not considered chuqim. Until our contemporaries took the issue from sexual morality to sexual ethics, these truths were considered self-evident. It's the choqification of dinei arayos that's inauthentic. In any case, since one doesn't pasqen from taamei hamitzvos, the din is the same either way. Nothhing in such exploration can "make things even worse". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 15:57:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:57:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon Message-ID: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> In Pirkei Avot, Hillel HaZaken says: "Be among the talmidim of Aharon, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them close to the Torah." I don't get it. I honestly don't. If we see a bunch of Jews who don't know anything about Judaism, shouldn't we try and get them to keep the mitzvot? If you know that they're more likely to violate the mitzvot if they don't know, it's it our responsibility to teach them what God wants of them? The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this subject. I look at gay people and I see them overwhelmingly part of the nihilism of the left, but I don't think being gay automatically makes people like that. But what else are Jews supposed to do when they're being pushed away from the Torah? Jews have neshamas that were at Sinai. A Jew who was raised without Torah has an empty space inside that's just *begging* to be filled with Torah. But because of the wrongheaded idea that gay people have to either pretend they aren't gay, or they must be ostracized from the Torah community, they wind up filling that empty space with the even emptier slogans of the left. Because of the belief held by so many frum Jews that gay people who acknowledge themselves to be gay are simply *incapable* or unwilling to keep mitzvot, we, as a community *deliberately* withhold the Torah from them. It makes no sense to me. I mean, worst case, you tell someone gay, "There are things you aren't allowed to do according to Jewish law. Are you willing to abide by that?" But we aren't even doing that. We're assuming that the answer is going to be no, and by so assuming, we're *making that happen*. At 120, when you're standing before the Kisei HaKavod and you're asked why you pushed so many Jews away from His Torah, I wonder what you'll answer. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 17:34:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 20:34:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon In-Reply-To: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> References: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150706003423.GB14365@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:57:04PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: : In Pirkei Avot, Hillel HaZaken says: "Be among the talmidim of Aharon, : loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them close : to the Torah." : : I don't get it. I honestly don't. If we see a bunch of Jews who don't : know anything about Judaism, shouldn't we try and get them to keep the : mitzvot?... First, a minor correction. Hillel says "berios", or as in the tradition "loving people and bringing them..." IOW, not only kiruv, but bringing non-Jews to NNoachidism. : The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since : the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of : the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't : get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so : many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this : subject. I'm not so sure. The SCOTUS ruled in favor of a right that is based on the idea that believing the Torah's position about homosexuality is bigotry. But in any case, it's like any other rule of tochachah... You need to tell them what they're doing is wrong n a way that gets constructive change. The usual rule for when you should shut up is "mutav sheyihyu shogegim", but here nearly everyone involved know what we pasqen it's assur. So, you're not turning anyone into meizidim. : It makes no sense to me. I mean, worst case, you tell someone gay, : "There are things you aren't allowed to do according to Jewish law. : Are you willing to abide by that?" But we aren't even doing that. : We're assuming that the answer is going to be no, and by so assuming, : we're *making that happen*. But the US law in question is itself to permit something you aren't allowed to do in Jewish law, and in the Minchas Chinukh's opinion -- nor in Noachide law. The general problem of people hating the sinner rather than the sin isn't limited to this one. Perhaps here things are more extreme because the accusers do not attempt to separate an instinctive loathing from actual halachic concerns. Either we should be getting similar bile when discussing business cheats, or we should be getting quiet on both fronts. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 18:46:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 01:46:19 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Alternate texts for the Prayer for the Government Message-ID: <20150705.214619.1506.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> R' Mordechai Harris wrote: > Here's the one I shard last time from the De Sola Pool Siddur. > www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/deSolaPoolPrayerForGovernment.pdf R' Simon Montagu asked: > Can you also share the publication details and/or title page of > this siddur? What I know as the De Sola Pool Siddur is not the > same as in this link. I have ... RMH's link was for "The Traditional Prayer Book for Sabbath and Festivals", the official siddur of the RCA, published in 1960. A very different, longer version appears in many other siddurim, with rather minor differences: The Hirsch Siddur, published by Feldheim The Authorized Daily Prayer Book by Chief Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz The Daily Prayer Book by Philip Birnbaum The Koren Siddur by Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks and in the new Nehalel beShabbat by Michael Haruni (website and free sample at nehalel.com) I was going to remark that I have found this prayer only in siddurim that have an English translation, but is not correct. First, it would seem to appear in whichever siddur the Hirsch was adapted from. But moreover, this same tefila also appears in my copy of "Siddur Eishei Yisrael al pi daas Maran HaGra." (I know there are many siddurim with similar names; all I can tell about this is that the title page lists no publisher, only "Yerushalayim 5735".) The Nehalel siddur is worth noting for this thread. I have not seen this siddur to be too widespread or popular (yet - it's only from 2013), but I'd like to point out that it has TWO versions of this prayer. The version which is very similar to the others is on a page marked "In the United States of America:". But the following page is marked "In the United Kingdom and Commonwealth:", and is markedly different -- but not nearly as different as the De Sola Pool version. This makes me stop, and wonder, and consider the fact that although my Hertz siddur and my Sacks siddur are both of British authorship, they both used American publishers (Bloch and OU Press respectively), and were possibly designed for an American audience. Which leads me to ask those of the chevra who currently reside in the Commonwealth: What version (if any) is said in your shuls? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5599de50e59b55e504270st04vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 06:29:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:29:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VBM-SICHOT75 - 41: The Philosophical Principles of Inheritance Message-ID: <20150706132902.GB31051@aishdas.org> Just because taamei hamitzvos is supposed to be one of the core topics of this email group's host organization.... BTW, my grandfather a"h was named Pinechas after this week's sedra, his bar mitzvah parashah. When it was time to name my oldest, I checked with my uncle how his name appeared on their kesuvah, as their mesader qiddushin was a key rav in my grandfather's life. (R/Dr Mirsky zt"l met two teenage boys coming off the boat and took them under his wing. My grandfather and great-uncle then earned enough to bribe the rest of the family's way out of Litta before the Nazis came to power.) Anyway, it seems R/Dr Mirsky held my grandfather's name was Pinechas, pei-yud-nun-ches-samekh, as it is spelled in the chumash (ignoring the size of the yud as usually written in the beginning of the parashah). And thus the sheva is na, Pinechas - not Pinchas. If you want to make a derashah out of a Mitzri name, it's Pi Nachas, not Pen Chas. Reason for this tangent... I would have expected "Gushies" to get the sheva in the parashah name right. After all, they have the patach under the reish in Parashat. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov VBM-SICHOT75 - 41: Parashat Pinchas Sicha of HaRav Mosheh Lichtenstein Adapted by Motti Guttman Translated by David Strauss Yeshivat Har Etzion "In Place of Your Fathers Shall Be Your Children": The Philosophical Principles of Inheritance The concept of inheritance arises in a number of contexts in the Torah, most prominently in Parashat Pinchas. It is also the central topic of the eighth chapter of Massekhet Bava Batra, Yesh Nochalin. Naturally, the discussion of the laws of inheritance focuses largely on the financial matters at issue among the heirs, leading to the discussion and clarification of a number of fundamental questions regarding monetary law. For that reason, chapter Yesh Nochalin has an important place in the world of Choshen Mishpat. However, the issue of inheritance is not merely monetary. The yerusha (inheritance) is not simply money that we have to decide what to do with. Of course, it is preferable to award the estate of the deceased to his surviving relatives, and not to the state or the income tax authorities; the gemara itself notes, "Should the town collector be the heir?" (Bava Batra 110b). This, however, is not the essence of the laws of inheritance. Inheritance -- Breaching the Boundaries of the Present At the heart of the concept of inheritance lies a significant principle: that of permanence and continuity. When Avraham Avinu entered the Land, he was forced to pitch his tent in different places and live the life of a wanderer. In contrast, the idea of inheritance establishes that a person should not live a life of impermanence. Moshe expresses the desire for a state of permanence in his words to Israel at the plains of Moav: "For you are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance" (Devarim 12:9). This verse was also expounded as referring to the Temple. The idea of inheritance, in this context, creates existential permanence, which is reflected in Halakha. From the time that Jerusalem was selected, it became the permanent site of the Temple, and from that point on, offering sacrifices on bamot was forbidden due to the damage that this would cause to the idea of the Temple as the chosen inheritance. Inheritance constitutes permanence and it creates continuity because it allows the individual to breach the boundaries of the present. From the time of creation, reality dictates that "One generation passes away and another generation comes, but the earth abides forever" (Kohelet 1:4). Man's days are numbered, and sooner or later he will disappear from the world. By his very definition, he is temporary -- like the flower that fades, the shadow that passes, the dust that floats, and the dream that flies away. He is here today and in the grave tomorrow. In contrast, his inheritance remains and affords him continuity. From parent to child and from child to grandchild and great-grandchild, the chain continues and death does not sever it. To a certain extent, this allows one to overcome death and oblivion. Ownership of property and land in itself does not preventing transience or create continuity; it is the identification of inheritance with the family and its heritage in the past and the present that creates the permanence and continuity. A central concept in Jewish law is the concept of the "house," which denotes a family that constitutes a unit of common heritage -- "After their families, by the house of their fathers." We are familiar with this concept from various realms of Halakha. For example, a man whose brother died without children marries the widow through yibum, levirate marriage, in order to continue the family, and he is thereby able to perpetuate the name of the deceased, since they belong to a common "house." Because of the great importance that the Torah attributes to perpetuating the name of the deceased and continuing his legacy, it established the mechanism of levirate marriage despite the personal, familial and halakhic difficulties entailed in marriage to one's brother's wife. Indeed, the mitzva of yibum takes precedence over the mitzva of chalitza because of the mission of perpetuating the brother's name.[1] The language of the text itself creates a connection between yibum and inheritance, as the purpose of the mitzva is defined as "to perpetuate the name of the deceased on his inheritance." The principle of continuity and its importance in a person's life is further reflected in the statement of Chazal (Nedarim 64b) that includes one who does not have any children among those who are considered as if they were dead. While continuity expresses itself on the concrete level through the transmission of property, much more important, of course, is ensuring continuity on the level of values, goals, and existential aspirations, which constitute the true heritage that a person leaves behind. The prophet Yeshaya emphasized how a person's eternal heritage endures: For thus says the Lord to the eunuchs who keep My Sabbath, and choose the things that please Me, and take hold of My covenant. And to them will I give in My house and within My walls a memorial better that sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. (Yeshaya 56:4-5) Indeed, there is more than one plane on which a person achieves inheritance and continuity. Inheritance is part of the system that turns the transition between generations into something permanent and stable, allowing family identity to be transmitted across the generations. In this light, we can understand Chazal's critique of a person who leaves no inheritance. As we read in a mishna in Yesh Nochalin (Bava Batra 133b): If a person gives his estate in writing to strangers and leaves out his children, his arrangements are legally valid, but the spirit of the Sages finds no delight in him. The reference here is not to a person who did not leave an inheritance due to poverty or distress, but rather to a person who decided to give away his estate for other purposes, as positive as they may be,[2] or based on the perception that his children should fend for themselves. The idea behind this mishna is the need to leave a legacy for future generations. The principle of passing down to the next generation is of central importance. Know From Whence You Come! This perception of inheritance is rooted in a general and comprehensive idea that pervades all of Jewish life -- namely, that we do not live only in the present. Judaism rejects a horizontal perspective on man, according to which man is connected only to his current environment. Our relationship is not only with this generation. Rather, our sights are at all times directed at "the one who stands here with us this day before the Lord our God, and also with the one who is not here with us this day" (Devarim 29:14). The hope is to establish a relationship of shared destiny with the past, on both the national and the personal level. This is why we mourn to this day various historical events that happened to our ancestors. We do not say, "What happened, happened." The sense of pain and tragedy that Jewish law demands of a person indicates that it expects one to experience these things in unmediated fashion, as if they occurred to people he knows, and not only that he relate to them as events of the distant past for the purpose of learning a lesson from history. "In every generation one must see himself as if he went out from Egypt." Just as a Jew is expected to feel the pain of his Jewish brothers injured in terrorist attacks in Argentina, Turkey, Paris, or Afula, regardless of the geographical distance between them, because all of Israel are responsible for and close to one another, he is similarly expected to feel pain over events that took place a long time ago. The ability to draw from our heritage and know what happened to our ancestors is important in itself. The actions of our forefathers interest us, regardless of the spiritual insights that can be derived from them, because of the feeling of existential partnership between us and our ancestors. Avraham and Sara, Yitzchak and Rivka, Yaakov, Rachel and Leah, are not only the nation's patriarchs and matriarchs, but also our forefathers. They are not only lofty figures, but also Grandpa and Grandma -- and for this reason the Torah shared their lives with us. Just as a grandson is interested in hearing from his grandfather or his grandmother about life in Eastern Europe or North Africa a century ago, we want to know what happened in Mesopotamia during the time of Avraham and Sara. A person's life in the present is intertwined with the history of his forefathers in the past. One is intricately connected to his past; one does not grow up in a vacuum. Models of Inheritance The first mishna in Yesh Nochalin presents us with a number of possible models for those who inherit and those who transmit inheritance: Some [relatives] inherit [from] and transmit [to each other]; some inherit but do not transmit; some transmit but do not inherit; some neither inherit nor transmit. Clearly, the ideal is that a person should inherit and transmit inheritance, that he should be numbered among those who are "nochalin u-manchilin." As stated above, the inheritance is not simply property for the heir, but rather constitutes a familial plot filled with existential significance. He inherits -- deciding to connect himself to his past and to his heritage. And he is interested in transmitting inheritance -- adding his contribution to the heritage, the personal layer that he adds to the inheritance and passes down to the next generation. In contrast, there are those who inherit but do not transmit, "nochalin ve-lo manchilin" -- who draw from the past and connect to it, but are not capable of passing their heritage on. Perhaps this is because they do not consider this stage important, or perhaps they lack the capacity to give their heritage over to others and to connect to the next generation. Such a person does not know how to take from the past and interpret it for his children in the future. He is familiar with the world of the past, but he lacks the tools to apply the past and its heritage to the challenges of the present and the future. The reverse case also exists -- "yesh manchilin ve-einam nochalin," there are those who transmit but who do not inherit. They wish to pass on their personal legacy, but they are cut off from the past, or so they imagine. In their eyes, everything began in their generation. Previous generations erred or were weak; there is no need to receive their inheritance, laden with the outdated baggage of Diaspora life. This heir is not prepared to connect to the past or to recognize that he is dependent upon it. Blinded by his present achievements, he is alienated from the past and the weight of tradition. The most tragic group neither inherits nor transmits inheritance, "lo nochalin ve-lo manchilin." They are cut off from every bit of the past. They live only in the present and are utterly devoid of worry about the future -- "After me, the deluge." The concept of inheritance serves as a bridge between the past and the future. In this context, the individual is merely another link in a chain. If we consider the chain of tradition recorded by the Rambam in his introduction to the Mishneh Torah, more important than any particular Sage is the very chain of tradition itself. The value of each link lies in the fact that it allows the chain to continue. This is the connection and bridge between all the generations, from Avraham Avinu until the Mashiach. Spiritual Heritage through Physical Means As noted above, the transmission takes place through tangible means as well. It is obvious to us that it is values and ideas, Torah and mitzvot, that constitute the heritage that passes from one generation to the next. It is easy to understand the statement: "Moshe commanded us the Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov" (Devarim 33:4). It is more difficult to grasp that the Torah also attaches great importance to tangible inheritance, to the transmission of physical property. Chazal teach us that "monuments are not built for the righteous; their words are their memorials" (Bereishit Rabba 82). We do not set up statues or tombstones for the righteous, for it is their spiritual legacy that serves as their memorial. Nevertheless, the ability to touch the past by way of some object bestows additional meaning on that heritage. Touching the physical possession of a deceased relative gives a person the sense of an unmediated encounter with the past. One generation passes away and another generation comes, but an object that remains provides a connection to the earlier period. Man is a physical creature, and contact with material objects is meaningful to him as a reminder of and bridge to the past. Not only is it meaningful to transmit the life story of the deceased to future generations and to talk about his values, but it is also important to be able to connect with him on the most basic level. When a person comes across an object that belonged to his relative, it is important to him even if it lacks monetary value or is in no way unique. The tangible item turns the past into something immediate on a level that cannot be achieved by any other means. A number of years ago, a Torah scroll that belonged to the Ran and a seal that was reportedly that of the Ramban were displayed in an exhibition devoted to Spanish Jewry before the expulsion. It is difficult to describe the thrill that I felt when I understood that this seal was once held by the Ramban himself and that the Ran had once used this Torah scroll. I also remember the feeling of immediacy that I felt when someone showed me an etrog box that had once belonged to R. Akiva Eiger. We are physical beings who come from the dust, and physical things therefore speak to us. Paradoxically, it is precisely material objects, which are essentially transient, that maintain their permanence for centuries, creating a bridge between the past and the future. The need for connection through objects, which is natural and self-evident given that we are humans of flesh and blood, also underlies the Torah and the practical mitzvot. Judaism is not built exclusively on vague and abstract values. In response to the human need for concreteness, a system of practical commandments was created in order to express a system of ideas. The performance of mitzvot creates a channel for religious experience and opens the way for a connection between man and God. The experience associated with taking a lulav or eating matza reflects how much an object plays a role in the human religious experience. In a person's private life, intimate family connections are not based exclusively on profound conversations about noble values, but are rather manifest in shared day-to-day experiences, including the trivial problems that engage an ordinary family in everyday conduct, such as who will wash the dishes or fold the laundry. Similarly, this component of activity that is ongoing but not uplifting plays a role in our observance of the mitzvot. Just as a family lives closely together and creates connections even through banal activities, the mitzvot create a common religious experience with God among all those observing them. Thus, objects can provide existential meaning, but this depends upon the eye of the beholder. A person who relates to an inheritance merely as a set of objects and not as a means to continue the past will not see any unique significance in those objects. The Uniqueness of the Firstborn Thus far, we have discussed the idea of heirs and inheritance in general, the concept of personal and national heritage in the sense of "You are the children of the Lord your God" (Devarim 14:1). We have not discussed any unique status of any of the heirs. This indeed follows the model of the first half of Yesh Nochalin. At this point, we must move on to the second half of the chapter and to the concept of the birthright, the special privileges bestowed upon a firstborn. In addition to the passage dealing with inheritance in Sefer Bamidbar, a passage in Sefer Devarim assigns special status to a firstborn son. The concept of the bechora, primogeniture, is not merely factual but rather value-laden. This is reflected in the gemara's emphasis on the idea of "recognizing" the firstborn (based on the word "yakir" in the verse). The birthright expresses an interpersonal relationship unique to the parent and firstborn; it assumes a certain connection between them. Therefore, a firstborn only inherits a double portion if he was alive during his father's lifetime (Bava Batra 142b) and the father recognizes him as his firstborn son (127a).[3] For this reason, we also maintain that "the Torah calls it [the firstborn's double portion] a gift." In Halakha, a gift is not merely a certain type of acquisition, but rather an expression of intimacy. The firstborn inherits as one who receives a gift, directly from the father and not through the house or family. All of a person's strengths are reflected first and foremost in his firstborn. A father is supposed to feel a partnership with his sons, and the firstborn is the first child with whom this closeness is created. The Concept of Birthright in the Bible The birthright is referred to prominently in three contexts in the Bible: the struggle over the birthright between Yaakov and Esav; the story of Yaakov's two firstborn sons, Reuven and Yosef; and the description of Israel as "My son, My firstborn" (Shemot 4:22). These models point to the importance attached to the firstborn, as well as to the dangers that this status creates. Concerning the opportunity and the danger posed by the birthright, it is appropriate to cite two midrashim from Avot De-Rabbi Natan: Israel were called "sons," as it is stated: "You are the sons of the Lord your God" (Devarim 14:1), and the ministering angels are called "sons," as it is stated: "The sons of God came" (Iyov 1:6), and you do not know which are more loved. When it says: "Israel is My son, My firstborn," [it makes clear that] you are more precious to me than the ministering angels. (44a) The firstborn is perceived here as a clear expression of endearment and special closeness. Another midrash in Avot De-Rabbi Natan speaks in a different tone, recognizing that not every firstborn is dearly loved: Israel is precious, for in His time of anger they are called "sons." In His time of anger they are called sons, and even at a time when the verse says: "Not His is the corruption, but the blemish of His sons" (Devarim 32:5) -- sons in whom I have no trust, corrupt sons. Therefore, the Sages taught that they are called sons of God... But not every firstborn is precious and dear. There is a firstborn who is precious and dear, and there is also a firstborn who is not precious and dear. (8a) This midrash points to the problematic nature of the firstborn. It is simple to speak of the beauty and loftiness of the idea of Israel being "My son, My firstborn." But this does not necessarily reflect reality, as we find in the stories dealing with the birthright in the book of Bereishit. Yaakov vs. Esav -- Values vs. Money Esav views inheritance as a way to acquire property: "Behold, I am at the point of death, and what profit shall this birthright be to me?" (Bereishit 25:32). Ostensibly, the opposite is actually true! It is precisely at the point of death that the birthright acquires greater importance, for through it Esav could be counted as part of the line of the house of Avraham and as a link that transmits the heritage of the past to the coming generations. In this way, his memory would be preserved for generations, even after he dies. But Esav understands that he will derive no monetary gain from the inheritance, as he is about to die, and he is therefore prepared to sell his birthright for a pot of lentils. The commentators discuss the manner in which Yaakov took the birthright from Esav, and the Rishonim deal with the legal question of how Yaakov could acquire the birthright even though it was something that had not yet come into existence ("davar she-lo ba le-olam"). Many explanations have been offered, but it is possible to suggest one very simple answer. Esav did not sell the birthright to Yaakov; he lost it because his actions proved that he was not worthy of it. His very readiness to sell his birthright for a pot of lentils attested to his attitude toward the birthright and to his alienation from the world of Yitzchak. Anyone who scorns the birthright demonstrates that he does not understand its significance, and thus forfeits it. Sometimes, a child relates to his parents as an infinite source of rights. He wishes only to receive benefits and service from his parents; he is not prepared to accept the burden of transferring the legacy of previous generations. It is not for naught that the midrash (Bereishit Rabba 67:8; 75:9) describes Esav as ready to arrange for the murder of Yaakov and Yishmael in order to inherit the entire inheritance of Avraham. When the birthright is perceived not as a responsibility and sacred mission, but as an opportunity to profit at the expense of others, when the attitude toward inheritance is like that toward any monetary matter, it is not surprising to find that a violent man would be prepared to kill the other heirs and to employ a variety of schemes in order to inherit more assets. Yaakov, in contrast, views the birthright not only as a right, but as a mission. He wants to perpetuate Avraham's blessing in the world, and he sees the birthright as a destiny that will confer that mission upon him. It is not by chance that Chazal saw the pot of lentils as a dish denoting mourning over Avraham's passing, for it is around this event that the debate focuses. The test is whether to view this as an opportunity for profit -- on the tangible level, through the eating of the beans, and on the symbolic level, through benefit from the property of the deceased -- or as a call to assume responsibility and accept the authority of the firstborn. Reuven vs. Yosef -- Competition vs. Continuity Another pair of brothers who compete over the birthright presents us with a different model that is problematic for a different reason. On the one hand, "Reuven, you are my firstborn, my might and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity and the excellency of power" (Bereishit 49:3). It is upon Reuven that Yaakov pins his entire future and all of his hopes. On the other hand, "Unstable as water, you shall not excel; because you went up to your father's bed; then you did defile it: he went up to my couch" (ibid. 49:4), and in Divrei Ha-Yamim: "Now the sons of Reuven the firstborn of Israel -- for he was the firstborn, but since he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Yosef the son of Yisrael" (I Divrei Ha-Yamim 5:1). Because he defiled his father's bed, the birthright was taken away from Reuven. Esav was indifferent to the birthright and to the past; he sought in his inheritance only monetary gain. Reuven suffers from the opposite problem -- he sees himself as competing with his father and contending against him. No matter how we understand the specifics of Reuven's sin when he defiled his father's bed, the implication is the same -- it was an attempt to push his father aside and take his place during his lifetime. Reuven challenged his father's standing as head of the family. He rejected Yaakov's authority, and by doing so he impaired his own standing. The way of the world is that at some stage in a person's life, there is a reversal of roles. The strong parent, the firm rock, turns into a frail old man, at which point the sons must help the parent. Sometimes, they are even compelled to make decisions for the parent. Indeed, at the end of Yaakov's life, when he arrived in Egypt a broken and ill man, Yosef made various decisions for him. All this is possible and appropriate when the father is old and weak, when there is no other way, but not when the father is at the height of his strength and is fit to stand on his own two feet. The firstborn is meant to be the continuation of his father, but not his replacement who is in competition with him. The father bestows the birthright -- "The Torah calls it a gift." A son may not take the birthright by force. The similarity between Reuven and Yaakov could have prepared Reuven to be his father's successor. However, when that similarity is interpreted as competition, the firstborn's reward is cancelled out by his loss. Yosef was also similar to Yaakov, but he knew how to actualize that similarity at the proper time and not to replace him while he was still alive. The birthright was thus taken from Reuven, as from Esav, because he was unsuited for it. The transfer of property from an unfit son is the subject of a dispute between the Sages and R. Shimon ben Gamliel (133b), and we rule that property should not be transferred even from a wicked son to a good son. But in such a case, we are not dealing with an impairment in the firstborn's functioning as a firstborn, but rather with a general problem, and we therefore do not want to cancel the birthright. However, when the son sets himself in competition with his father, when he defiles his father's bed, the birthright is removed from him. The Actions of the Fathers are a Sign for the Sons The relationship between God and Israel should be examined in a similar manner. As stated to Moshe, Israel is "My son, My firstborn" (Shemot 22:4). What this means is that on a certain level, all the nations are God's children; the birthright does not negate the standing of the other brothers, but rather bestows a certain advantage on the firstborn while recognizing the others as sons.[4] But how are we to understand our relationship to God as His firstborn? Are we more precious to God than the ministering angels, as is stated in the first midrash cited above? Or are we perhaps like the firstborn who is not cherished and dear, as he appears in the second midrash? Will we be alienated from God? Will we be like a firstborn who is first among his brothers, but aware of his place? Or perhaps, God forbid, we will view ourselves in competition with God? Of course, the desired model is a permanent and meaningful relationship in which the individual feels the presence of the Shekhina, one in which he does not view the relationship between man and God as an interesting idea but nothing more. A child feels the presence of his parent and maintains a strong relationship with him, despite the differences in standing between them; this is also true of the relationship between Israel and their Father in Heaven. This is the challenge with which we are faced. A person who feels the responsibility of being a fitting firstborn to God justifies his birthright, but also assumes responsibility. The greater and deeper the responsibility and purpose, the greater the spiritual achievement. However, the spiritual danger is also greater. The same things that create obstacles in the relationship between a son and his parents are liable to ruin the relationship between man and his Maker. One can encounter a problem in the form of what we saw regarding Esav; a person recognizes the existence of God, but views the connection between him and his Father in Heaven as a means of satisfying his own pleasures and fulfilling his needs. In such a case, his heritage interests him only for the purpose of generating profits, and nothing more. He does not see his heritage as an obligation or mission, but rather as "a spade for digging," a source of personal gain. Alternatively, there is the situation of Reuven, which is reflected in the feeling that God is "strangling" him, leaving him with insufficient leeway due to the Shekhina's presence in the world. Just like a child rebels when he feels constrained by a parent or when he senses that the parent with his power and status overshadows him and his capabilities, a person's feelings about God may be similar. The proper situation, both with respect to the parent-child relationship and with respect to the relationship between man and God, is that man should find his place within a framework of existing laws and recognize that there are factors above him. Within these boundaries, he will be able to find his uniqueness and express his personal development. A firstborn like Reuven, who feels that he cannot exercise his strengths together with the strengths of God, is a firstborn who lacks the appropriate "recognition." Let us move from the People of Israel to the Land of Israel. The Land was also given to us as an inheritance and a heritage. Here, too, the aim is to see it as God's inheritance and to reach the realization of "You shall bring them in and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance" (Shemot 15:17), with the physical land serving as an expression of the spiritual connection and relationship between God and His people. Here, too, however, there is the danger of being caught up in the perspective of profitability and materialism, which views the Land exclusively as a place of leisure and profits. As opposed to "the mountain of Your inheritance," Datan and Aviram view the Land as "an inheritance of fields and vineyards" (Bamidbar 16:14), and nothing more. The children of Reuven and Gad preferred to receive their inheritance on the east bank of the Jordan, as that was advantageous for their animals and business. They did not ask themselves about the effect that their step would have on their inheritance as a sacred place or as the land of their forefathers. In opposition to "an inheritance of fields and vineyards" stands "the mountain of Your inheritance." Furthermore, since the inheritance is not land but rather a heritage, it exists, under certain condition, even without land. Not only is there the mountain of Your inheritance, but God is also the inheritance of the priests and Levites, substituting for the inheritance of land. We not only have God's intention "to give it to you for a heritage" (Shemot 6:8), but also "Moshe commanded us the Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov" (Devarim 33:4). Needless to say, the fitting situation for the ordinary person is the realization of the two inheritances, both of the Land and of the Torah. At times, however, it is one heritage that sustains us, while the other is missing. This was the case throughout the long years of exile, when the heritage of the Torah allowed Israel to survive in the lands of their dispersion. Similarly, in recent generations, the secular Zionist movement adopted for itself the heritage of the Land without a Torah heritage. Indeed, the core challenge facing secular Zionism and the State of Israel in this regard is viewing the country's heritage as an ancestral heritage and an expression of Jewish identity that is connected to the people of Israel throughout the generations, and not only as an inheritance of fields and vineyards. "A Ladder Set upon the Earth, and the Top of it Reached to Heaven" The chapter of Yesh Nochalin presents a sublime model of a system of inheritance that depends on the values that we have discussed. Very often, however, reality slaps us in the face. Inheritance disputes are a common and painful phenomenon. Unfortunately, these struggles are widespread and they destroy families. Values and ideals of great importance are shattered against the rocks of family disputes; instead of attaining achievements, they engage in conflict. Instead of the past serving as an inspiration and guide for the future, a person can destroy his future and fill it with conflicts from the past. Instead of the "house" inheriting the deceased and passing the family heritage down to the other members of the house, the house is split and destroyed in the storms of dispute. One should not make the mistake of thinking that such disputes are driven solely by profits. Often, the conflicts are grounded in what appears to be holiness. Struggles arise around the question of who will be a better successor, who will more faithfully represent the heritage and values of the deceased. Each side is convinced that he alone can express the family truth, while the other side will betray it. He therefore enters into battle against his brothers and sisters, without realizing that he is thereby destroying the family and defying the wishes of the deceased. These "holy fights" create the antithesis of the concept of inheritance. The challenge of inheritance and creating a heritage is indeed great, and it therefore often leads to tension. Nevertheless, Yesh Nochalin presents us with a meaningful model on the existential level, both with respect to the family and the past and with respect to our lives with God. May we merit to meet these challenges. (This sicha was delivered in summer 5767 [2007]. The original Hebrew adaptation was reviewed by Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein.) -- [1] This is true on the fundamental level, as is stated in the mishna in Bekhorot. In this context, we will not consider the dispute between Abba Shaul and the Sages. [2] Most authorities are uncomfortable even with one who donates all of his property to charity. [3] As a result, someone whose status is in doubt is excluded from the law of the birthright: "A son and not a tumtum [a person of undetermined gender]; a firstborn, and not a doubtful firstborn." This is also the basis for the law of "recognition," which according to many authorities is not based on credibility, but on the creation of a connection between father and son, credibility being the byproduct. [4] See the commentators ad loc., especially Ibn Ezra and Seforno. Rashi apparently understood differently and deliberately chose to deviate from the plain meaning of the birthright. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 13:31:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:31:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Defining Tzeis Message-ID: <20150706203135.GA12889@aishdas.org> I wrote the following to FB. If anyone can add or make corrections before the thread there dies, I would appreciate it. I think I summed up the highlights of the sugya as I understood it from previous conversations here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha [Someone asked what the sources in question were, so I replied:] Shabbos 34b-35a, 35b; Pesachim 94a. As Tosafos on Pesachim note, in Shabbos (34b) R' Yehudah is quoted as saying bein hashemashot (sunset to the stars coming out) is 3/4 mil (or 2/3 mil, depending on which amora's version of R' Yehudah you're using, but we hold 3/4), but in Pesachim he says a person can walk 4 mil after sunset before the stars emerge. Rabbeinu Tam notes a slight difference in language. It takes 4 mil "misheqi'as hachamah," in Pesachim, but 3/4 mil from "mishetishqeh hachamah." RT therefore resolves the two gemaros by saying sunset takes 3-1/4 mil. So, 4 mil from the beginning of sunset will take you to 3/4 mil after sunset, which is R' Yehudah's tzeis. The Vilna Gaon's resolution of the confliciting gemaros (OC 235 and 261) is not to split sunset into a beginning an end, but to split tzeis. The halachic tzeis is 3/4 mil after sunset. The gemara in Pesachim is using the term colloquially, not halachically, and simply refers to "all the stars" rather the standard 3. The Re'eim (R' Eliezer of Metz, Seifer Yerei'im, written in the 1170s) splits both -- the two gemaras are discussing different sunsets AND different tzeis. To him, the gemara in Shabbos is saying sheqi'ah (which we usually translate "sunset") is 3/4 mil BEFORE the sun hits the horizon, and tzeis is when the sun is at the horizon. Whereas the gemara in Pesachim then measures how much after the sun is below the horizon that the sky is fully dark. Note that both the Vilna Gaon and the Re'eim assume the gemara in Pesachim is using at least one of the idioms differently than the gemara in Shabbos, and therefore it has no bearing on halakhah. ... [Material in response to what someone else wrote, ellided.] BUT... The Vilna Gaon understands the defining feature to be the emergence of stars, not the fixed time R' Yehudah gives. And therefore inflates the 3/4 mil to adjust from Usha (R' Yehudah's home town) to Vilna. Which brings us to the third topic, on the other side of the page on Shabbos (35b). Again it's R' Yehudah, quoting Shemu'el's prescription of which stars to watch for: [If you see] 1 star, it is day; 2 -- bein hashemashos; 3 -- night. Rabbi Yosi said, "Not large stars that are visible in the day, nor small stars that are only visible at night, but medium stars..." 35b cannot describe 3/4 mil after sunset. Even in Usha or Nehardaa (Shemuel's home town, today's Anbar, central Iraq, on the Euphrates), you will not see 3 middle sized stars 18 min after sunset. R Michl Tukaczinsky and R' Dovid Spitzer did the observations in Jerusalem, and found it takes 31-43 min or 28-40 min, respectively. (Use the smaller end of the range for rabbinic fasts, like the OP, and the larger for Torah laws like Shabbos. Jerusalem is closer to the equator than either city, not that I think it's by enough to matter much.) Rav Moshe Feinstein similarly gave 50 min for Shabbos, 31 for rabbinic fasts -- but then, NY's days vary more in length, so a "never later than" will be more minutes after sunset. With a computer, we could translate all these numbers into degrees below the horizon, as that would tell us how dark it would be outside, and therefore how many stars could be seen, if we weren't bathed in artificial lighting. And even then you get into questions about which stars. The western horizon (the side with the glow of sunset) will show stars well after the east. Three stars seen at once (near each-other) or total when scanning the whole sky? Etc... Rather than decide whether we follow Shabbos 34a or 35a, even those who do not use Pesachim to shed light on 34a pad the 3/4 mil to plausibly allow for people to see three medium sized stars. Given the fact that it's this measure which actually gives the landmark on our clock its name, assuming it is less definitional than a fixed time delay is difficult. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 13:39:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:39:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dan leKaf Zekhus Message-ID: <20150706203931.GB12889@aishdas.org> When I got on the subway this morning, there was a pregnant woman already standing holding on to the poll nearest the door I just came in through. So, feeling all heroic, I asked her quite loudly and pointedly, "Do you need me to embarass someone into getting up for you?" She replied, "No, thank you. A number of people offered when I just got on, but I was more comfortable standing than on the train's benches." I blushed, and sheepishly muttered apologies to those around us. As I said: Dan lekaf zekhus. Not just the law, a good idea. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 14:45:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 17:45:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah and Poverty In-Reply-To: <20150706202632.A741518370D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150706202632.A741518370D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150706214552.GE12889@aishdas.org> On 7/3/2015 3:16 AM, RnTK wrote to Areivim: : But our mishna does describe this as the "way of the Torah." : True Torah scholars will live contentedly under conditions of : denial and poverty. The beraisa (Avos "6":4) says that darkah shel Torah is not to quit learning even if you have to live off bread, salt and water you have to ration, sleep on the ground and otherwise suffer. Not that this is their normal condition, or even one they should desire. There is still the take on the chatas of someone ending nezirus (Rabbeinu Bachya, in contrast to the Ramban) that it's for forgoing permissable pleasure while a nazir. And the Y-mi (Qiddushin 4:12, vilna 48b, the end of the mesechta) in which Rav is quoted as saying "A person will have to give a din vecheshbon on anything his eye saw but he didn't eat. R' Leizer [Elazar? Eliezer?] was chosheish for this, and would use Shabbos to enjoy one such pleasure. This is on the mishnah where R' Nera'i promises to only teach his son Torah, to the exclusion of a profession. But the Y-mi understands this to mean that keeping the Torah (not learning in particular) will provide wealth. Whereas a profession leaves you stuck in your old age, or if one otherwise become unable to work. But it's "vekhein atah motzei be'avinu Avraham *sheshimer* es haTorah" and was wealthy. However, the Bavli famously reports that this was tried experimentally and it generally doesn't work. Okay for a R' Shimon bar Yochai, but not R' Yishmael and the like. (Which could be a difference in kind or quantitative.) No one today would qualify as either a Rashbi or a R' Yishmael, so I don't think the Y-mi's promise should be counted on. And neither gemara lauds poverty. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 17:12:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 20:12:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon Message-ID: From: Lisa Liel via Avodah The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this subject. Lisa >>>> I have seen none of that "vitriol" or "viciousness," either in the past few days or in the last few years, or ever. On the contrary, all I see is an almost desperate attempt to be conciliatory, a desperate if hopeless wish not to be the *victims* of liberal, anti-religious vitriol. See for example "A Letter by Reb Ahron Feldman to a Gay Baal Teshuva" https://guardyoureyes.com/resources/ssa/item/a-letter-by-reb-ahron-feldman-to-a-gay-baal-teshuva Also see Agudath Israel's statement on the recent Supreme Court gay-marriage decision http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2015/06/28/agudath-israel-statement-o n-supreme-court-marriage-ruling/ It reads, in part, "we are deeply concerned that, as a result of today?s ruling, and as the dissenting Justices have pointed out, members and institutions of traditional communities like the Orthodox Jewish community we represent may incur moral opprobrium and risk tangible negative consequence if they refuse to transgress their beliefs, and even if they simply teach and express their religious views publicly." I might add that Lisa's post, being an emotional cri de coeur, really belongs on Areivim. However, since she has posted it to Avodah, I will add my own comments previously posted on Cross-Currents: Here, for the record, is what our ancient Torah heritage has to say about homosexual marriage: The nations are allowed to continue in existence only because they keep a minimum of three mitzvos. These are: not writing marriage documents for the union of two males, not selling human flesh in the market place, and giving honor to the Torah?which in practice means, not persecuting the people of the Torah, the Jewish people. In one of his prophetic visions, the Navi (prophet) Zechariah took thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the Temple treasury in Jerusalem (Zechariah 11:13). The Rabbis of the Talmud had varying interpretations of what this vision symbolized. According to Rabbi Ulla (Talmud Chullin 92B), the thirty pieces of silver symbolized the thirty mitzvos that the Bnei Noach accepted upon themselves. These thirty mitzvos include not worshipping idols, not consulting witchcraft and sorcery, refraining from illicit sexual relationships, and so on. (Bnei Noach are the Sons of Noah, also called Noahides? i.e., the nations of the world.) Rabbi Ulla says that the world continues to exist because the nations accepted these thirty mitzvos. However, he adds, the nations do not keep all the mitzvos they accepted. They keep only three, and one of the three is: ? They do not write a marriage contract for males.? Rashi comments that the nations do engage in forbidden homosexual relations, but they at least acknowledge that such relations are illicit by not formalizing those relations in legal documents. The other two commandments that they keep are that they do not sell human flesh in the market place, and that they give honor to the Torah (Talmud Chullin 92B). Elsewhere the Rabbis of old stated that the final decree of destruction, the Great Flood, was sealed against the generation of Noach because they wrote marriage documents for males. ?Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Yosef, ?The generation of the Flood was not wiped out until they wrote marriage documents for the union of a man to a male or to an animal ? ? (Genesis Rabbah 26:5; Leviticus Rabbah 23:9). Implicit is the assumption that if the nations do not abide by at least the aforementioned three mitzvos, they may forfeit the very right to exist. Hence, these three?not writing marriage documents for males, not selling human flesh in the marketplace, and honoring the Torah?may be considered the Three Conditions for the continued existence of mankind. So you see, the idea of gay marriage is not new, not a fresh idea that represents the ultimate development, enlightenment and evolution of mankind. No, the formal marriage of two men is a very ancient idea that represents the degradation of mankind. http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2011/07/28/4524/ I will add a further point to what I wrote in 2011: The reason the gay pride movement adopted rainbow colors as their symbol is that the rainbow is the sign of Hashem?s promise not to wipe out the entire world again in one big flood. They wave the rainbow flag in defiance of Him, as if to say, ?Ha ha, You can?t touch us!? The message of the rainbow flag is, ?We are major sinners, like the generation of the Flood.? But they are whistling in the dark if they think there won?t be consequences. May Hashem protect His people, those who are chassidei umos ha?olam as well as us, Klal Yisrael. Read more: http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2015/06/29/scotus-on-same-gender-what-it-means-what-it-doesnt/#ixzz3f9x0mazM --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 18:14:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 01:14:59 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> I noted about Kaddish Yasom > From what I've seen, it is NOT said even if a minyan says Birkas > Hamazon, R' Zev Sero asked: > Why would it? Well, I guess my original post should have had a longer introduction. I know that Kaddish Tiskabel has a very clear rule, namely that it follows every Amidah, and the only exception is that it also follows Selichos. Kaddish D'rabanan always follows group learning (though I've never figured out exactly what learning counts and what doesn't). And now I'm trying to figure out the rule for Kaddish Yasom. It SEEMS to be a sort of "congregational prayer", where "prayer" is something *other* than the Amidah, but I can't define it any more precisely than that. For a long time I thought it was connected to Tehillim, but when I noticed it after the megilos on Yom Tov, someone suggested that it's not specifically Sefer Tehillim, but *any* part of Kesuvim, not that we had any idea why Kesuvim would get this distinction over Neviim or Torah. I wrote: > but it IS said when a minyan says Kiddush Levana. RZS suggested: > Probably because people are used to saying it after Alenu. Maybe, and maybe not. I have a suspicion that Alenu was added *because of* the Kaddish, and not the other way around. Here are some data points: The Hirsch siddur has Tehillim 67 as the last paragraph of Kiddush Levana, with nothing at all after it. My Minchas Yerushalayim, and Birnbaum too, end with Tehillim 67 which is then followed by Kaddish Yasom, without Alenu. Is it possible that Alenu is a recent addition to the Kiddush Levana? I wrote: > It is NOT said when a minyan says Tehillim even as an organized > group, RZS asked: > Where have you seen it not being said then? I'm surprised that > this is your experience. In my current community, and also from my memories of yeshiva. When there was some sort of tzara that we said Tehillim for -- whether for a choleh, or some military or political problem -- we would say the Tehillim deemed appropriate by the leaders, and this would be followed by tefillos such as Acheinu and/or Mi Sheberach(s). I don't recall Kaddish ever being part of this. I have to admit that a big part of my asking this question is a pet peeve that I've been nursing, regarding Kiddush Levana in particular. It seems to me that Kiddush Levana -- the way it is done in just about every situation I've ever seen -- cannot be called a Tefilas Tzibur in any sense. It is a group of yechidim who happen to be saying the same thing, but in a totally disorganized fashion. The first one out of shul begins as soon as he finds a good location, and the last one out of shul also begins when he finds a good location. No attempt whatsoever is made to get this group to be on the same page, let alone in the same paragraph. There is no leader (like we have in Hallel and Pesukei Dzimra and everywhere else) who lets everyone know what the group is up to, so that they might end in unison. Rather, one person ends Alenu out loud, and that's when the yesomim say kaddish, regardless of whether they are only halfway though, or already finished before. So that's one of the reasons why I'm wondering why Kiddush Levana gets a kaddish. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/559b2834173228336fdfst03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 23:16:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 02:16:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kiddush levana In-Reply-To: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <559B6EB4.3010400@sero.name> On 07/06/2015 09:14 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: > So that's one of the reasons why I'm wondering why Kiddush Levana gets a kaddish. Well, I found what may be the source for this kaddish. The Shelah says "There is a nice minhag in the kingdom of EY and its surroundings, to say various pesukim and maamarim after kiddush levana, and then say kaddish derabanan [...] and the meaning of this kaddish is that [the Name] should be magnified and sanctified, a Great Name, a full Name, and then the moon's light will be as the sun's light". http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=45685&pgnum=287 > I have a suspicion that Alenu was added > *because of* the Kaddish, and not the other way around. Here are > some data points: The Hirsch siddur has Tehillim 67 as the last > paragraph of Kiddush Levana, with nothing at all after it. My Minchas > Yerushalayim, and Birnbaum too, end with Tehillim 67 which is then > followed by Kaddish Yasom, without Alenu. Is it possible that Alenu > is a recent addition to the Kiddush Levana? Taamei Haminhagim gives a reason for saying Alenu, because it was written by Yehoshua, whose face is compared to the moon (Bava Basra 75a). According to this reason there would seem to be no reason to say it after birkas hachama. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=216 But the footnote to Kuntres Acharon on the next page gives a different reason: Because kiddush levana looks like a pagan ritual, we say Alenu to declare that we worship only Hashem, and this is the same reason that after Hoshanos, which also seems a bit pagan, we declare "Lema'an daas kol amei ha'aretz ki Hashem hu haElokim, ein od". This reason applies equally to birkas hachama. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=217 I remember hearing that the same reason is why we say Alenu after a bris, but I can't find a source for this. Taamei Haminhagim cites Yaavetz that the reason is to include the baby among the "us" who are declaring our loyalty to Hashem. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=404 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 03:41:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 13:41:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Pinechas vs Pinchas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> R' Micha points out that his grandfather's name was Pinechas. He proves it first by the yud after the pei which, by the rules of dikduk, makes the following sheva a na'. In addition, the name is an Egyptian one, Pi-nechas, pi being a common prefix in Egyptian names. In case you haven't been convinced yet, there is a meteg in the pei which, by the rules, makes the chirik malei and the sheva na' There is, however, one small point that makes me wonder. R' Aharon ben Asher who, for the last thousand years, has been called the accepted decision maker on correct spelling in Tana"kh seems to disagree. In perek 11 of his book Dikdukei Hat'amim he describes the sh'vaim before the otyot g'roniot inside a word, when they are na' and when nach. Included in his list of words where they are nach are laqkhu, barchu, Pinchas, zar'u, etc. IIRC, not all manuscripts have all the words and Pinchas might be omitted in some. It is possible that copiers of the words lists added or omitted. On the Mesorah sub-list it is known that I am anti-dikduk because it opens the way to change the fine points on Torah pronunciation to match its rules. Among these "improvements" was the changing of many internal sh'vaim in words from nach to na'. What enabled this to happen was the brilliant invention by R' Yosef Kimchi of the ten vowel, five pairs of malei and chaseir. This led to the rule that after malei the sh'va is na' and after chaseir it is nach. Ben Asher, in perek 10 notes that there are seven vowels in Hebrew. All of the masoretes also state this. If there aren't pairs of malei and chaseir, we've just lost the rule about the following sh'vaim. All this is not something new. Heidenheim in his comments on the Ein Hakorei of RYHB"Y (Shemini, just before sh'lishi) states that in the times of the kadmonim many sh'vaim that are now na'im were then nachim. He quotes (from Ibn Ezra?) that kol sh'va b'ot rafah shekadam lo echad mishiv'at ham'lakhim hu nach ki halashon ha-ivrit kasha la r'difat shalosh t'nu'ot...except for double letters and some words with groniot. So how should I lein on Shabbos? Oh, no problem, I'm not the bal-koire. bivrakha, David From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 05:21:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:21:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kesher Message-ID: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little farfetched 1) knot 2) connection 3) conspiracy -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 06:18:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 09:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> In various places in dovening, kaddish etc we find the loshon - ..v'imru amen. Simply understood this is something only said by a sh'ztibur, as an announcement by the sh'ztibur that the congregation sh answer amen. In some cases, a yachid says it (ie Kiddush hachodesh, etc) probably bc we are saying something that originally was said by the sh'ztibur. What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? Who are we saying v'imru amen to? And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). Because the silent SE is not a carbon copy of the sh'ztibur version (for instance - no elokai netzor, SE of fast days are diff, etc) Mordechai Cohen mcohen at touchlogic.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:09:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 10:09:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper : connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little : farfetched : 1) knot : 2) connection : 3) conspiracy Interestingly, the noun doesn't show in chumash. As an adjective, we have hamuqsharos/im, to describe which of the tzon Yaaqov received (30:41-42). Rashi quotes the Targum, "habechiros" and cites two pesuqim in Shemuel II pereq 15. To round out the list: About Yaaqov (again) and Yoseif, "venafsho qesurah benafsho." Also the string tied on Zarach's hand, and tefillin (x2). Those are all the occurances of the shoresh. BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. Conspiracy comes up in #2, "league together, conspire". It would seem they conjecture the word comes from the collaboration, and less so what they're connecting to eachother to plan against something. They also cite "vatiqasheir kol-hachimah" in Nechemiah 3:35, where one would not readily picture "tying together" parts as a metaphor. I understand why Rashi thought the translation in Bereishis 30 is unique enough to require comment, but not how it fits altogether. (Rashi says it does, not how.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:08:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 14:08:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Pinechas vs Pinchas In-Reply-To: <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> References: , <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1436278092269.69769@ou.org> It should be noted that how Pinechas was read according to the Masorah is not really relevant to the way it was pronounced as a name. Pinchas is a Yiddish name (to be sure, with its roots in Hebrew), and is pronounced without a het and without a sh'wa. Its pronunciation in Hebrew is no more relevant than is the proper pronunciation of the word gannav (theif) in the T'NaKh to the pronunciation of the Yiddish word ganef. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union 11 Broadway, New York, NY 10004 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:22:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 17:22:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> References: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper >: connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little >: farfetched >: 1) knot >: 2) connection >: 3) conspiracy ... > BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary > meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. and what is the connection to a knot (the origin of the question was a dvar torah on the knots of tsizit) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 09:03:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:03:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: References: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150707160302.GA10745@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 05:22:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :>: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings... : ... :> BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary :> meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. : and what is the connection to a knot : (the origin of the question was a dvar torah on the knots of tsizit) Well, tzitzis knots less so, but knots generally bind two strings or two ends of a string together, no? Tzitzis knots are somewhat more like the example from Nechemiah. If qesher includes "batiqashar kol-hachomah", perhaps it also it includes binding pesilim into a gedil. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 14:44:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 17:44:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam, Moreh Nevuchim (2:29), A Strange Passage about Miracles Message-ID: <559C4830.9030705@gmail.com> In Moreh Nevuchim, 2:29, the Rambam seems to disparage a talmudical position about miracles that he had endorsed in his prior works (Commentary on Avos 5:6 and Shmoneh Perakim chapter 8). This, despite the fact that in the Moreh, he refers the reader to these former works to understand his position about miracles. And to further confuse matters, in the Moreh itself, within just a few sentences, he goes on to laud the proponent of that very positionfor maintaining it! The position is that already during the Creation week, G-d instilled, in objects and forces of nature, the potential for the aberrant behaviors that He would unleash when appropriate. (I.e. the aberrant behaviors were not changes G-d first decided upon, created and imposed upon things at the time the miracles were witnessed.) The Moreh Nevuchim introduces the concept with the words: "Our Sages said things zarrim m'od as regards miracles." "zarrim m'od" is Ibn Tibbon's Hebrew translation. Narboni and Schwartz use the similar "muzarrim, and likewise, Friedlander and Pines, in their English translations, translate, "very strange." KPCH translates, "temuhim" (astonishing). They all seem to indicate that the Rambam shunned the idea. Yet, as I noted, just a few sentences later, the Rambam lauds the Tanna who expressed the thought: [T]his text...demonstrates the [high] level of the speaker, and its being very difficult in his eyes that Nature could change after Creation, or that G-d's Will would change after it had been established. He therefore reasons, for example, that G-d instilled, in the nature of Water, the [property of] sticking together and always flowing in a downward direction, except for that time in which the Egyptians would drown in them; those specific waters would split. I have already enlightened you as to the main idea of the [talmudic] statement [KPCH in a footnote sees this as a reference to the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah and Shemoneh Perakim], and that it is all meant to flee from [the idea that, after Creation, G-d would bring about] the new creation of anything. It says there: R. Yonathan said, G-d placed stipulations on the sea, that it should divide before the Israelites. Thus it says, "And the sea returned, when the morning appeared, l'ay-sa-no [to its strength, or to its stipulated nature]"(Sh'mos 14:27). R. Yiremiyah ben Elazar said: Not only with the sea did the Holy One, blessed be He, place stipulations, but with all that has been created in the six days of Creation. "My hands stretched out the heavens, and all their hosts I commanded" (Yishayahu 45:12): I commanded the sea that it will divide, the fire that it should not harm Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, and the lions that they should not harm Daniel, and the fish that it should spit out Jonah." The same is to be applied to all the other miracles. The surprising solution to this problem is really quite simple. I noticed that in Moreh 1:70 (p. 106 in the classic version, line 2), Pines translates a certain phrase as "strange but true."But both Ibn Tibbon and Schwartz translate it, "ha-inyanim ha-mufla-os ha-n'chonos, ("matters wondrous but true/correct"). Hmmm. One Arabic scholar translates a word as "strange," while others translate it as "wondrous." I began to sense how the same word could be used both ways, and I suspected it might also be the same word as in our passage in 2:29. Without mentioning my problem about the Rambam's self-contradiction (to keep the issue unbiased), I asked R. Yakov Wincelberg, translator of Avraham ben HaRambam's Sefer HaMaspik from Arabic to English, what the actual Arabic word there is, and if it's the same word in our passage in 2:29. Here is his reply: In both cases, the word griva is used. It doesn't mean specifically "weird," but something that stands out. It could be: extraordinary, wondrous, amazing, rare, peculiar, uncommon, obscure, etc. It even is used for emigrating from one's country, as one is separating from the people. In other words, the word means "outstanding." So, true, one tends to understand the translation "zar" or "strange" to be meant in the sense of "weird," or "foreign," indicating that in the Moreh the Rambam considered the "front-loaded" miracle an idea to be shunned--contra the Gemora, his Avos commentary, and his Shemoneh Perakim. But the simpler truth is that the Rambam consistently endorsed this view, and considered it to be an outstanding one. One need only realize that Ibn Tibbon titles his dictionary of unfamiliar philosophical terms,appended to his Moreh Nevuchim translation, "Payrush Me'Hamillot Zarot," The word Zar indicates something unfamiliar, but not necessarily "strange" in the sense of "weird." And it can also mean something that is wondrous and true. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 17:01:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 20:01:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher Message-ID: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little farfetched 1) knot 2) connection 3) conspiracy -- Eli Turkel >>>> The deeper connection is -- connection! All the words formed from this shoresh are words that have "connecting" as their basic meaning. In Edward Horowitz's fascinating and entertaining book, "How the Hebrew Language Grew," he has a chapter on how sounds made in the same part of the mouth sometimes interchange to form words with similar or closely related meanings. One example he gives is the word kesher, and the related word gesher -- a bridge, which connects two places, two sides of a river, two sides of a road and so on. Keshes, a rainbow, is something like a bridge connecting two parts of the sky. Another example of these interconnected words (this one I've also seen in the Hirsch commentary on Chumash) is the word "tsachak" to laugh, to which a number of other words are related in a phonetic way: Change the ches to an ayin and you get "tsa'ak." Both tsachak and tsa'ak involve emitting loud sounds -- sounds of mirth or of alarm or distress. (Ches and ayin are both formed in the back of the throat.) Change the tsadi to a sin and instead of "tsachak" to laugh you get "sachak" to be happy, to rejoice. (Tsadi and sin are both sibilants.) Going back to the word tsa'ak, if you now change the tsadi to a zayin you again get a closely related word, "za'ak." And if you take the word "tsa'ir" (young) and change the tsadi to a zayin you get "za'ir" small. Change the sin of saraf to a tsadi and instead of burning (saraf) you get refining (tsaraf) gold or silver -- which is done through heat. Change the zayin of "zahav" to a tsadi and instead of gold you get "tzahov," the color yellow. Horowitz points out that these kinds of phonetic relationships can also be found in English, Latin and other languages, but nevertheless I find it especially fascinating to trace these connections in Lashon Hakodesh. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 02:42:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 09:42:27 GMT Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen Message-ID: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. > Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? > Who are we saying v'imru amen to? > > And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the > same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end of Birkas Hamazon. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett???s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren???t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/559cf0b42988970b45addst03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 02:09:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 02:09:57 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:18 AM, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: > In various places in dovening, kaddish etc we find the loshon - ..v'imru > amen. .. > What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. > Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? > Who are we saying v'imru amen to? I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish. SE took on the whole paragraph "Oseh Shalom ... ve'imru amen" from the end of Kaddish, and Kaddish took on the three steps backwards from the end of SE (which makes sense for the STz's Kaddish Titkabbal at the end of the repetition, but not so much in all other kaddishim) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 06:30:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 09:30:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <559D2610.8060803@sero.name> On 07/08/2015 05:42 AM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > >> What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. >> Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? >> Who are we saying v'imru amen to? >> >> And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the >> same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). > > The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end of Birkas Hamazon. Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even when there's a zimun. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 08:04:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:04:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> References: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150708150424.GA8908@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 08:01:24PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : In Edward Horowitz's fascinating and entertaining book, "How the Hebrew : Language Grew," he has a chapter on how sounds made in the same part of the : mouth sometimes interchange to form words with similar or closely related : meanings... Also in RSRH's fascinating and entertaining commentary on the Pentateuch and a couple of places in CW and elsewhere. : Another example of these interconnected words (this one I've also seen in : the Hirsch commentary on Chumash)... See https://books.google.com/books?id=eVAAfn6Itb4C (The real one; the google preview skips all of your examples.) Etymological Dictionary of Biblcal Hebrew: Based on the Commentaries of Samson Raphael Hirsch by Matityahu Clark This is a central part of RSRH's exegesis. I once went through much of Bereishis and Shemos documenting which letters RSRH considers related enough to qualify as likely to be part of the same phonetic meta-root. I ended up with the following chart (readable only in fixed-width-font, eg Courier): geroniot velar dental dento-lingual labial h,ch q | s,sh tes | alef k | tz tav | b ayin g | z d | p n ------------- m r --------------------------------- l y ------------------------------------- v Letters in the same column are phonetically related (eg hei and aleg) Vertical lines separate into pairs (eg zayin and dalet, but not dalet and pei nor tzadi and dalet [paired coumns, different rows]). The pairs are lingual/velar (use tongue) vs not. Horizontal lines connect the nasals (mem and nun), the approximants (lamd and reish) and the semivowels (yud and vav). The unvoiced letters are all in the top two rows. Notice how hei-ches and shin/sin-samech fall into parallel positions, and bege"d kefe"t into the same two rows. I stopped my analysis when I had gone dozens of peraqim without needing to change the chart any. Lost interest. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 08:12:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:12:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> Message-ID: <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:09:57AM -0700, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, : but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence : between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish... You might have seen it on-list in Apr or Dec 2006, offered by RPMinden. RSBA offered a different explanation: > Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, Likutei Maharich, RS Schwab, Boruch She'omar all > say that we are whispering to the Malochim - that accompany a person all > the time. [Maybe 'oseh sholom BIMEROMOV' indicates this?] The earliest > source seems to be Mateh Moshe - which some cite. > The OH also brings a nusach - IIRC - Machzor [or Siddur] Roma - that > indeed does not include the 'Ve'imru Omein' at the end of SE. RPM believes it was a post-facto explanation, giving meaning to a pratice that really originated in error. See the subject line at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=T#TO%20WHOM%20ARE%20WE%20WHISPERING%20 and the 3 starting with http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=V#VIMRU%20AMEN in the archive index. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 11:33:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 14:33:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: In Avodah V33n96, RAM referred repeatedly to "Kaddish Yasom" -- I think at least some of his questions might be answered once we understand that (a) what he called "Kaddish Yasom" is actually the Qaddish (Shaleim, but without the "tisqaba[i]l" phrase) said by the SHaTZ at the end of davening, at some point in our history given over to children (eventually/or to *y'somim*) who could not be SHaTZ (see http://www.beureihatefila.com/files/Introduction_to_Mourners_Kaddish.pdf); and that (b) Qaddish is said after the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim or other K'suvim. As for Kiddush L'vana (KL), indeed Minhag Ashk'naz did not include "Aleinu" -- as was noted, the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim at the end of KL (similar to doing so after Shacharis and after [Mincha/]Ma'ariv, and similar to when a *seifer* from K'suvim was read) was followed by Qaddish (in the Roedelheim, those chapters are 121, 150, and 67, not just 67) -- and KL not being a *t'filas tzibbur* does not impact upon the saying of Qaddish (although obviously, a *minyan* is required for any *davar shebiq'dusha*). HTH :). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 02:40:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 02:40:50 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:09:57AM -0700, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > : I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, > : but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence > : between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish... > > You might have seen it on-list in Apr or Dec 2006, offered by RPMinden. > My memory was correct as to the attribution, though I garbled the content a bit. It's on page 48 of the Birnbaum siddur, in the notes to the Kaddish deRabbanan after Korbanot: "/Oseh Shalom/, which repeats in Hebrew the thought expressed in the preceding Aramaic paragraph, seems to have been added from the meditation recited at the end of the /Shemoneh Esreh/. The same sentence is also added at the end of the grace recited after meals. The three steps backwards, which formed the respectful manner of retiring from a superior, were likewise transferred from the concluding sentence of the /Shemoneh Esreh/. On the other hand, the phrase "and say Amen", added at the end of the silent meditation after the /Shemoneh Esreh/, must have been borrowed from the Kaddish which is always recited in the hearing of no fewer than ten men." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 08:53:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:53:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reciting a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time Message-ID: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> http://tinyurl.com/o6rxcdf according to those that say you do NOT recite a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time (ie bar mitzvah), why is it different than all the places where we DO recite a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah not done in a long time? (ie lulav, shofar, megila, etc) Thanks, mc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 13:27:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 20:27:55 GMT Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen Message-ID: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> I wrote: > The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end > of Birkas Hamazon. R' Zev Sero responded: > Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, > with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively > recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even > when there's a zimun. But we've *always* benched as individuals when there *isn't* a zimun. But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that originally, Oseh Shalom was part of benching only when a zimun was present, and then for some reason came to be said even by individuals. If that is indeed what happened, I can't help but speculate that there was an even earlier time, when benching with a zimun would include Oseh Shalom at that point, but benching with a *minyan* would include Kaddish at that point! Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55a02add2581a2add0f3dst01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 16:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <55A05668.1080404@sero.name> On 07/10/2015 04:27 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: >> >Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, >> >with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively >> >recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even >> >when there's a zimun. > But we've*always* benched as individuals when there*isn't* a zimun. Benching is designed for a zimun. It's normal to eat in a group. But even when there were only two eating, or when a family ate together, I think the usual thing was for one person to bench and the other person (or the wife and children) to listen and say amen. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 08:42:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush L'vana (was "Kaddish Yasom") Message-ID: In Avodah v33n97, I wrote: > As for Kiddush L'vana (KL), indeed Minhag Ashk'naz did not include "Aleinu" -- as was noted, the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim at the end of KL...was followed by Qaddish...-- and KL not being a *t'filas tzibbur* does not impact upon the saying of Qaddish.... < Just wanted to add that (a) For the record, I don't recall Qaddish being said at the end of KL at KAJ/"Breuer's" (and the MMA Siddur Tefilas Yeshurun instructs not to say either "Aleinu" or Qaddish at the end of Bircas haL'vana), even when there was evidently more than a quorum of men (gathered to be *m'qabeil p'nei haShchina b'rov-am*) on the front steps or sidewalk of the Shul -- whether or not Qaddish should be said (and what the precise parameters are) in that circumstance (not a *t'filas tzibbur*; not in a *maqom t'fila*) was not central to the overall points I was trying to make; and (b) for consistency, it's QL, not KL :). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 11:30:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:30:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pinchas Message-ID: > > > BTW, my grandfather a"h was named Pinechas after this week's sedra, > his bar mitzvah parashah. When it was time to name my oldest, I checked > with my uncle how his name appeared on their kesuvah, as their mesader > qiddushin was a key rav in my grandfather's life. (R/Dr Mirsky zt"l met > two teenage boys coming off the boat and took them under his wing. My > grandfather and great-uncle then earned enough to bribe the rest of the > family's way out of Litta before the Nazis came to power.) > > Anyway, it seems R/Dr Mirsky held my grandfather's name was Pinechas, > pei-yud-nun-ches-samekh, as it is spelled in the chumash (ignoring the > size of the yud as usually written in the beginning of the parashah). > And thus the sheva is na, Pinechas - not Pinchas. > > If you want to make a derashah out of a Mitzri name, it's Pi Nachas, > not Pen Chas. > > Reason for this tangent... I would have expected "Gushies" to get the > sheva in the parashah name right. After all, they have the patach under > the reish in Parashat. > > Way behind in reading. However, Aharon Ben Asher, in Dikduke Hate'amim, specifically lists the sheva in Pinchas (with a yud) as being a sheva nach, so the "Gushies" have on whom to rely.. Meir Shinnar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 11:39:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:39:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: > On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:20:08PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: > : On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. > > : Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a > : moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is > : the purpose to make things even worse? > > As I quoted from RAK, because they classically were not considered > chuqim. Until our contemporaries took the issue from sexual morality > to sexual ethics, these truths were considered self-evident. It's the > choqification of dinei arayos that's inauthentic. > > In any case, since one doesn't pasqen from taamei hamitzvos, the din > is the same either way. Nothhing in such exploration can "make things > even worse". > > In Shmona prakim, the rambam seems to take the opposite view - trying to reconcile the view that having a desire to sin is a sign of moral failing, and that the overcoming of desire is a sign o f greatness - he argues that to desire to sin is problematic in hamefursamot - but NOT in those forbidden only for religious reasons - and he specifically applies that to arayot - and needs to apply it to arayot, because the sugyot that deal with kol hagadol mechavero yitzro gadol mimenu - specifically apply to arayot. One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT self evident or even mefursamot Meir Shinnar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 11:10:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 20:10:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out Message-ID: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> In SA OH 272:1 the Mechabeir writes that one shouldn't use wine left out for kiddush (or any type of mitzvah adds the Aruch HaShulchan). The problem isn't gi'loi'im but the pasuk in Malachi 1:8 which teaches us not to use Grade B products for mitzvot. The assumption is that wine left out goes bad (or gets worse) and therefore it can't be used for qiddush. My question is what does one do if you thinking allowing wine to breath for hours improves the taste? That's been my experience for years. If I open a bottle Friday evening, the wine definitely tastes better Saturday morning. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 12:14:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 15:14:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> On 07/13/2015 02:10 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > In SA OH 272:1 the Mechabeir writes that one shouldn't use wine left out for kiddush (or any type of mitzvah adds the Aruch HaShulchan). The problem isn't gi'loi'im but the pasuk in Malachi 1:8 which teaches us not to use Grade B products for mitzvot. The assumption is that wine left out goes bad (or gets worse) and therefore it can't be used for qiddush. > > My question is what does one do if you thinking allowing wine to breath for hours improves the taste? That's been my experience for years. If I open a bottle Friday evening, the wine definitely tastes better Saturday morning. It depends what kind of wine. Some wines definitely improve with a few hours' breathing. The criterion is "hakriveihu no lefechasecho"; *would* you serve this to an honoured guest who is used to drinking quality wine? If it's a wine that needs the time to aerate then you certainly would, and in fact you wouldn't think of serving it to him *without* that time. OTOH this would preclude making kiddush at all on Manishewitz, no matter how "fresh" it is. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 20:18:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 05:18:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> Message-ID: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? Did they not know that allowing wine to breath improves the taste, at least for a decent red wine (which is the type of wine they think we should be drinking)? Ben On 7/13/2015 9:14 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > It depends what kind of wine. Some wines definitely improve with a > few hours' breathing. The criterion is "hakriveihu no lefechasecho"; > *would* you serve this to an honoured guest who is used to drinking > quality wine? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 19:34:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 22:34:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20150714023419.GA18963@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 05:18:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and : others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? Because Shapiro's wine is "So thick you could cut it with a knife" as that billboard we'd pass driving to Boro Park used to advertise. Whereas you're talkng about a finer wine as vitners and frenchmen measure. Different products with totally different definitions of what is "good". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 21:48:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:48:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55A4949B.8090308@sero.name> On 07/13/2015 11:18 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and > others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? > Did they not know that allowing wine to breath improves the taste, at > least for a decent red wine (which is the type of wine they think we > should be drinking)? First of all, most good wines shouldn't breathe for very long. Second, their wine was generally pretty awful by our standards; bad enough that it needed watering to make it palatable. They used wild yeast, they had no pasteurization, and it was all they could do to stop it all turning into vinegar. I wonder how much damage could exposure possibly do to wine that bad, but I seriously doubt it could improve it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 14:11:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 17:11:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Timely Notes for the Summer Message-ID: <20150714211025.9203118356A@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from an article by Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer, ZT"L, that appeared in the Mitteilungen, Vol. 2, June 1941 Timely Notes for the Summer Can the heat of summer be termed ?oppressive?? That is surely something that is individual. If we think of the terribly oppressive times a large number of our brethren are going through, we will gladly tolerate the discomforts of summer and rather bless our good fortune to be spared such pain. Many of our newly immigrated brothers and sisters are struggling with heavy economic burdens, and only the few can afford the much desired relaxing rest. We are pleased for those who can afford a vacation and expect that they will carefully select, as far as the trustworthiness of its kashrus, the place where they plan to spend their vacation. Obviously, they will not want to take a vacation from the ?yoke of the Law.? They want to return home, hale and hearty, and not with a feeling of unease for having risked their moral values in exchange for physical wellbeing. The heat of summer calls for changes in clothing and appearance. The conscientious Jew will carefully keep to certain limits, which he will not overstep. Our Divine Law cautions us to have a sense of shame, and that applies to summer as well. The Jewish custom ?according to the Talmud ?requires men and boys to cover their heads outdoors. God gave the first garment to man when he forfeited his special standing by disregarding the Will of God.Modest covering of his body is to be a steady reminder of the higher calling of man. Jewish men were given the adornment of tzitzis to admonish them to wear their clothes as proper Jews. Even in the summer heat, our requirements for covering can easily be heeded with lighter clothing. Comfort will not cause us to shirk our duty. A soldier?s helmet is uncomfortably heavy, but he wears it because it is required; God?s requirement should not be heeded? As for the Jewish woman, Jewish law requires her to cover her hair. The true Jewish woman will proudly do so, for it is a sign of her willingness to adhere to God?s Will as the guide in her life. A woman unworthy of this sign will have it removed forcibly by the priest (Bemidbar 5:18). Covering one?s hair is merely a sign if a woman does not conduct herself otherwise in the properly Jewish manner. Similarly, there are Jewish men who bear the Milah-sign on their bodies but sully their bodies in other ways. Not covering one?s hair is probably ? we are sorry to say ? a matter of ignorance, and perhaps such a Jewish woman was not brought up to understand the importance of covering her hair. Many women may carefully observe their Jewish duties in other areas, and we would so much like to adorn them with this special crown also. For the fact remains: covering of the hair for the Jewish woman is a must. The proud Jewish woman will conduct herself Jewishly in her clothing and in covering her hair. The word Tznius is a Jewish concept that is hard to translate exactly. It does not only denote a ?quietly humble way of living? (Michah 6:8), but everything else that our people has so valued and esteemed in their Jewish women at all times. ?quietly humble way of living? (Michah 6:8), but everything else that our people has so valued and esteemed in their Jewish women at all times. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 02:01:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 05:01:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Star-K on the Heter Mechira Message-ID: <20150715090047.2F7EB1824C9@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-shmitta-5775.htm Who Owns The Land? There is a difference of opinion among the poskim as to whether produce grown on land owned by a non-Jew living in the Land of Israel is considered produce of sheviis. The custom in Yerushalayim is not to consider it produce of sheviis, while the custom in Bnei Brak is to consider it produce of sheviis. Selling The Land: The Heter Mechira was formulated and instituted by many very prominent rabbanim (including the Gadol Hador, Harav Yitzchok Elchanan Spector) in the year 1887. There was a great deal of controversy among other prominent rabbanim surrounding the heter, the foremost of whom was the Netziv (Harav Naftoli Zvi Yehuda Berlin) of Volozin. Most of the controversy centered around the problem regarding the Torah prohibition of selling any part of the Land of Israel to non-Jews. Those who proposed the heter claimed that the situation in the Land of Israel was so precarious that not working the land for an entire year would put the entire Jewish settlement in danger, thus warranting this drastic measure. Others claimed that the prohibition of selling the land was worse than the prohibition of working the land. Since then, every Shmitta there have been rabbanim who have sold the land. Harav Avraham Yitzchok Kook institutionalized the sale (although he, too, agreed it was to be done only under grave duress). Since it's inception, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel has sold the land every Shmitta. However, there are presently many rabbanim who question whether the current situation in Israel warrants this type of sale. Furthermore, there is another more serious problem the consumer faces. The produce that is sold in the regular stores during the year of Shmitta predominantly comes from non-religious kibbutzim and moshavim, who would never agree to sell their land. This is compounded by the fact that the non-religious kibbutzim do not observe those prohibitions which Harav Kook instituted, and Harav Kook never permitted their current practices. Certainly, a tourist who is not knowledgeable concerning the dinim of Shmitta should buy produce only from stores that do not rely upon the heter mechira. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 03:18:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 06:18:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. Whether MZ is well known or not aside, even "kemaaseh Eretz Mitzrayim" (at least the male half of it) is described in the gemara as pretty well known -- it's on Ulla's list of 3 dinim of the 30 mitzvos Benei Noach (which rishonim map to subcategories of the usual 7) that Benei Noach generally observe -- "she'in kosevin kesuvah lezekharim". In any case, I will leave the Rambam as a tzarikh iyun that only affects the lives of those who agree with him that understanding theology and/or metaphysics is the perfection we strive for in life, above perfection of virtue. (Moreh, conclusion, worthy of its own thread.) For that matter, most of us also diagree with the Rambam on whether a person is judged by the level reached or by the distance covered. Without agreeing on either of those two points, it's likely one wouldn't agree with the Rambam's pesaq here. His view of the role of of bringing one's desire in line with a mitzvah will necessarily come from a different place. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 03:32:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 06:32:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Herzl In-Reply-To: <17e71f.7a1031b7.42d6e65d@aol.com> References: <17e71f.7a1031b7.42d6e65d@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150715103208.GD4654@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 06:25:33PM -0400, RnTK wrote on Areivim: : My comment was facetious -- a little dig at those MO who apparently do : believe that Herzl, Golda Meir and Ben Gurion were gedolim. R' AE Kaplan wrote very highly of Theodore Herzl. RAEK predeceased the accompilshments of the other two. To quote RYGB's translation (from BeIqvos haYir'ah pg 85): He [Herzl] did not teach us Torah... because he was never taught Torah... He taught us, rather, to say two words [four words in English] on occasions that until he came we had neither dared nor been able to utter: "I am a Jew [Ivri]!" We were always able to recite these words in the Beis Medrash next to our shtenders, we were even capable of reading and writing them... We could declare ourselves a nation in any place we wanted, except in that one place where the nations of the world were... to be found - in the international political arena. There we were seen as wandering sheep, like one Telzer (Yehuda Leib Gordon [22]) once put it: "Not a nation, not a congregation, rather a flock." Not like sheep that are petted and fed, but like those that are shorn or slaughtered. When a European ruler asked a Jew: "Who are you?" Would he respond simply: "I am a Jew" - without any qualifications or explanations? He would answer: I am a Jew - but also German, also French, also English, etc. Along came Herzl, the first from among us to reach that international political arena that serves as a world court, and responded, openly, freely, effortlessly and guilelessly: "I am a Jew." Moreover: "I was stolen from the land of the Jews [Eretz HaIvrim], and here I have done nothing, for they placed me in the pit" [Bereishis 40:15]. The Jewish nation is a nation unto itself, like all other nations, indeed, it is special, and it possesses a unique life force that sustains it... Do you not sense the hidden workings of divine providence? I know that just as the rejuvenation of Jewish national spirit had to come, so will finally come, in the unseen future, the rejuvenation of our Torah spirit... We do not see the paths, we do not see the footsteps, but I know... that I must strive toward this. And G-d who returns to Tziyon [Zion] will return us also to Torah MiTziyon... [23] [22] The most prominent Hebrew poet of the nineteenth century and a notorious Maskil, Gordon was generally known by his acronym, YaLaG, that, in a play on words, would be pronounced by Orthodox Jews as "yil'ag," the Hebrew word for "scoffer." [23] Besides his essays on Hashkafa, Reb Avraham Elya also left many "Reshimos," short notes on topics in Mussar, Machashava, and Avodas Hashem, some of which are beautiful vignettes of life lived in a Torah true and Mussar suffused way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 02:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 05:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Secular Studies: Are They for Everyone? Message-ID: <20150715092755.A05BB1824E7@nexus.stevens.edu> From the article by Rabbi Mordechai Willig at http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/%2FTU1_Willig.pdf Are secular studies permissible for everyone when they are necessary to provide for a livelihood? The answer is: for almost everyone. To summarize, then, for purpose of parnasah, secular studies are allowed for almost everyone. If it is not for parnasah, it is permissible, and sometimes even a mitzvah to learn various disciplines, providing that such study is considered of secondary importance, both in terms of time and value for, above all, Torah must always be the Ekir. Please see the above URL for the entire article. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 07:56:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:56:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Confronting sexual abuse in the Jewish community Message-ID: <> Can you give a place in shas or SA where the punishment of a crime accounts for the pain to the family If someone deserves the death penalty (there is no jail in halacha) as far as I know the bet din does not take into account that the family who are innocent will also be punished. If someone is sent to "ir miklat" the yeshiva goes with him, we don't remove the punishment because it affects the whole community -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:33:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian Message-ID: During a recent discussion with a friend the following two questions came up and I am curious what the fellows of Avodah think. 1) Can one count someone who denies the historicity of *matan torah* and *yetzias mitzrayim* but is other completely *shomer torah u-mitzvos* for a *minyan*? There is an halakhic category of *mumar l?hachis* who cannot count for a *minyan* according to many *poskim*. But that is on the assumption that they are violating *halakhah*. If they are not violating halakhah, can they be counted in a *minyan*? 2) Does one fulfill their shofer blowing from hearing the shofar be blown by someone denies the historicity of *matan torah* and *yetzias mitzrayim*? We assume that *mitzvos tzerichos kavvanah*. So this individual intends to fulfill the mitzvah of blowing the shofar on Rosh ha-Shanah. However, his conception of the nature of *mitzvos* and commandedness is extremely untraditional. Personally, I am inclined to include this individual in a minyan and assume that one fulfills the mitzvah of shofar with his blowing. But my conception of halakha flows from R. Dr. Walter Wurzburger?s *zy?a* belief that halakhah is a floor and not a ceiling. In other words, we do not make the bar for basic fulfillment of halakhah obligations higher if one could avoid it. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:32:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:32:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> References: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 6:18 AM Micha Berger wrote: > Lo zakhisi lehavin: > It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss > aren't mefursamot. > > Whether MZ is well known or not aside, even "kemaaseh Eretz Mitzrayim"... > In any case, I will leave the Rambam as a tzarikh iyun that only affects > the lives of those who agree with him that understanding theology and/or > metaphysics is the perfection we strive for in life, above perfection > of virtue. (Moreh, conclusion, worthy of its own thread.) ... You are assuming the shmona prakim see relevant only to those who fully accept Rambam's philosophy -- and that is a very unique position. I think shmona prakim is studied by those who would never open the moreh Rambam argues that a lust to steal or murder is a character flaw -- the should be overcome -- but a lust for hazir or arayot is not a character flaw -- although it too should be overcome. Why that is dependent on his notions of the ultimate good, effort versus achievement, or mitzvot bne noach I don't see -- nor do I think most others me that connection.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:55:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:55:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150715155517.GC31352@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 03:32:08PM +0000, Meir Shinnar wrote: : You are assuming the shmona prakim see relevant only to those who fully : accept Rambam's philosophy -- and that is a very unique position... Nah, I'm just surmising that the two may be linked. If your notion of redemption revolves around ideas and the thirst for knowledge, then developing something like like-vs-dislike is a different topic than if your notion of personal redemption is "sheyehei adir cheftzeinu leheitiv im zulaseinu... bedemus haBorei, keveyakhol." (Bonus points for the first person to identify the reference. ) So not that 8 Peraqim are only relevent to followers of the Rambam's point, just that this particular point, and perhaps a couple to a few others, may be of limited utility to the rest of us. (8 Peraqim, BTW, is one of my more heavily used resources when teaching for The Mussar Institute.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 12:49:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:49:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55A6B95E.6090302@starways.net> On 7/15/2015 10:33 AM, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: > 1)Can one count someone who denies the historicity of /matan > torah/ and /yetzias mitzrayim/ but is other completely /shomer > torah u-mitzvos/ for a /minyan/? I think there's a difference between someone who denies Matan Torah and someone who expresses doubts. The former, I'd treat no differently than someone who denies God, because for the purposes of Judaism, they're not separable. We asked our mesader kiddushin (years ago) what we should do about those family members who didn't believe in God. He said that if they'd openly denied God's existence, we could not give them sheva brachot, because we couldn't be yotzei on a bracha by someone who doesn't believe in God. He didn't say anything at all about observance. A lot of people focus on Rambam's ikkarim, and whether or not we're bound by them, but the concept of being kofer ba-ikkar predates Rambam by centuries. The existence of God and the historical fact of Matan Torah are, by any reasonable assessment, the most basic ikkarim of Judaism. Absent either of these, what's left isn't Judaism. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 19:47:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:47:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150716024705.GE13610@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:33:13AM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : 1) Can one count someone who denies the historicity of *matan torah* : and *yetzias mitzrayim* but is other completely *shomer torah u-mitzvos* : for a *minyan*? : : There is an halakhic category of *mumar l'hachis* who cannot count for a : *minyan* according to many *poskim*. But that is on the assumption that : they are violating *halakhah*. If they are not violating halakhah, can they : be counted in a *minyan*? I don't know if we hold like the Rambam, but Hil' Teshuvah ch. 3 is the only discussion of the categories of heresy I know of. A min is an atheist or polytheist, a trinitarian, etc... (3:7) An apiqoreis, the category in the title, is defined with a list of theological errors. It's someone who, like Epicurus, denies that Hashem runs the world. A Deist, someone who denies prophecy, or that He doesn't know man's actions. (3:8) Leshitaso, someone who doesn't believe in the historicity of Torah miSinai would be a kofer baTorah. (ibid) A mumar is a consistent sinner (ledavar achas, lekhol haTorah kulah), not a heretic. {3.9) Then the machti'ei rabbim (10), poreish midarkei hatzibur (11), moserim (12), and one who terrorizes the community -- not lehsim shamayim (13). That list -- 3 kinds of heretic and 5 kinds of sinners -- lose their olam haba, if they die without teshuvah (3:14). And then he says there are also smaller ones that still carry a similar price. Anyway, R' Aharon Soloveitchik held that "nebich an apiqoreis" (not using the term in the Rambam's technical sense) can be counted for a minyan. As long as his beliefs include those ideas that make tefillah meaningful. So a min couldn't, nor an apiqoreis who believes G-d doesn't know every little thing going on down here. (This was a common idea among Artistotilian, although obviosuly not among ours. Since facts change with time, and the Creator does not, how could the Creator know such facts? Would that mean His knowledge changes?) But a tinoq shenishba (by which RAL intentionally includes Jews not raised O) who doesn't believe in Sinai, but does believe that there is One G-d Who Listens to prayer and is Mashgiach, should be countable. Not because their heresy makes them heretics and thus michutz lamachaneh. But because they are incapable of prayer. RAS didn't discuss the person who isn't a tinoq shenishba, but also not a rebal. Someone who grew up in a Torah setting, but in his studies reached the wrong conclusion. The Tashbetz and the Radbaz (eearly 16th cent CE, not the Ridbaz who wrote on the Y-mi) famously hold that such people are not heetics even if they believe heresy. (As least on the list list it's famous, anyeay.) I just can't assume RAS agrees without proof. RAL also doesn't discuss a Deist who believes G-d Hears prayers, but won't act any differently. Can he make a brikhas hoda'ah, but not a baqashah? Since prayer is not al menas leqabel peras, do we even make baqashos for the sake of gettin a "yes", or just to have a moment with Him talking about what is bothering you? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 16 07:01:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:01:37 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Confronting sexual abuse in the Jewish community Message-ID: <20150716.100137.31633.0@webmail13.vgs.untd.com> I wrote on Areivim: > Of course it is important to protect future victims, but that is > not the only consideration here. What about the fallout to the > family of the victim, to the family of the perpetrator, and to > the community as a whole? (For those who have not been following on Areivim: Personally, I am all in favor of protecting the victims, but I know that my opinions might be heavily influenced by the society in which I live. My suggestion is that our chachamim are the only ones qualified to decide on any particular case, whether it might be better to whitewash an incident, so that the family and/or community are not hurt by the publicity.) R' Eli Turkel responded here on Avodah: > Can you give a place in shas or SA where the punishment of a > crime accounts for the pain to the family > If someone deserves the death penalty (there is no jail in > halacha) as far as I know the bet din does not take into > account that the family who are innocent will also be > punished. > If someone is sent to "ir miklat" the yeshiva goes with him, > we don't remove the punishment because it affects the whole > community These are excellent points. But then I must ask: Haven't there been times and situations when legitimate gedolim have paskened to hush things up because of other considerations? Would someone say that all such cases come from gedolim whose outlook is NOT Torah-based? I wish I could cite specific examples for discussion. Unfortunately, my knowledge of such things is far too limited. But surely this attitude must have come from somewhere, and did not materialize from nothingness. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett???s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren???t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55a7b984d1f883984538est04vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 18 13:49:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 22:49:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on Exercise Message-ID: <55AABBF3.2070100@zahav.net.il> Rav Kook's opinion about exercise and sport had been brought up here before. I quoted him as saying that physical activity helps the tzaddikim in their avodah. In the class I go to on Orot, we discussed the following piece by R Kook, which goes way further than that. Keep in mind that this was written before there was an IDF, so he isn't talking about any sort of physical protection. Orot, Orot Hatechiya, 34: Exercise, (which young Israel is getting involved in, in Eretz Yisrael, to strengthen their bodies in order to be vigorous for the nation), improves the spiritual strength of the greatest tzaddikim, those who involve themselves in "the unification of God's names" (my translation of a phrase which I admit I don't get), and increases the transmission of God's light in the world, because there is no revelation at all of light without all components being present. Turns out that (according to Rav Kook) not only does Talmud Torah increase the merits to the army/state/people, but just having people trying to be healthy, active, in shape, improves Talmud Torah, as long as both sides are doing this for the nation. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 18 17:09:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 03:09:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tefach Thick Soft Spongy Matza Message-ID: Many mistakenly think that we now have an accepted Halachic tradition, recorded in the Shulchan Aruch [460:5] to no longer bake Tefach thick Matza [10 - 12 cm] as in Talmudic times. This is untrue. The ShAruch records that Tefach thick Matza must not be Pesach. There is no problem whatsoever to produce such Matza Pesach and eat them during Pesach. The reason for this is quite simple; if one makes Chamets during Pesach, no matter that it was unintentional, one has transgressed the very serious violation of having Chamets - Bal YeRaEh and Bal YeMaTzeh. When making Tefach thick Matza the risk of inadvertently making Chamets because some dough in the Matza will remain unbaked, is [became] intolerable. However, baking the same thickness Matza before Pesach poses no concern. If it is Chamets, as can be discerned by tearing the Matza and checking for doughy stringy threads, then either eat it before Pesach or get rid of it. Whatever is fully baked however, is fine for Pesach. Compare the Mechabers expression, Seif 4 and 5, not to make images on the Matza; and not to make thick Matza - it is not done - ??? ?????; to his expression Seif 6, not to make dough filled with meat and veg - one ought not be lenient - ??? ????. One ought not be lenient - ??? ???? sounds more strict, as is supported by the MBerurah [18] suggesting that it is prohibited even after the fact, - whereas it is not done - ??? ????? implies it should not be done but after the fact, if it not Chamets it is Kosher and may be eaten during Pesach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 17 07:19:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 10:19:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Guten Chodesh (Though sad, still hope...) Message-ID: <0F8B8D71-82A7-4DB7-AFF4-740FDDA46D37@cox.net> The gematria for ?Rosh Chodesh" is 813. (reish:200, aleph:1, shin:300; ches:8, dalet:4, shin:300 ? Total=813) In the whole of tanach there is only one verse with the gematria of 813 which occurs in B?reishis, Chapter 1, verse 3: ?Vayomer Elohim ohr; vay?hi ohr? ?And God said: Let there be light and there was light.? May our mourning be turned into dancing (Ps.30:12) and may we live to see the light. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 00:55:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 10:55:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: heter mechira In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <> There are many inaccuracies in their statement and much is outdated. "The produce that is sold in the regular stores during the year of Shmitta predominantly comes from non-religious kibbutzim and moshavim, who would never agree to sell their land. " I have no idea what this statement means. They in fact do sell their land. The current situation in Israel is that the chief rabbinate sends people to each of these kibbutzim etc to explain to them what the heter mechira means and what are the other options. No one is forced to participate. "However, there are presently many rabbanim who question whether the current situation in Israel warrants this type of sale" The figures I have heard is that 85% of Israeli produce is exported (mainly to Europe). Without the heter mechira one would have to close down almost the entire agricultural development in Israel. In addition one is forbidden to sell produce with kedushat sheviit to nonJews. That would mean having guards at supermarkets checking that only Jews buy the produce "This is compounded by the fact that the non-religious kibbutzim do not observe those prohibitions which Harav Kook instituted, and Harav Kook never permitted their current practices." The current chief rabbinate tries to enforce whatever Rav Kook instituted. In fact most agricultural workers in Israel regardless of shemita are Arabs. -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 18:33:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:33:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish with mixed seating In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720013343.GC4548@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 03:08:58PM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : Interestingly enough the Gemara in Succos brings a "proof" for separation : of men and women from a non-"Davar She'bekedushah" the funeral in : Zecharyah. The other example is Simchas Beis haSho'eivah. Notice that one is extreme joy, and the other extreme sadness. Neither was tefillah betzibbur. Should the fact that chazal thought it was natural to apply these precedents to tefillah be taken to mean that -- "thanks to my knees for bowing at modim" aside -- Chazal found such extremes of emotion common during davening? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 18:57:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:57:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150720015718.GD4548@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 01:14:59AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : Well, I guess my original post should have had a longer introduction. I : know that Kaddish Tiskabel has a very clear rule, namely that it : follows every Amidah, and the only exception is that it also follows : Selichos. Kaddish D'rabanan always follows group learning (though I've : never figured out exactly what learning counts and what doesn't). Qaddish Tisqabel is said after zelosehon (the Amidah) uVa'us-hon (tachanun or selichos. That the request that they be accepted. : And now I'm trying to figure out the rule for Kaddish Yasom. It SEEMS : to be a sort of "congregational prayer", where "prayer" is something : *other* than the Amidah, but I can't define it any more precisely than : that. For a long time I thought it was connected to Tehillim, but when : I noticed it after the megilos on Yom Tov, someone suggested that it's : not specifically Sefer Tehillim, but *any* part of Kesuvim, not that we : had any idea why Kesuvim would get this distinction over Neviim or Torah. Accordng to R' de Sola Pool's monograph "Kaddish", Qaddish originated as being post-derashah -- the role Qaddish deRabbanan still serves. So perhaps non-concidentally, the format for sermons through the geonic era was to start with a pasuq from one of the sidrei EMa"S (Iyov, Mishlei, Tefillim) and wrap up by applying the resulting an idea to a pasuq from he sedra. ... : I have to admit that a big part of my asking this question is a pet : peeve that I've been nursing, regarding Kiddush Levana in particular. It : seems to me that Kiddush Levana -- the way it is done in just about : every situation I've ever seen -- cannot be called a Tefilas Tzibur in : any sense. It is a group of yechidim who happen to be saying the same : thing, but in a totally disorganized fashion... Perhaps that's it exactly. Like "Shalom Aleikhem", we make a cpoint of socially unifying those yechidim as part of qiddush levanah. Perhaps not in the sense of tefillah betzibbur or tefillas hatzibur, but then, neither is a shiur. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 09:45:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:45:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reciting a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time In-Reply-To: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> References: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> Message-ID: <20150720164528.GA10632@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:53:34AM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : http://tinyurl.com/o6rxcdf : according to those that say you do NOT recite a shehechiyanu when performing : a mitzvah for the first time (ie bar mitzvah), Who are they? All I know of is the Chasam Sofer (OC 55) -- well I guess I also know of the Peri To'ar, his maqor -- who says that the berakhah when putting on tefillin on one's bar mitzvah is supposed to be made with all the rest of the mitzvos in mind. The Radvaz says a ger says shehechiyanu when they emerge from the miqvah. I am less clear when a girl becoming a bas mitzvah would make her shechiyanu. The Ben Ish Chai says the girl should have in mind ol mitzvos when making shehechiyanu on her celebratory dress. Paralleling what we do by eating a new fruit on the 2nd evening of RH. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 09:51:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefach Thick Soft Spongy Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720165119.GB10632@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 03:09:13AM +0300, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Many mistakenly think that we now have an accepted Halachic tradition, : recorded in the Shulchan Aruch [460:5] to no longer bake Tefach thick Matza : [10 - 12 cm] as in Talmudic times. This is untrue... Unless we are holding like the "veyeish la'asos" in the Rama se'if 4. Neither the se'if nor the explanation "ki ein hareqiqin memaharin lehachmitz" make a distinction about when the matzah was made. -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:19:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on Exercise In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720211930.2A235182421@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:53 PM 7/20/2015, R. Ben Waxman wrote: >Orot, Orot Hatechiya, 34: > >Exercise, (which young Israel is getting involved in, in Eretz Yisrael, >to strengthen their bodies in order to be vigorous for the nation), >improves the spiritual strength of the greatest tzaddikim, those who >involve themselves in "the unification of God's names" (my translation >of a phrase which I admit I don't get), and increases the transmission >of God's light in the world, because there is no revelation at all of >light without all components being present. > >Turns out that (according to Rav Kook) not only does Talmud Torah >increase the merits to the army/state/people, but just having people >trying to be healthy, active, in shape, improves Talmud Torah, as long >as both sides are doing this for the nation. See "Exercise, Torah Learning and the Chofetz Chaim" http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/exercise_torah_cc_v2.pdf Reb Yaakov Kamenetsky was an avid swimmer all of his life. I recall when he came to Monroe to spend a Shabbos with his son Avraham. He was in his 80s I believe. Well, he put on his bathing suit, a robe and went to the pool. He then proceeded to jump into the pool and swim laps. This spread like wildfire in the 3 colonies in Monroe. People could not stop talking about it. It eventually got back to Reb Yaakov who quipped, "I wish they are as excited about my learning as they are about my swimming!" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 15:03:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> Re: Micha's questioning kadish yasom(KY) after kidush levana, the Vilna Gaon has a shortened version(doesn't he always?) that starts with the bracha and ends with siman tov. There is no Aleinu, hence no KY. He also holds that "sh'ain l'harbos b'k'dashim shelo l'tzorech, hence,there is only once KY per tefila. After the Yom by shachris and after Aleinu by mincha & maariv. Minhag Ashkenaz is not to say kadish d'rabonan during/after tefila but only after limud agada. The chasidim adopted the custom of saying it from the Seforadim and that's how it entered their ritual. I remember davening once at the Boro Park nusach HaGra k'vosikin minyan way back and was struck by the number of KYs that were said. The gabbai's answer was that it was too difficult to stop the "kadish zogers" from having their way. B"H, at our Flatbush Nusach HaGra k'vosikin minyan (Young Israel of Ave K, East 29th and K) under Rav Aryeh Ralbag guidance, we are have not had to compromise the Nusach HaGra way of davening. Shachris is 45 minutes before HaNetz every shabos and YT. -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com http://www.schnurassociates.com/joels-corner/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 15:46:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:46:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> References: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> Message-ID: <20150720224608.GB21161@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 06:03:46PM -0400, Joel Schnur via Avodah wrote: : I remember davening once at the Boro Park nusach HaGra k'vosikin : minyan way back and was struck by the number of KYs that were said. : The gabbai's answer was that it was too difficult to stop the : "kadish zogers" from having their way... REMT said something that makes me wonder... He suggested that our (non-Yekke) current practice of every avel saying qaddish is to make it condusive for aveilim to feel they're discharging their duty. Many men first started attending minyan regularly during aveileus and kept on doing so for the rest of their lives. Do you really want to discourage that with "Ah, why bother, I probably wouldn't get a turn this time anyway!"? A similar argument would change the priorities the Gra assumes about making extraneous opportunities for Qaddish. The AhS OC 55:4 gives this explanation for the creation of a 2nd opportunity for Qaddish Yasom at the end of Shacharis. He also writes that the Qadmonim only said 7 qaddeisim a day: Shacharis, after each of Yishtabach, Tachanun and UVa leTzion Minchah, after Ashrei and Tachanuun, and Arvis -- before and after Shemoneh Esrei. He quotes the Roqeiach invoking the pasuq "sheva bayom haleltikha" to explain that 7 was an intentional, significant, number. The AhS continues that three more were added when Aleinu was appended to the end of each tefillah. For the sake of yesomim who didn't get the amud. And significance was found for that, by reading Tzadi"q as an acronym, and each letter a gematria. Each day a tzadiq would say 90 times amein, (tzadi) 4 qedushos, (dalet) 10 qadeihim, and (yud) 100 berakhos (quf). (Citing the NMA.) Then he discusses leining adding one. "Veyoseir ein maqom laqadeishim", and still we added after Shir shel Yom because there were more yesomim, but more than that -- the AhS does not permit. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot RMB responded: Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. ============= My two cents: Adultery (eishis ish) is technically taking from another man that which belongs exclusively to him. So that itself puts it within the category of issurim that are mefursamos. The Rambam (MN 2:49) describes all sexuality as something that even when natural, should be limited. Homosexuality and bestiality, however, he describes as obvious deviations from the natural order that should be abhorred. I think that would place these two activities, as well, in the mefursamos category. The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely forbidden. Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: MN 3:49 As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure alone be eschewed. All illicit unions with females have one thing in common: namely, that in the majority of cases these females are constantly in the company of the male in his house, and that they are easy of access for him, and can be easily controlled by him - there being no difficulty in making them come into his presence; and no judge could blame the male I for their being with him. Consequently if the status of the women with whom union is illicit were that of any unmarried woman, I mean to say that if it were possible to marry them and that the prohibition with regard to them were only due to their not being the man's wives, most people would have constantly succumbed and fornicated with them. However, as it is absolutely forbidden to have intercourse with them, the strongest deterrents making us avoid this - I mean by this a sentence of death by order of a court of law and the threat of being cut off--so that there is no way to have intercourse with these women, men are safe from seeking to approach them and their thoughts are turned away from them. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot RMB responded: > Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate > family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. My two cents: Adultery (eishis ish) should be categorized under issurim mefursomos simply on the basis that it involves taking lves taking liberties with another man's wife, an intimacy that belongs to the husband. A form of theft! So that itself puts it within the category of issurim that are mefursamos. The Rambam (MN 2:49) describes all sexuality as something that even when natural, should be limited. Homosexuality and bestiality, however, he describes as obvious deviations from the natural order that should be abhorred. I think that would place these two activities, as well, in the mefursamos category. The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely forbidden. Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: MN 3:49 As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure alone be eschewed. All illicit unions with females have one thing in common: namely, that in the majority of cases these females are constantly in the company of the male in his house, and that they are easy of access for him, and can be easily controlled by him - there being no difficulty in making them come into his presence; and no judge could blame the male I for their being with him. Consequently if the status of the women with whom union is illicit were that of any unmarried woman, I mean to say that if it were possible to marry them and that the prohibition with regard to them were only due to their not being the man's wives, most people would have constantly succumbed and fornicated with them. However, as it is absolutely forbidden to have intercourse with them, the strongest deterrents making us avoid this - I mean by this a sentence of death by order of a court of law and the threat of being cut off--so that there is no way to have intercourse with these women, men are safe from seeking to approach them and their thoughts are turned away from them. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 16:02:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:02:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: (Sorry for approving both versions of that post! It was a quick typo in what was until-then going so smoothly! -micha) On 2015-07-20 5:34 pm, RZ Lampel wrote: > RMB responded: "Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest > within > the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot." > Adultery (eishis ish) is technically taking from another man that > which > belongs exclusively to him. So that itself puts it within the > category of > issurim that are mefursamos. > The Rambam (MN 2:49) ... Yes. But our problem is with Shemoneh Peraqim, where the Rambam distinguishes between mitzvos mefusamot, for which a person should develop a desire that is in line with the mitzvah (or a distaste in line with the issur), and other mitzvos where one should simply refrain out of submission to ol mitzvos. And among his mitzvos which are NOT mefursamos are arayos. R/Dr Meir Shinnar writes: > he specifically applies that > to > arayot - and needs to apply it to arayot, because the sugyot that > deal with > kol hagadol mechavero yitzro gadol mimenu - specifically apply to > arayot. > One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all > dine > arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not > sure > on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are > NOT > self evident or even mefursamot So regardless of how he categorizes them in the Moreh, the chiluq the Rambam makes in 8P requires our considering these issurim to not be self-evident. (Which I still don't get.) -micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 20:09:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 23:09:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah REMT said something that makes me wonder... He suggested that our (non-Yekke) current practice of every avel saying qaddish is to make it condusive for aveilim to feel they're discharging their duty. Micha Berger >>>> You are mainly talking about adults saying kaddish, but I remember one tragic year when there were seven yesomim under bar mitzva age saying kaddish, from three different families. Two families had lost their mothers, one family their father. Who was going to tell these children, who came to shul faithfully every day, sometimes getting to school late or skipping outings with their friends, "You can't say kaddish for your Ima or your Abba today, someone else has kadima"? Correct me if I am mistaken but my impression is that kaddish yasom is really mainly for genuine yesomim, i.e., those who lose their parents while they are still children. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 23:56:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:56:00 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Dr Shapiro's book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I found the most disturbing part of Dr Shapiro's book the last chapter. This is a halachid discussion of lying. My conclusion from this is that lying is perfectly permissible if there is a good reason. Basically the ends justifies the means. We are not talking about white lies as praising the bride for her beauty. In particular it is permissible to quote a psak from a gadol even though he never said it as long as you are sure that it is correct and he probably would have said it. There is no problem with making up stories about a gadol as long as the intention is to either glorify the gadol or else show why some idea is important. He claims that there are groups that actively make up stories about CI. The Chatam Sofer says that in order to prevent sins one can make the problem appear to be more serious than it really is such as turning a rabbinic prohibition into a biblical one. The problem with false attribution (besides the seemingly moral one) is that the result one cannot believe anything that is not written by the gadol himself. One never knows if the citation of the gadol was deliberately changed, However as seen in the rest of the book even the written words of the author are not always authoritative as in many cases they are tampered with to protect some "higher interest". Even the SA has been tampered with for this purpose. One can lie in order to avoid embarrassment to oneself. R Papa seems to have issued an incorrect halacha to avoid shame. A poor man can make believe he is blind or crippled in order to get more charity. One can claim that the monet is going for a poor bride when in fact it will be used for some other charity. Finally there is the heter of mental reservation or reinterpreting ones words made famous by the story of Yaakov "lying" To Isaac that he is Esav. Shapiro gives the example of Clinton making all sorts of "false" statements about Lewinsky and later justified it by saying that his words had another meaning than what people thought. Note this is sometimes permitted even in monetary cases. As stated about one can lie for educational purposes "Noble Lie" of Plato. Rav Dessler defines "truth" as the value that gives a positive result and is independent of observation and evidence. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 19:10:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 21:10:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: > Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: > MN 3:49 > As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are > directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling > disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The > reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against > intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is > natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more > should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure > alone be eschewed. So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 21:55:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:55:23 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9105E0A4-E59B-4E23-ADAA-7FCACD74F424@gmail.com> This is tangentially related only, but may be of interest in the context. I asked Rav Hershel Schachter, Shlita, what to do if someone who acts as a functionary at a Shira Chadasha (partnership) style service wants to do likewise in a mainstream Orthodox Congregation. His answer was, that such a person can be counted towards a Minyan, but no Kibbudim should be afforded to them. We have one here in Melbourne, which isn't like the one in Israel, but the strong word is that one of Rabbi Avi Weiss's Maharatos (Rabba/Rabbis) will be hired to lead that congregation. She was recently interviewed and claimed she was non denominational because she wanted to break down boundaries. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 03:08:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:08:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] thick matza Message-ID: For those interested a thorough discussion on thick matazot see the article of Ari Zivotofsky in Hakirah www.hakirah.org/Vol17Zivotofsky.pdf -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 06:54:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 06:54:49 -- 0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> Message-ID: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> On 7/20/2015 7:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > ... our problem is with Shemoneh Peraqim, where the Rambam distinguishes > between mitzvos mefusamot, for which a person should develop a desire > that is in line with the mitzvah (or a distaste in line with the issur), > and other mitzvos where one should simply refrain out of submission to > ol mitzvos. > And among his mitzvos which are NOT mefursamos are arayos....the chiluq > the Rambam makes in 8P requires our considering these issurim to not > be self-evident. And that's precisely what I addressed in my 3rd paragraph. After citing the Moreh Nevuchim's description of homosexuality and bestiality as obviously deviant practices (i.e. mefursamos), I cited its description of arayos (outside of eishis ish) as being not mefursomos, but issurim Hashem instituted as a preventative, a gedder, against unrestrained licentiousness in a situation (viz. family) where the temptation for it would otherwise be too hard to control. To repeat what I wrote: >> The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and >> commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because >> allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than >> his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would >> lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest >> intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, >> it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound >> to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely >> forbidden." Perhaps the mention of "commanded that it, too, be considered >> abhorrent" causes confusion. This would seem to put incest back into >> the category of mefursomos, along with murder and stealing, etc., about >> which a normal person is expected to harbor revulsion. So Rambam would be >> self-contradicting. But the elephant in the room is that the Torah itself >> commands us to treat eating non-kosher creatures with disgust. So how >> can Chazal tell us the right attitude is "efshi"? Evidently, Chazal and, >> naturally, Rambam, do not consider "efshi" to be at odds with "shekketz >> yih'yu lachem/teshak'tsu."My surmise is that they understand the Torah's >> command to treat with disgust the eating of non-kosher creatures and >> other acts that are not intrinsically objectionable (such as, per Rambam, >> incest, vs. murder, stealing, homosexuality and bestiality), as an imposed >> artificial behavior/attitude for these non-mefusamos issurim. Regarding >> your definition of issurim mefursamim, the Shemoneh Perakim does not >> say a tsaddik should /develop/ a revulsion, but that such revulsion is >> natural in born in all people. The tsaddik retains these feelings and >> does not allow them to be tainted. [Email #2.] On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: >> MN 3:49 >> As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are >> directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling >> disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom... On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and > should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of > Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what > possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 07:36:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:36:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Dr Shapiro's book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AE5907.7010503@optimum.net> RET: << A poor man can make believe he is blind or crippled in order to get more charity. >> How does this fit with Peah 8:9? Which book are we talking about? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 17:48:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 20:48:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> Message-ID: <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> I think one has to be careful, as I find it difficult to reconcile the position of the MN and that of the SP, and think they represent two distinct aspects (?stages) in the rambam Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions I) in hazal -- that continued desire for some forbidden actions is compatible with a high spiritual state -- issue is control of the desire -- NOT its presence II) Aristotelian ethics -- a high spiritual state does not desire for forbidden -- the desire is a sign of a flaw. SP resolves by differentiating between mefursamot -- whose desire is problematic and a flaw -- and religious law -- where desire is not a flaw -- and applies this specifically to arayot -- as examples in Talmud of Rabbanit with desire are of arayot, It is difficult for me to reconcile this position with the MN -- if our proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is " to instil disgust" -- how can desire still remaining not be a flaw???? In the MN, there is a conceptual framework to distinguish homosexuality and bestiality from regular sexuality -- but they are ALL viewed as things that should repulse us -- just some more than others. It is by no means clear that this framework and distinction can be read into the SP, and would think that One would need good evidence .hat it does not include ALL arayot... Meir Shinnar > It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah > attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress > during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan > Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a > marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. > Zvi Lampel > On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and >> should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of >> Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what >> possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? >> On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: >>> Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: >>> MN 3:49 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 08:06:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:06:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Message-ID: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why ? What changed in the afternoon? (especially since some pple fast both the 9th and 10th( Mordechai cohen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 06:18:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:18:26 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150722.091826.10442.1@webmail10.vgs.untd.com> The Moreh Nevuchim was quoted: > As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are > directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling > disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. R"n Lisa Liel wrote what I had wanted to write: > So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty > and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something > out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, > but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? R' Zvi Lampel answered: > It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah > attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt > duress during the marital process (you can find this in the > Kitzur Shulchan Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the > Rambam when it comes to a marital setting. I was taught we hold > like the Ramban. My guess is that you're referring to R' Eliezer from Nedarim 20b, referenced at the end of Kitzur 150:1. But from what I have seen, not for nothing is it called "Kitzur Shulchan Aruch", because this seems to be the attitude of all the standard poskim. The Kitzur is not a standalone machmir here; from what I can tell, he's merely quoting the Mechaber in Orach Chayim 240:8. Mishneh Brurah 240:35 (who refers us to Magen Avraham 240:21), Aruch Hashulchan 240:14, and Kaf Hachaim 240:59 all seem to advocate a strong reluctance towards intercourse, which is not quite as extreme as the Rambam's "disgust", but that might merely reflect their choice of words. For purposes of Talmud Torah, where is this Ramban who "strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting"? And for purposes of Halacha, which Acharonim hold like the Ramban, over the Mechaber, KSA, MB, and KH? (I recall hearing that the Siddur HaYaavetz might be the answer here, but there seem to be several different versions. If anyone can post a link to a specific version on SeforimOnline or HebrewBooks.org, and a page citation, I'd appreciate that very much.) Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett?s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren?t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55af9846b9a261846362est02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 07:13:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:13:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel asked: "The idea that sex is something dirty and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude?" See the Gemara in Nedarim (20a) about kafuhu shed. Also see RAL's article OF MARRIAGE: RELATIONSHIP AND RELATIONS ( http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf ) where he discusses this question and brings many of the sources. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:25:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:25:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 06:54:49AM +0000, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: :> So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and :> should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of :> Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what :> possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? : It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah : attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress : during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan : Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to : a marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. But the most famous Ramban does speak of perushim tihyu and how perishus is the key to holiness. (R' Shimon Shkop explains the Ramban as saying it is a primary means to hoiness, because "qedoshim tihyu qi Qadosh Ani" would be absurd if referring to Hashem practicing perishus. What temptations would He need to avoid?) And his first example is yema'eit bemishgal, like (Berakhos 22) "that TC not be found by their wives like roosters" and that tashmish should be limited to "kefi hatzeikh beqiyum hamitzvah mimenu". I presume, in an unXian sense, the Rambam refers to onah, not "only" piryah verivyah. Perishus and neqi'us come up a lot in lower-case-m mussar literature, even among anti-Maimonidians like Rabbeinu Yonah. To quote Mesilas Yesharim ch 13 (tr. from http://www.shechem.org/torah/mesyesh/13.htm I think it's the old Feldheim ed, by R' Shraga Simmons): There is no question as to the permissibility of cohabitation with one's wife, but still, ablutions were instituted for those who had had seminal emissions, so that Scholars should not be steadily with their wives, like roosters. Even though the act itself is permissible it implants in a person a lust for it which might draw him on to what is forbidden; as our Sages of blessed memory have said (Sukkah 526), "There is a small organ in a man which, when it is satiated, hungers and which, when it is made to hunger, is sated." And they said about R. Eleazar (Nedarim 20b) that even in the proper hour and the correct time he would expose a handbreadth and conceal two hand-breadths and imagine that a demon was compelling him, in order to cancel out the feeling of pleasure. And ch. 14: THERE ARE THREE principal divisions of Separation, involving pleasures, laws, and conduct respectively. Separation in relation to pleasures, which we spoke of in the previous chapter, consists in one's taking from the world only what is essential to him. This type of Separation encompasses anything which provides pleasure to any one of the senses, whether the pleasure be gained through food, cohabitation, clothing, strolls, conversation or similar means, exceptions obtaining only at such times when deriving pleasure through these means is a mitzvah. Separation in relation to laws ... Separation in relation to conduct ... Which also limits marital intimacy to what is necessary to fulfill piryah verivyah and onah. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:36:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:36:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55AFD49B.4070904@gmail.com> On 7/21/2015 8:48 PM, Meir Shinnar wrote: > Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions > I) in hazal - that continued desire for some forbidden actions is > compatible with a high spiritual state - issue is control of the > desire - NOT its presence > I) Aristotelian ethics - a high spiritual state does not desire for > forbidden - the desire is a sign of a flaw. > SP resolves by differentiating between mefursamot - whose desire is > problematic and a flaw - and religious law - where desire is not a > flaw - and applies this specifically to arayot - as examples in Talmud > of Rabbanit with desire are of arayot, > It is difficult for me to reconcile this position with the MN - if our > proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is " to instil > disgust" - how can desire still remaining not be a flaw???? > In the MN, there is a conceptual framework to distinguish > homosexuality and bestiality from regular sexuality - but they are ALL > viewed as things that should repulse us - just some more than others. > It is by no means clear that this framework and distinction can be > read into the SP, and would think that One would need good evidence > that it does not include ALL arayot... The Moreh Nevuchim III:35 explicitly states that his view about this matter is the same as his view in Shemoneh Perakim: The fourteenth class comprises the commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain sexual unions. They are those that we have enumerated in the Book of Women [/Sepher Nashim/] and in Laws concerning Prohibited Sexual Relations [/Hilkhoth Issurei Bi'ah/. The interbreeding of beasts belongs to this class. The purpose of this ... is to bring about a decrease of sexual intercourse and to diminish the desire for mating as far as possible, so that it should not be taken as an end, as is done by the ignorant, *according to what we have explained in the Commentary on the Tractate Aboth.* (All commentators agree this is a reference to the introduction to the commentary, the Shemoneh Perakim, just as the Moreh stated regarding the thirteenth class.) Your kushya is good: if [as per MN] our proper relationship to even permitted sexualityis "to instill disgust" - how can desire still remaining not be a flaw [as per ShP]???? But I think the solution I offered is reasonable. To wit: What do you do with the elephant in the room I mentioned? The Torah commands /t'shaktsu/ concerning the eating of non-kosher creatures (which is certainly as much in the category of non-mefursomos as bassar b'chalav and arayos); yet Chazal (and naturally, then, Rambam) say that when it comes to basar b'chalav, etc., one should have the attitude of "I have the desire to do it, but Hashem prohibited me.'' I offered one answer to both questions: When Rambam says that Hashem wants to instill in us disgust for the act, and the Torah (as per Chazal) says "t'shakstu,'' they mean that despite the fact that we should not deny or seek to eradicate the physical inclination for such pleasures, we must maintain an aversion to succumbing to it except for limited situations. (And the purpose of that is to keep us from doing it in excess, which is the real flaw.) *So although as per MN,] our proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is to instill a reluctance except for limited occasions (such as in a marriage setting), the desire still remaining is not a flaw [as per ShP] to be eradicated.* "I have the desire to do it [even outside of marriage, and I will not eradicate the sexual desire from myself,] but [live with it and constrain it outside of marriage,] because Hashem commanded me so [and this will bring me to perfection]. So, a word about the Moreh's wording. Pines translates: "As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. ... the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity." Friedlander translates: " we ought to limit sexual intercourse altogether, hold it in *contempt,* and only desire it very rarely." Ibn Tibbon translates "ha-arayos, ha-inyan b'kulam shahv l'ma-eit ha-mishgal *v'lim'os* bo, v'shello yirtseh mimennu ki im m'aht mi-za-ir...sheh-inyan ha-tiv'i *nim-ahs* l'hay-a-sos rak l'tsorech." I suspect from the context (lim'os/disgust/contempt, *except for limited occasions*) that the Rambam's original Arabic, not to mention his intention, is closer on the scale to the idea of avoidance for the sake of gaining perfection, than to disgust and contempt. Basically, it translates to what I believe is in fact our common attitude regarding these things. To put things in perspective, note that immediately before this section, the Rambam, following the same attitude of engaging in unrestrained physical pleasures being an obstacle to personal perfection, writes similarly about the activity of eating, again equating what he writes in the Moreh to what he wrote in Shemoneh Perakim: The thirteenth class comprises the commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain foods and what is connected therewith. These are the commandments that we have enumerated in the Laws concerning Forbidden Foods [/Hilkhoth Ma-akholoth Asuroth/]. The [commandments concerning] vows and the state of the Nazarites belong to this class. The purpose of all this is, *as we have explained in the Commentary on the Mishnah in the introduction to Aboth,* to put an end to the lusts and licentiousness manifested in seeking what is most pleasurable and to taking the desire for food and drink as an end. [Email #2. -micha] On 7/22/2015 1:25 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > But the most famous Ramban does speak of perushim tihyu and how perishus > is the key to holiness. ...And his first example is yema'eit > bemishgal... > I presume, in an unXian sense, the Rambam refers to onah, not "only" > piryah verivyah. > Perishus and neqi'us come up a lot in lower-case-m mussar literature, even > among anti-Maimonidians like Rabbeinu Yonah. To quote Mesilas Yesharim ch 13 > ..." And they said about > R. Eleazar (Nedarim 20b) that even in the proper hour and the correct > time he would expose a handbreadth and conceal two hand-breadths and > imagine that a demon was compelling him, in order to cancel out the > feeling of pleasure. > And ch. 14: ... > Separation in relation to pleasures, which we spoke of in the > previous chapter, consists in one's taking from the world only what > is essential to him. > Which also limits marital intimacy to what is necessary to fulfill piryah > verivyah and onah. Which, as I was contemplating to write, shows that the Ramban and Rambam (and as you have pointed out, mainstream Jewish thought) all share the same basic nuanced attitude--despite the Ramban's opposition to the Rambam's presentation. Thanks for the sources. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:00:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:00:43 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> References: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:06 AM, M Cohen via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after > chatzos on Tbav > > Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc > > Why ? > > What changed in the afternoon? (especially since some pple fast both the 9 > th and 10th( > There are two answers in the Birkhei Yosef quoting Sefer Hakavvanot of R. Haim Vital (OH 559 s"k 7) for why we say verses of consolation at minha, both based on Midrash Eicha Rabba, and perhaps the reason is the same. Firstly, that this was when the BHMK began to burn, and it was davka a time of consolation because the people realized that HKBH was pouring his anger on stone and wood, not on flesh and blood. Secondly, that this is the time when the Messiah whose name is Menahem is born. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 22:23:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 01:23:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55B07A69.5020203@gmail.com> On 7/22/2015 1:26 PM, H Lampel wrote: > When Rambam says that Hashem wants to instill in us disgust for the > act, and the Torah (as per Chazal) says ''t'shakstu,'' they mean that > despite the fact that we should not deny or seek to eradicate the > physical inclination for such pleasures, we must maintain an aversion > to succumbing to it except for limited situations. (And the purpose of > that is to keep us from doing it in excess, which is the real flaw.) I should also note that the Rambam teaches that hand-in-hand with the flaw of excessive involvement in physical pleasures, and the ultimate problem with that, is the attitude behind it, of making physical pleasure an end in itself, rather than a side benefit of a means. The Rambam applies this objection to both sexual pleasure for its own sake and eating pleasure for its own sake: The prohibition of certain foods and what is connected therewith.... The purpose of all this is, as we have explained in the Commentary on the Mishnah in the introduction to Aboth, to put an end to the lusts and licentiousness manifested in seeking what is most pleasurable and to taking the desire for food and drink /as an end/. ...The commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain sexual unions... The purpose of this ... is to bring about a decrease of sexual intercourse and to diminish the desire for mating as far as possible, so that it should not be taken /as an end/, as is done by the ignorant, according to what we have explained in the Commentary on the Tractate Aboth. Zvi Lampel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 01:16:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:16:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R' Aharon Lichtenstein was bothered by the difference in opinion regarding marital intimacy between Chazal who seem to have a very positive attitude and the Rishonim (especially the Rambam) who have a very negative attitude and the attitude of contemporary authorities who seem to have swung back to the positive side: "We, for our part, are confronted by a quandary of our own; and it is dual. At one plane, we ask ourselves, within the context of our learn- ing?it is Torah, and we must learn?a simple and straightforward ques- tion. In light of the predominant evidence we have noted from Hazal and, particularly, its halakhic component, how and why did Rambam, Ramban, and some other rishonim, deviate so markedly from their prevalent attitude? With reference to yetser (the inclination)?generic in connotation but defined by Rashi as shel tashmish (sexual desire)?Hazal identify it as one of a triad which, optimally, one should ?let the left hand deflect and the right hand bring close? (Sota 47a). One sometimes gets the impression that the proportion was subsequently inverted. ... To the extent that we do succeed in harmonizing the positions of Hazal and of rishonim, we ameliorate the pressure of one issue but exacerbate that of another. For we are brought, in turn, to a second quandary: our own. While I have conducted no empirical survey, I believe there is little question regarding the sensibility of the contempo- rary Torah world, irrespective of camp and orientation. We stand, fun- damentally, with R. Bar-Shaul. We assert the value of romantic love, its physical manifestation included, without flinching from the prospect of concomitant sensual pleasure; and we do so without harboring guilt or reservations. " Source: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 06:35:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:35:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shimon haTzaddik and Alexander the Macedonian Message-ID: <20150723133509.GA14333@aishdas.org> The story of Shim'on haTzaddiq, in the office of kohein gadol, meeting Alexander the Great, as told in Yuma 69a, is pretty well known. Josephus told the story earlier, in Antiquities 11:8. The Daily Mail recently covered what appears to be another retelling : Mosaic of Alexander the Great meeting a Jewish priest is the first ever non-biblical scene to be discovered inside a synagogue - Artwork was uncovered in a fifth-century synagogue in Huqoq, Israel - May depict Alexander the Great, based on the presence of elephants - Scene is the first non-biblical story to be found in an ancient synagogue - Depictions of Biblical hero Samson are also part of the decorative floor By Sarah Griffiths for MailOnline Published: 03:43 EST, 15 July 2015 | Updated: 07:21 EST, 15 July 2015 ... The artwork was uncovered in the east aisle of a fifth-century synagogue in the ancient Jewish village of Huqoq. ... The largest top strip contains the scene showing a meeting between two men, who perhaps represent the legendary warrior and a Jewish high priest. In the scene, a bearded soldier wearing battle dress and a purple cloak leads a bull by the horns, followed by other soldiers and elephants with shields tied to their sides. He is meeting with a grey-haired, bearded elderly man wearing a ceremonial white tunic and mantle, accompanied by young men with sheathed swords, also in ceremonial clothes. Southern Galil, 5th cent CE. Within a generation of the compilation of Mes Yuma. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 06:14:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:14:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B0E8A7.7050202@gmail.com> I agree with all those who reacted to my remark about Ramban vs Rambam, and I am especially grateful to Marty Bluke for the link to Rav Lichtenstein ztl's comprehensive article that provides the sources and notes the challenges they present. (I think that link was recently posted on R. Gil Student's blog.) As R. Akiva Miller has pointed out, it was Rebbi Eliezer of Nedarim 20b, referenced at the end of Kitzur 150:1 (and, as RAM pointed out, the Mechaber OC 240:8) who is understood to have expressed duress during the marital process. (And who is a Tanna, not an Amora, as I incorrectly stated.) Also, RAM asked, > For purposes of Talmud Torah, where is this Ramban who "strongly disagreed > with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting"? And again, I stand corrected. The Rav who gave me my "chassan shmuess" was probably referring to the /Iggeress ha-Kodesh,/ which, as Rav Lichtenstein pointed out in his article, is often erroneously attributed to Ramban. But apparently, had Rav Lichtenstein been giving me the "chassan shmuez," I would have come away with the same halacha l'ma'aseh regarding attitude. He writes: We cannot, as the author of the /Iggeret ha-Kodesh/ could not, abandon the conviction that so central a component of human nature is not part of the /tov me'od/ of primordial creation. Consequently, impelled by our spiritual instincts and animated by the faith instilled in us by our Torah mentors, we opt for consecration rather than abstinence. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 07:12:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:12:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> Message-ID: <26C8383E-E3E8-4443-8BAD-62AB922C5681@gmail.com> Again, one has to be very careful. There are four different sources here. 1)Shmona Prakim -- chapter 4 -- where reason for laws on arayot is to limit Sexuality -- in the sense of a golden mean. 2)Shmona Prakim -- chapter 6 -- where desire for things forbidden only by halakhah is endorsed as not a spiritual flaw 3) MN 3:35, where he describes category 14 of mitzvot -- relating to arayot -- in terms similar to source 1, as the rambam notes and meforshim point out. 4) MN 3:49 -- where purpose of hilchot arayot is to instill disgust -- not merely control and limit Therefore, RZL is correct that MN 3:35 refers to Spm but chapter 4. One can reconcile sources 1,2 and 3, or 1,3 and 4 -- but difficult to recocile all 4. I would ad that source 2 is problematic, in that it's view of halakhah as an almost arbitrary set of limitations, seems quite different than the rambam's normal presentation of the purpose of Halacha. Meir Shinnar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 10:15:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:15:16 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150723.131516.32484.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> Many posters - and their quoted sources - have compared the desire for intercourse with the desire for food. What I have not seen is any comparison between the *enjoyment* of intercourse and the enjoyment of food. Halacha restricts our eating in many ways, and we are taught that this is to curb our desires. But there are seem to be many exceptions to this, and I don't see parallels to intercourse. We have mitzvos where eating is merely a physical act used as a means to some other end. Achilas Matza might be the best example of this. We need to internalize the matzah and its lessons, but any enjoyment that we might get from this eating is utterly irrelevant. This seems quite comparable to the intercourse, where it is merely a means towards having children. The enjoyment that one gets from the intercourse (like from the matza) is irrelevant - or perhaps even lower, to be eschewed. One might cite Rama Even Haezer 25:2, which lists various permitted forms of intercourse, but to me, that is like saying "You can eat your meat broiled or cooked or fried, as long as you don't put milk in it, and don't eat it too often either." This is NOT what we are told about meat. Rather we are told that eating meat is the only way to enjoy Yom Tov. We are taught that eating is proper and good. When a simcha arises, we must make a meal so as to properly celebrate it. And if there are overlapping simchas, we should add an extra course so that each simcha gets its due. Red wine is more appropriate than white, but if you personally enjoy white, then go for it. Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. - Is the difference really that subtle? To me, it is as subtle as a brick. R' Marty Bluke posted: > Also see RAL's article OF MARRIAGE: RELATIONSHIP AND RELATIONS > ( http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf ) where > he discusses this question and brings many of the sources. Indeed he does bring many sources. And I was particularly intrigued by his conclusion, that the general thrust of recent authorities seems to be very different from before that: > To the extent that we do succeed in harmonizing the positions of > Hazal and of rishonim, we ameliorate the pressure of one issue but > exacerbate that of another. For we are brought, in turn, to a > second quandary: our own. While I have conducted no empirical > survey, I believe there is little question regarding the > sensibility of the contemporary Torah world, irrespective of camp > and orientation. ... We assert the value of romantic love, its > physical manifestation included, without flinching from the > prospect of concomitant sensual pleasure; and we do so without > harboring guilt or reservations. We insist, of course, upon its > sanctification?this, within the context of suffusive kedusha of > carnal experience, generally. and yet, a page later, > Assuming these facts to be correct ? as regards my own spiritual > environs, I can attest directly ? we ask ourselves: How and why > do we depart from positions articulated by some of our greatest > ? "from whose mouths we live and from whose waters we drink" - > and, is this departure legitimate? Are we victims of the Zeitgeist, > swept along by general socio-historical currents? Do we tailor our > attitude on this issue to conform to appetitive convenience and > erotic desire? Have we, in this case, adopted a self-satisfying > posture of facile world-acceptance clothed in culturally correct > garb? I did not find his answers to these questions very satisfying. But I do find his *asking* them to be extremely comforting. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 11:43:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:43:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Relative Priorities Message-ID: <1440012f20ae4d989f0b2c5fdc8b1c1e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> A yahrtzeit shiur is "being sponsored" at the same time as your regular learning seder. Evaluate the various score cards in shamayim (yours, the niftar's, your chavrutah's) depending on whether you attended the shiur or seder (all other things being equal). She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 24 07:09:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 17:09:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: artificial meat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Technological advances are bringing us to ask a pressing question: Does Judaism consider meat created in a laboratory to be kosher? Does Jewish law even consider it to be meat?The question takes on particular significance now, during the nine days, the traditional period of mourning that precedes Tisha B'Av when observant Jews abstain from meat. (Well, theoretical significance, at least ? the world's first lab-grown hamburger, created in 2013, cost a cool $325,000 and it's not exactly available at your neighborhood grocery store yet.)Some kashrut experts are ready to rule the burger kosher, and not only that, parve, reported Ynet reporter Koby Nachshoni ? meaning observant Jews, who won't eat milk and meat together, can eat their test-tube burger topped with cheese. Furthermore, the halachic authorities with whom Nachshon consulted even said this would apply to test-tube pork ? so make that a bacon cheeseburger.But, no surprise here, not everyone agrees about that.Chabad addressed the issue , too, noting that there are precedents for test-tube meat in the ancient Jewish sources. see http://www.haaretz.com/life/food-wine/1.667580 -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:30:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh Message-ID: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> Last night in the shul that I davened B'Leil Zeh was said with great fervor. However, I am wondering if it should have been said at all. B'Leil Zeh is referring to the night of the 9th of Av and the many things that occurred then. Last night was, of course, the night of the 10th of Av. Does it really make sense to have said B'Leil Zeh on the 10th of Av? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:50:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:50:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh In-Reply-To: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 10:30:37AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : B'Leil Zeh is referring to the night of the 9th of Av and the many : things that occurred then. Last night was, of course, the night of : the 10th of Av. Does it really make sense to have said B'Leil Zeh : on the 10th of Av? Now that you made me think about the question, I would ask the reverse one. Bayis sheini was set aflame shortly before sheqi'ah on the 9th and burned through the 10th. So wouldn't beleil zeh only fit a postponed ta'anis? As for bayis rishon... I'm still sorting my way through understandings of Yechezqeil and the Yerushalmi. RMT, kedarko (see ) touches on a nice subset of sources at http://download.yutorah.org/2012/1053/Tisha_Bav_To-Go_-_5771_Rabbi_Torczyner.pdf Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: R' Mordechai Torczyner -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:58:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:58:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh In-Reply-To: <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> References: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150726145900.0654D1831F2@nexus.stevens.edu> At 10:50 AM 7/26/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >Now that you made me think about the question, I would ask the reverse >one. Bayis sheini was set aflame shortly before sheqi'ah on the 9th and >burned through the 10th. > >So wouldn't beleil zeh only fit a postponed ta'anis? > >As for bayis rishon... I'm still sorting my way through understandings >of Yechezqeil and the Yerushalmi. Perhaps two separate tefillos are needed, one for the night of the 9th of Av and one for the night of the 10th of Av. However, given the vast amount of kinos and other tefillos for Tisha B'Av, I am loath to suggest adding any more. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 16:32:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 19:32:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Message-ID: From: M Cohen via Avodah There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why? What changed in the afternoon? Mordechai Cohen >>>> The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 22:02:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:02:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus Message-ID: Thew gemara in Gittin tells the story of the rich lady miryam bat batus who sent her sevant to buy food in the market, before the churban, each time the food is already sold and she finally dies from dung on her foot. OTOH the gemara in ketuvot says that miryam bat batus paid King Yanai a lot of money to appoint her son yehoshua ben gamla as high priest First the two stories are about 150 years apart. In addition Alexander Jannai was himself high priest and unlikely to sell that position -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 20:18:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:18:25 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150726.231825.30515.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> R' Zvi Lampel wrote: > But apparently, had Rav Lichtenstein been giving me the > "chassan shmuez," I would have come away with the same halacha > l'ma'aseh regarding attitude. He writes: > > We cannot, as the author of the /Iggeret ha-Kodesh/ could > not, abandon the conviction that so central a component of > human nature is not part of the /tov me'od/ of primordial > creation. Consequently, impelled by our spiritual instincts > and animated by the faith instilled in us by our Torah > mentors, we opt for consecration rather than abstinence. I am very bothered by this attitude. I will explain why. We have discussed the idea that a posek may sometimes choose a psak based on what "seems right" to him, and then he will find sources to support that conclusion. But if I remember correctly, this is usually done in the case of *new* questions, where there is little precedent to draw upon. But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed. And it changed so recently that Rav Lichtenstein couldn't name any seforim that might have explained it to him. Namely, that for some reason, various people (such as RZL's teacher) started paskening - "halacha l'ma'aseh" in RZL's words - that the halacha follows the Iggeret ha-Kodesh (whose author we aren't sure of) rather than the Shulchan Aruch and Rav Yosef Karo. Why aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? Can we really overturn the Shulchan Aruch simply because "We cannot ... abandon the conviction" that sex is "tov me'od"? When we justify a psak and say we were "impelled by our spiritual instincts", how are we different from Conservative and Reform? I would not speak this way if the topic was a machlokes rishonim. Can someone please point to another major Rishon besides the Iggeret ha-Kodesh who holds that way? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b5a34e339ce234e4610st01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 01:31:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:31:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why? What changed in the afternoon? Mordechai Cohen >>>> The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= R'YBS explained that once the mikdash started burning (PM of TB) we knew hkb"h was taking out his wrath on stones and wood, not us. 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 00:49:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:49:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> On 07/27/2015 01:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Thew gemara in Gittin tells the story of the rich lady miryam bat > batus Martha bat Baytus. > who sent her sevant to buy food in the market, before the > churban, each time the food is already sold and she finally dies from > dung on her foot. > > OTOH the gemara in ketuvot Yoma. 18a. And Yavamos 61a. I could not find any reference to this in Kesubos. > says that miryam bat batus Martha bat Baytus. > paid King Yanai a lot of money to appoint her son Husband > yehoshua ben gamla as high priest. First the two stories are about > 150 years apart. No, they're not. Yehoshua ben Gamla was the Cohen Gadol at the time of the revolt against Rome, and was murdered by the Biryonim. > In addition Alexander Jannai was himself high priest > and unlikely to sell that position Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos in both places points out, for precisely that reason. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 03:22:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:22:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> References: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150727102247.GA8241@aishdas.org> RnTK wrote: : The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting : the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people : (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house : on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. R' Yirmiyohu Kaganoff provided sources at : In some places there is a custom to wash the floors and clean the house on the afternoon of Tisha B'Av. This custom is based on a mesorah that Moshiach will be born on Tisha B'Av afternoon and that it is therefore appropriate to commemorate the redemption and strengthen people's hopes and prayers (based on Beis Yosef 554 and Kolbo). Although this seems like unnecessary work on Tisha B'Av that should be postponed, the poskim rule that one should not discourage those who follow this custom (Birkei Yosef 559:7). On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:31am +0000, R Joel Rich replied: : R'YBS explained that once the mikdash started burning (PM of TB) : we knew [HKB"H] was taking out his wrath on stones and wood, not us. I bet RYBS cited the Gra (OC 555:1). Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: Actually, Google gets most of the credit for filling in vague memories with mar'eh meqomos. -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 05:00:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:00:41 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150727.080041.13995.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> I asked: > I would not speak this way if the topic was a machlokes > rishonim. Can someone please point to another major Rishon > besides the Iggeret ha-Kodesh who holds that way? Alternatively, can anyone cite other halachos, where for centuries the acharonim followed the Shulchan Aruch, and then in recent decades, the poskim decided to follow a minority rishon? My first instinct is to say that the shitos of the Gra are in this category, but there were those who followed the Gra ever since his day, and the only real change is that his views became more and more widespread. Was there ever a community that was known for following the Iggeret ha-Kodesh in this inyan until recently? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b61d8f130a61d8b4299st01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 07:10:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:10:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 11:15:51AM -1000, R/ Dr Noam Stadlan wrote on Areivim: : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded : as ignorance... To do that woud be to disagree with her husband. See "Thinking Aloud", pg 113: DH: What is the heter for a married woman in her house not to cover her hair when there are outsiders present? RYBS: She has to cover her hair. Another exchange: DH: Someone was asking about a woman wearing a kisui rosh in the house. RYBS: We pasken you should. DH: Someone showed me a gemara in Kesubos that b'toch chatzeira it should be mutar, since otherwise there is no way any woman could remain tachas ba'alah (72b). Offhand it occurred to me that if it was lo shechichei inshei - just for going around the house when no one's around, and someone just may drop in - then it would be mutar. But if you have people coming over b'kevius, then why would it be any different than going aroung in the street? Is there a special din in the bayis that there's no din of covering your head anymore? DH: Is this kisui ervah like most kisui ervah? RYBS: Of course. DH: What should I do for myself, for my wife? RYBS: You will find out. There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 08:15:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & the Tosafists. http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ Our *Torah shebe?al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the *Torah shebe?al peh* would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe?al peh* today. I just heard a piece yesterday by Rabbi Weill, from a few years back on Kinnot and the destruction of Ashkenaz and burning of the gemorahs in Paris. It was very devastating for the area. Jews lived in other areas as well, thank God. So the Mesora continued with them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 11:42:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:42:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? Message-ID: From: Micha Berger via Avodah : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded : as ignorance...[--Dr. Noam Stadlan] To do that would be to disagree with her husband. ....There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. -- Micha Berger >>>> A similar quote (third hand): Someone told me he once asked RYBS if a married woman is obligated to cover her hair, and RYBS replied in a somewhat sideways fashion, "You are not obligated to divorce her if she does not do so." You have to understand that it was an era in which most American Jews were throwing away the Torah with both hands. It was hard enough to find a wife who was frum; demanding that she cover her hair was almost impossible in many cases. RYBS was not the only Torah scholar whose wife failed to cover her hair. I have to assume that this was simply one nisayon that was too difficult, given those times. After the post-war influx of chassidim arrived in America, kisui rosh, like so many other neglected mitzvos, became much more acceptable and common. R' Michael Brody in his article on the subject says that the Chofetz Chaim railed against the practice of women in Vilna, even those married to big talmidei chachamim, to go about with their hair uncovered. Although the CC is completely, vehemently, opposed to this practice, R' Brody deduces (I am paraphrasing) that "This proves that many talmidei chachamim did not demand that their wives cover their hair, from which we may deduce that they held kisui rosh was not required, and we may rely on them." This line of reasoning is reminiscent of the joke, "How do we know that Yakov wore a yarmulka? Answer: It says 'Vayetzei Yakov' -- would Yakov have gone out without a yarmulka?!" But at any rate it does indicate that this was a largely neglected mitzva even in Vilna, in the early 20th century -- though neglect of a mitzva does not make the obligation go away. I for one do not hold it against RYBS. What he would have preferred and what was actually obtainable, in that time and place, were not the same. For that time and place, for a woman to be Torah observant was already a madreiga. To have been the wife of such a man -- his rebetzen must have had extraordinary zechuyos. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 11:43:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:43:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> The below (and, btw, R Nachum Lamm makes an interesting point in the comments there) leads me to a different, but related, question: We trace Rashi's mesorah pretty easily back to Rabbeinu Gershom -- but where did _he_ get _his_ mesorah from? How did it get from Bavel and the Gaonim to northern Europe? > RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & the Tosafists. > http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ [1] > Our *Torah shebe?al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the *Torah shebe?al peh* would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe?al peh* today. Links: ------ [1] http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 12:41:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:41:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: From: Kenneth Miller via Avodah >> We have discussed the idea that a posek may sometimes choose a psak based on what "seems right" to him, and then he will find sources to support that conclusion. But if I remember correctly, this is usually done in the case of *new* questions, where there is little precedent to draw upon. But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? --Akiva Miller >>>> It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan Aruch. What frequency is optimum? Surely that is at least partly subjective, and any of the various sources that apparently disagree with each other can be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up what your gut tells you is right. I can easily see a modern day rav or Torah mentor varying his answers depending on the circumstances of the wife and husband who are asking him for advice, as well as accepted societal norms. Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least some obligation to fulfill. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 14:59:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gil Student via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 17:59:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume 2 of his Collected Essays. Gil Student From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 19:55:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 22:55:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Re:Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> References: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:10:59 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah > : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the > : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded > : as ignorance... > > To do that woud be to disagree with her husband. > > See "Thinking Aloud", pg 113: ... > There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with > his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. WADR, Micha misunderstands the issue. The issue is not whether RYBS agreed with his wife's practice -- there are sources (albeit most of them from long after her passing) which would suggest that he may ave disagreed, and paskened otherwise) -- but that is a different issue of whether he viewed it as ignorance -- and for sure not out of the pale of halacha. That is the crux of the issue -- not whether we wish to pasken that this is muttar for ourselves (or for those who listen to us..) -- but how we view those who follow a different shitta -- and anyone who suggests that RYBS viewed his wife as nonobservant or not fully halachically committed is motsi la'az and needs to go to her kever( you can ask R Seth Mandel his opinion how the rav would have viewed such a person) Several related stories: 1) The rav was the posek for a community, who knew that his wife did not cover her hair. The vast majority of that community, even those close to the rav, who followed his every word, did not think that he viewed this as being problematic -- and he had plenty of opportunity to let it be known.... 2) I knew a talmid who was close to the rav in the 70s (shiur many years, rav was measured kiddushin -- unfortunately niftar early. when getting married, he told me that he asked the rav all his shailos -- except about head covering for his wife (she did) -- he said that it was thought problematic to ask him because of the rav's wife 3) Another talmid was once invited, late 70s, to Rav Schwab's shabbes table. Topic got around to data's torah, and rav schwab said that many have it wrong -- there is not one da'as torah -- but da'as torah is the opinion of someone who is wholly torah -- rav kotler is da'as torah, rav feinstein is da'as torah,the satmar is da'as torah. My friend jumped in and asked what about RYBS? Rav Schwab was no fan of RYBS, and he hemmed and hawed and then said that as his wife did not cover her hair, he was not da'as torah. At that point Mrs. Schwab interjected, but you know that none of the litvische rebbitzens covered their hair. At which point R Schwab agreed to that, and then agreed that RYBS was da'as torah..... That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. Meir Shinnar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 06:52:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:52:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> Message-ID: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> On 7/27/2015 2:49 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos > in both places points out, for precisely that reason. > Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any permutation thereof. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 07:31:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:31:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> Message-ID: <55B79226.4030906@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 09:52 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 7/27/2015 2:49 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos >> in both places points out, for precisely that reason. > Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of > there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any > permutation thereof. Except this memra of Rav Assi, which is quoted twice in the gemara with the same language, so it's unlikely to be a mistranscription. Either Rav Assi was mistaken about the king's name, or there was a short-reigned later king of that name whom Josephus didn't bother mentioning, or one of the later kings had Yannai as one of his names, and Josephus didn't bother mentioning it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 07:21:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:21:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> References: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55B78FCC.2020104@sero.name> On 07/27/2015 10:55 PM, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: > At that point Mrs. Schwab interjected, but you know > that none of the litvische rebbitzens covered their hair. At which point > R Schwab agreed to that, and then agreed that RYBS was da'as torah..... > > That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it > was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, > it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. No, it was *not* a shita in Litte, it was a makas medinah. It was an aveira that was prevalent among women, and the best the rabbonim could do was not talk about it to the women, in the hope that they were shogegin. Even in an earlier generation, no less a person than R Akiva Eger had no control over his wife and daughters' mode of dress: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31632&pgnum=300 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 08:57:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:57:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 08:52:45AM -0500, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of : there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any : permutation thereof. Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and Hebrew? 400 years prior, having two names was common and the civil names we know of (Mordechai, Esther, Shadrach, Meshach, Aved-Nego, etc...) bore no relation to their Jewish names. Alternatively: Chazal could have thrown in the timing problem to flag to the historian that they were not speaking historically. After all, we know from the other narratives quoted that they knew the dates for Alexander Yannai wouldn't work. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:21:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 12:21:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> References: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150728162126.GC24227@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 11:09pm EDT, RnTK wrote: : with their friends, "You can't say kaddish for your Ima or your Abba : today, someone else has kadima"? Correct me if I am mistaken but my impression : is that kaddish yasom is really mainly for genuine yesomim, i.e., those who : lose their parents while they are still children. Rather than correct you, let me provide a mar'eh maqom: Rama YD 376:4, quoting the Mahariq. Both of us probably remembering R Michael Poppers posting this. The Rama says that Qadish Yasom was established for Qetanim, because they cannot be Chazan. BUT... the Rama is clear that this ended before the custom of multiple people saying Qaddish at once began. When writing the above, I started wondering about areas like Vilna, where a daughter would say Qaddish for parents who had no sons. Did this minhag begin back when only one person said Qaddish at a time? If so, she would get the same priority for Qaddish Yasom as a qatan, no? But cold you picture such a scene in early 19th cent Litta, a woman saying Qaddish by herself on one side of the mechitzah or by the doorway, and all the men of the minyan answering? So my instinct is that this minhag post-dates group Qaddish. But my instinct might be based on revisionist history, for all I know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:38:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:38:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:153am EDT, R Saul Guberman wrote: : RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & : the Tosafists. : http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ : Our *Torah shebe'al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish : history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a : great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, : but the *Torah shebe'al peh* would have survived without him. However, : without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, : any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe'al peh* today. Which is a different statement than the subject line. I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue understanding the gemara. But one thing RGS loses is RYBS's context. RYBS was saying this in shiur, in a room where talmidim bring a compact edition of the Rambam with them for reference. It's a different thing to make this statement while sitting in Brisk, when you may intentionally state a perspective re-setting idea more strongly than in other settings. On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 2:43pm EDT, R Sholom Simon wrote: : We trace Rashi's mesorah pretty easily back to Rabbeinu Gershom -- but : where did _he_ get _his_ mesorah from? How did it get from Bavel and the : Gaonim to northern Europe? In a teshuvah, Rabbeinu Gershom says he was taught most of his Torah by "R' Leon". He means Rabbi Yehudah (Leontin) ben Rabbi Meir haKohein. R' Leontin was from Iraly, but he was in France before reaching Mainz. In France he picked up talmidim who then followed him to Ashkenaz, including Rabbinu Gershom and R' Yosef Tuv Elem (Tuv Elem = Bonfils, you will see him the the Mordechai alot, Tosafos, and [if you ever have occasion to look] Machzor Vitri). Rabbeinu Gershom took over the yeshiva upon RYBRM's petirah, which is probably why he is "Rabbeinu" rather than "Rav". The thing is, the tradition in Provence is that they came from EY. For example, in Luneil it was (is?) believed that the city was founded by refugees from Yericho, who commemorated their city of origin by using a translation of the same name: yareiach = luna. Which brings me to RGS's reply to R Sholom, written yesterday, Jul 27, 2015, at 5:59pm EDT: : Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German : mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger : disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. : However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments : against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from : Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume : 2 of his Collected Essays. If there is any truth to the Israeli Provencial tradition, we have a link in terms of rabbinic leadership to EY. However, not only do nusach hatefillah, piyut, and a number of pesaqim (which RRW educated me on repeatedly on these "pages" in the past) point toward an EY origin of Ashkenaz, so does something I didn't see R/Dr Soloveitchik address -- genetics. A map of the Jewish genetic tree http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072 shows the closes affinity for the Ashkenazi gene pool were the Italian, Greek, Turkish and Syrian communities. Notably all under the Roman Empire. Whereas the Jews of the geonic lands -- from Bavel through Qairouan, Tunisia -- form a second grouping. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:45:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:45:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728174552.GE24227@aishdas.org> I just posted: : However, the loss of a codifier who : stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of : mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But : Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue : understanding the gemara. I meant to add a different (and to my mind very important) way of looking at this idea: In terms of mesorah, a flow of TSBP as a "dialog down the ages" (to use RYBS's terminlogy), the parshan keeps the chain connected down the ages in a way that a Yad, designed to be stand-alone, does not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:24:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:24:20 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go > by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and > Hebrew? > I don't follow: the Hasmonean and post-Hasmonean kings did all have both Hebrew and Greek or Latin names, but Yannai is a *Hebrew* name, from the same root as Yona. I know someone who Hebraized his surname from Taubmann to Yannai ("Taub" is German for "dove"). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:50:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:50:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 09:24:20AM -0700, Simon Montagu wrote: : > Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go : > by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and : > Hebrew? : I don't follow: the Hasmonean and post-Hasmonean kings did all have both : Hebrew and Greek or Latin names, but Yannai is a *Hebrew* name, from the : same root as Yona. I know someone who Hebraized his surname from Taubmann : to Yannai ("Taub" is German for "dove"). I believe this is a folk etymology. Where would the alef (yud, nun, alef, yud) have come from? But more tellingly, Alexander Janneus's Hebrew name was Yehonasan, like his uncle. See the Latin and Hebrew on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Jannaeus#/media/File:JanaeusCoinPhoto.jpg If he could be "Alexander Yannai" in one language and "Yonasan" in another, who knows it there weren't another king whose Latin name "Janneus" was simply not preserved? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:17:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:17:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: There are those who argued that Tosfos (in particular Rabbeinu Tam) essentially created Ashkenazi mesorah by radically changing how we study and relate to Gemara and how we relate to popular practice. One might suggest without exaggeration that Tosfos created our Mesora. In which case Rashi's mesora is less relevant. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> There certainly is a lot of evidence that Ashkenzi minhagim com more from E"Y than Bavel. But do we know of any chochomim that went from anywhere in the Middle East to Germany? I.e., ok, even if we accept that either there was a third school, or it came from E"Y -- do we yet know *how* it got to Northern Europe? (Or perhaps the answers are in articles that Haym Soloveitchik or David Berger wrote? (And, if so, does anyone have any citations?) -- Sholom On 2015-07-27 17:59, Gil Student wrote: > Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. > > However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume 2 of his Collected Essays. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:18:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:18:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Sources_for_Not_Covering_Hair=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > 2) I knew a talmid who was close to the rav in the 70s ... when getting married, he told me that he asked the rav all his shailos -- except about head covering for his wife (she did) -- he said that it was thought problematic to ask him because of the rav's wife I have a related story. A talmid who was also close to him. When getting married he _did_ ask about a head covering for his wife (after apologizing for asking it). If I remember the story correctly, the Rav smiled and said that he wasn't the right person to ask. -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:41:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:41:08 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Molad Message-ID: Calendars in my home town print the latest times of saying Kiddush Levana, which equate to exactly fifteen days after the announced Molad time. This might be an entire night, or an exact time, e.g. Sunday night 22.45. But since the astronomical Molad can be some distance from the calculated Molad times, by sometimes as much as twelve hours, does this not mean that these sof zeman kiddush levana times can be faulty by that same margin? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:00:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:00:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728180043.GG24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 01:28:42PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : There certainly is a lot of evidence that Ashkenzi minhagim com more : from E"Y than Bavel. Although experts, O Rabbi-PhDs, debate the issue. So what seems obvious to you or me apparently isn't. : But do we know of any chochomim that went from anywhere in the Middle : East to Germany? I already posted the mesorah from EY to Provence to Rabbeinu Gershom. Jews really started reaching the Rhineland area at the invitation of Charlemagne in the 9th cent CE, when he started the Holy Roman Empire. They came from Provence (again) and Italy. Recall that most of the captives from EY ended up in Rome, and you can understand how an Israeli presence in Italy would have already been established. Far more so than the Jews of the geonate -- who, as I mentioned, were living outside the Roman Empire. In mythic form, we have a story of a King Charles invited R' Moshe ben Klonimus from Lucca to Mainz. In documentation form, Louis "the Pious", C's son, left charters showing that he too invited Jewish merchants to provide an economic backbone to his country, and mentions that he was continuing his father's invitation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person must be very patient micha at aishdas.org even with himself. http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:10:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:10:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: AIUI the MN "was all that you needed to study". Are you/RGS saying that this is only as a codifier? RAMBAM did not feel that he was passing on the mesorah? In the end, it does not matter what he wrote, RASHI vs RAMBAM, you must have RASHI, RAMBAM is nice but without RASHI you come to a dead end? On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > > I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah > through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who > stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of > mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But > Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue > understanding the gemara. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:32:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:32:24 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are forgotten after 12 months (memory of the bet hamikdash is different) I have a personal problem with this statement. To my sorry I know of several people who have lost children especially in the age of 18-25. One thing I have learned from these people is that one never forgets a child, It is part of their lives every day. The secretary of my department lost a son in a flash flood in the negev. She changed her last name to incorporate the name of that son. Every time she signs her name she remembers her son, Others who have lost sons in military actions say kaddish every day for the son many years later. I would just imagine that Yaakov having lost his "favorite" son would not forget him after 12 months but indeed would mourn for him forever -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:09:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:09:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 12:41 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > Calendars in my home town print the latest times of saying Kiddush > Levana, which equate to exactly fifteen days after the announced > Molad time. This might be an entire night, or an exact time, e.g. > Sunday night 22.45. That should be halfway between moldos, i.e. 14d 18h 22m after the molad, not a full 15 days. It should also be adjusted for the time difference between your standard time and Y'm's real time, which for NY is 7h 20m in the winter and 6h 20m in the summer. Using a full 15 days is only bediavad. > But since the astronomical Molad can be some distance from the > calculated Molad times, by sometimes as much as twelve hours, does > this not mean that these sof zeman kiddush levana times can be faulty > by that same margin? Yes, but since we have no easy way (other than consulting readily- available secular resources, of course) of determining when the real full moon occurs, we use the calculated moldos, *unless* there is a lunar eclipse, since that by definition happens at the true full moon. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:28:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:28:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B7C9D0.5030709@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 01:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If he could be "Alexander Yannai" in one language and "Yonasan" in > another, who knows it there weren't another king whose Latin name > "Janneus" was simply not preserved? Here's a thought: AFAIK there is no mention in the gemara of a second, bad, King Agrippas. The only Agrippas mentioned is the first one, the good one. Also, as far as I know, there is no record of the second Agrippas's Hebrew name. What if the first Agrippas gave his oldest son Yannai as his Jewish name, after the first Yannai, and that is how he was known among Jews, and therefore by the Amoraim, while Josephus called him by his Roman name, Herod Agrippa? -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:23:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:23:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus Message-ID: <> Any Jewish king would have been over 100 before the churban besides there is the known problem with Yehoshua ben Gamla having his position bought for him OTOH he seems to have done good deeds Interestingly wikipedia writes "*Yehoshua ben Gamla* (or Joshua son of Gamla) was a Jewish high priest who officiated in about 64 CE. He married the rich widow Martha of the high-priestly family Boethos (Yeb. vi. 4), and she by bribing Jannai secured for him the office of high priest (Yeb. 61a; Yoma 18a; comp. "Ant." xx. 9, ? 4). Although Yehoshua himself was not a scholar, he was solicitous for the instruction of the young, and provided schools in every town for children over five years of age, earning thereby the praises of posterity (B. B. 21a). The two lots used on the Day of Atonement , hitherto of boxwood, he made of gold (Yoma iii. 9). Yehoshua did not remain long in office, being forced, after a year, to give way to Matthias ben Theophil ("Ant." xx. 9, ? 7)." i.e. Martha bribed someone named Jannai in 64CE. Not clear who this Jannai is but definitely not a king -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:44:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:44:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B7DB8C.8030404@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 03:23 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Interestingly wikipedia writes I.e. somebody, perhaps with no more information than you or me, wrote > i.e. Martha bribed someone named Jannai in 64CE. Not clear who this > Jannai is but definitely not a king Says who? Why do you say that, especially when not only does the gemara say he was a king, but we know that at the time the kehuna gedola was in the gift of king? -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 13:37:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:37:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? Message-ID: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> From: Meir Shinnar via Avodah >> That is the crux of the issue -- not whether we wish to pasken that this is muttar for ourselves (or for those who listen to us..) -- but how we view those who follow a different shitta -- and anyone who suggests that RYBS viewed his wife as nonobservant or not fully halachically committed is motsi la'az and needs to go to her kever [snip] That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. << Meir Shinnar >>>> [1] No one has ever suggested that RYBS viewed his wife as "nonobservant" so nobody has to go to her kever, although anyone who wants to may do so. I assume her children and grandchildren go on her yahrzeit. The line between observant and nonobservant is pretty clear, even though all of us sometimes sin. I have yet to hear of anyone saying that if a woman keeps Shabbos, kashrus and taharas hamishpacha, but does not cover her hair, she is "nonobservant." However if you know of a person who does say that, please cite the source, thank you. Maybe he is the same person who says that if you talk loshon hara you are nonobservant -- and therefore there are only about 500 observant Jews in the whole world, if that. [2] There is no "different shita." There was no "shitta in Lita" allowing married women to go out with their hair uncovered. What there was in Lita was the winds of Haskala, Reform and sliding, sliding, sliding away from Torah, more marked among the women even than among the men. Sarah Schnirer noted that there were chassidishe homes in Poland where, after the Friday night Shabbos meal, the teenage girls and even the mother would go out to see a play at the local theater. If there was slippage in Poland, where chassidus was strong, you can just imagine what was going on in Lita, where there was nothing to capture the hearts and minds of people who were not themselves talmidei chachamim -- viz, the unlearned masses, and the women. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 14:30:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:30:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> References: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150728213052.GA12259@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:37pm EDT, RnTK wrote: : [2] There is no "different shita." There was no "shitta in Lita" : allowing married women to go out with their hair uncovered... The AhS, whose theory of pesaq gives a lot of weight to seeing which ruling was accepted as general practice, famously permits saying Shema while seeing a married woman with her hair uncovered. But this is what he says in OC 75:7 , where that heter is given: And now, we will cry about the breached of our generation in its many since, for many years Benos Yisrael violate this sin and go with a revealed head. And whateve we yell about this, it doesn't help and it doesn't have an effect. And now this mispachas [oe of the nega'im] has spread, that married [women] go with their hyair like the besulos do. Woe to us that this arose in our generation! Still, al kol panim, according to the din is appears permitted to us to daven and make berakhos opposite their revealed heads, since now that most of them go this way... memeilah there won't be hirhur. So, RYME is pretty clear: It was common, it was viewed has a sin -- not "a different shittah", and the rabbinate did complain but no one listened. And again, that's the AhS, not the textual theoretician "what ought the ideal halakhah be from a clean slate" approach of the MB. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 14:46:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:46:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728214605.GB12259@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 02:10:52PM -0400, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: : AIUI the [MT] "was all that you needed to study". Are you/RGS saying that : this is only as a codifier? RAMBAM did not feel that he was passing on the : mesorah? In the end, it does not matter what he wrote, RASHI vs RAMBAM, you : must have RASHI, RAMBAM is nice but without RASHI you come to a dead end? As the Rambam says in the haqdamah (par 40 ), the goal was to put the "TSBP kulah sedurah befi hakol" -- his primary audience was the masses. And we know how much he thought of the masses. Similarly he continues (41) by telling you he his work "Mishneh Torah" because it fulfills the shelish bemishnah -- the studying of halakhah pesuqah. (He calls it sheliesh BTSBP, but as you just saw in the haqdamah, the Rambam both identifies the two and also says they're contained in his MT.) However, in Hil' Talmud Torah 1:12 tells you that that's only "betechilas tazlmudo shel adam, aval kesheyagdil bechokhmah" he should set time for TSBK and divrei hashemu'ah so as not to forget, "veyifneh kol yamav ligemara". So it is not impossible that even the Rambam himself might agree that those who explain how to do the shaqlara vetarya like gemara, or lomdus, or "veyotzi davar midavar veyidmeh dava ledavar" etc... are more central to the mesorah than his own Mishneh Torah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 13:54:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: <9ea4b.71e33b03.42e9460c@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) >>The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are forgotten after 12 months (memory of the bet hamikdash is different) I have a personal problem with this statement. To my sorry I know of several people who have lost children especially in the age of 18-25. One thing I have learned from these people is that one never forgets a child << --Eli Turkel >>>>> My grandmother had a baby daughter who died at the age of five months, and fifty years or more after that, I once asked her about the baby she had lost. She started to cry as if it had just happened, and described the baby in detail -- what she looked like, what she could do at five months and so on. So I learned the lesson that a parent never forgets a lost child. However, she only cried for a little while and then returned to her cheerful self. I'm sure that in the year after her baby died, she was not cheerful. I don't think "gezeira al hameis" means the person is literally forgotten, but that the degree of mourning becomes less intense. Initially the bereaved person, especially a bereaved parent, simply cannot believe the child is gone, and constantly thinks and even dreams about the child. With the passage of months and years, the knowledge that the child is truly gone is assimilated and the parent goes on with life, even if a heaviness always remains somewhere in the background. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 15:38:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 18:38:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150728223810.GD12259@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:12am EDT, R/Dr Meir Shinnar wrote: : Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions : I) in hazal - that continued desire for some forbidden actions : is compatible with a high spiritual state - issue is control of : the desire - NOT its presence : II) Aristotelian ethics - a high spiritual state does not desire : for forbidden - the desire is a sign of a flaw. But chazal too talk in terms of virtue ethics, not just in terms of kibush hayeitzer (overcoming the desire) but also tiqun hayeitzer (adjusting those desires). Most famously, "mah Hu Chanun, af atah chanun". Or, as the Rambam paraphrased, "mah hu *niqra* 'Chanun'..." It doesn't speak of giving to others without cause despite desire, it asks us to develop the middos of chanun, rachum, etc... Now, on to a totally different topic... On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 05:15:16PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote: : Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. Sex : is proper as long as you minimize it. - Is the difference really that : subtle? To me, it is as subtle as a brick. I think the difference is just about that, but because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: 1- It involves a second party. There is no threat of objectifying good. 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... Therefore, the attitude toward perishus for each comes from opposite directions. For food, which is necessary for survival, we talk about how much is too much. For sex, we talk about the right balance between keeping the other happy (chiyuv onah) and turning them into a tool for your own happiness. The bottom line is still the same: perishus from challenges I cannot handle while be maqdish olam hazeh the rest of the time. The details differ due to the differences above. On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:18am GMT, Kenneth Miller wrote: : .... This is a case where the Shulchan : Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went : uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed... On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:41pm EDT, Rn Toby Katz replied: : It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too loosely. If : it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim and acharonim, agree : that marital intercourse is always mutar (assuming the usual, the wife is not : a nidah, it's not forced, it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really : talking about here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan : Aruch. What frequency is optimum? Surely that is at least partly subjective, ... While what I said before about "minimize it" not meaning all that different from "don't overdue" addresses this question of RAM's as well, I think RnTK's response is really the essence of the answer. But to quibble with the language... I'm not sure it's "hashkafah" as much as Hilkhos Dei'os / Chovos haLvavos. After all "Qedoshim tihyu" is a chiyuv, not a nicety, and that's a source for "perushim tihyu". What a mitzvah to be or to become something (such as "qadosh") is in practice, though, is inherently situational and subjective. If we were talking about something reducible to black-letter halakhah and objective rules, it would have been. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 15:58:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:58:41 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <20150728.185841.2133.0@webmail10.vgs.untd.com> R"n Toby Katz wrote: > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar > (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, > it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might also be RTK's point). But if that is how we are to understand the vocabulary, then we have a whole new way of reading the Shulchan Aruch. Here are some examples: It's not assur to shmooze between Geulah and Tefillah of Maariv. (236:2) It's not assur to say Shehecheyanu on the Lulav on the second day. (662:2) Surely that is at least > partly subjective, and any of the various sources that apparently disagree with each other can be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up what your gut tells you is right. I can easily see a modern day rav or Torah mentor varying his answers depending on the circumstances of the wife and husband who are asking him for advice, as well as accepted societal norms. Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least some obligation to fulfill. ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b8096a62fe9695575st03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 20:51:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:51:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 02:09:11PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : That should be halfway between moldos, i.e. 14d 18h 22m after the : molad, not a full 15 days. It should also be adjusted for the time : difference between your standard time and Y'm's real time, which : for NY is 7h 20m in the winter and 6h 20m in the summer. Using : a full 15 days is only bediavad. Y-m time to EST is 7h 21m, not 20. But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we call it. It's hard to know exactly where the molad is being announced for, since the average lunation has changed over time and the accumulated difference between estimation and reality over millenia has grown large. Right now, the average molad matches the average moment of new moon for Qandahar, Afghanistan. If we go back in time to when the molad was closest to one lunar month, we get to 4th cent CE, the days of Hillel Nesi;ah. The av beis din to whom R Hai Gaon attributes our current calendar. If we assume the molad then was most accurate in start time as well when it was most accurate in durection, then the molad is being announeced for something like Ur Kasdim, which is also around the middle of Jewish settlement at the time, between the Nile and the Euphrates. In which case, the molad is being announced for a place 44 min after IST (not 21m). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 23:45:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 02:45:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 11:51 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Y-m time to EST is 7h 21m, not 20. True. I was approximating, much as the Rambam did with Y'm latitude. > But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we > call it. http://mechon-mamre.org/i/3811.htm#17 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:33:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 02:45:03AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we :> call it. : http://mechon-mamre.org/i/3811.htm#17 The Rambam there (Qiddush haChodesh 11:17) discusses the calculation of the calendar. The rules are set up based on RC in Y-m. Announcing the molad doesn't reflect the calculated calendar, but the whole Qiddush haChodesh is set up to invoke Sanhedrin being meqadesh al pi re'iyah. So perhaps they chose a clock for announcing the molad that wasn't the one they used to translate to the meridian used for translating mollad into rosh chodesh. Why would we do so? Isn't the meridian of Y-m the obvious time to use even if it weren't the one used to compute the calendar? As I quickly mentioned (I gave more details more than once in the past), I am suggesting a different meridian because if Hillel Nesi'ah ubeis dino had assumed a molad that was 23 min earlier than the one we announce, the molad would be more accurate. 23 min later than Yerushalayim does correspond to a meaningful place at the time, a point exactly midway between the Jews of EY and those of Bavel. Aside from including Ur Kasdim. Not the most obvious choice (Yerushalayim) but still not a random meridian either. So why not assume they picked the meridian for announcing the molad on that basis, and credit the Sanhedrin with knowing the molad to greater accuracy? The question is what that does to molad zaqein, and how we would explain the clean result of before noon vs posponing RH if the molad is after noon. The idea behind molad zaqein is that the furthest east Jewish community would still be able to see (weather permitting) the new moon before the end of RC. This is obviously only a loose idea, since we're talking about timing based on the molad, an approximate average. (So that on average Jews in the east would see the new moon...?) RYGB and/or RAZZ theorize http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n038.shtml#08 that the Calendar Controversy was over the issue of how far east do we worry about. R' Aharon ben Meir wanted to move the cutoff for molad zaqein by 64 chalaqim. (More than 23 min, ie 414 chalaqim.) He doesn't say why. Their article suggests that RABM was setting the rule for molad zaqein based on the furthest known Jewish settlement at that time. Which would be Kaifun, and the numbers work. Whereas RSG objected saying that the location is theoretical, not experimental. The Kuzari (following RSG -- since it's his version of the calendar that we all use) uses this to argue that the international date line is 90 deg east of Y-m ih"q. And thus any Jewish settlement that would be further east would be on the other side of the date line WRT Rosh Chodesh, and there is no problem of the molad being on their day 2. If so, changing the molad by 23 min would change the calendar, halakhah would prove my claim wrong. But few if any of us hold that the date line is 90 deg east of Y-m, east down 125.2 deg E, down Dongeng St in Changchun, China. To quote R Dovid Heber at : Families on the eastern strip of Dongfeng Street would recite kiddush while families a block to the west would recite havdala. It may be possible for those who want two days of Shabbos to walk one block eastbound, down Dongfeng Street, after Seuda Shlishis and start Shabbos again. Those who want to skip almost all of Shabbos could take a short stroll westbound, and go from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. (This post needed something light to leaven it.) >From where I sit, between those who say 180deg and the CI's adjudgment of including the entire land mass if part of it is west of 90deg, the dominant shitah is inconsistent with the Kuzari's explanation. If the date line is not involved, it would mean the machloqes would be about what we mean by the far enough end of Jewish settlement who would still experience the molad before the end of RC. RSG is saying that 90 deg is the Sanhderin mandated estimate, and RABM holds it's the actual furthest settlement. And that stands whether or not RYGB and RAZZ are correct about RAML's sevara, as we're only looking at RSG lehalakhah. I just took the Kuzari's lomdus and asked what it would mean to those who don't agree with his date line. If that line of reasoning is correct, then saying the approximate eastmost community is to be measured from the center of the core Jewish settlement -- between Bavel and EY -- ends up more intuitive than saying it's measured from Y-m. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 05:11:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:11:28 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Ooops! Yesterday I accidentally pressed "send" when I meant to "save draft". The result was a post that was far from finished. Here is what I had intended to publish: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar > (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, > it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might also be RTK's point). But IF that is how we are to understand the vocabulary, then we have a whole new way of reading the Shulchan Aruch. Here are some examples of this new way of understanding: It's not assur to shmooze between Geulah and Tefillah of Maariv (236:2) or to say Shehecheyanu on the Lulav on the second day (662:2) or to say Hallel on RH and YK (584:1) or to get a haircut before Mincha (232:2). It's not assur to daven only in your heart, but it's better if you pronounce the words with your lips. (101:2) I will concede that these examples are indeed less severe than cases where the Shulchan Aruch DOES use the word "assur". But nevertheless, we do not take these halachos as mere suggestions. Despite the lack of the word "asur", we DO accept it as normative psak halacha, and not as "hashkafa", to use RTK's word. So why should Siman 240 be different? Why would we suddenly take the words of Siman 240 to be hashkafa, and wave off the Shulchan Aruch, saying that his derech is different than our derech? Shouldn't we accept it as normative halacha? Even if I feel these halachos to be strange or difficult, shouldn't I at least accept them as a goal to strive for? And if I *don't* strive for them, doesn't that require teshuva? > Surely that is at least partly subjective, and any of the > various sources that apparently disagree with each other can > be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up > what your gut tells you is right. Maybe, but one had better be VERY sure that those sources actually exist, and that they have ample support in the poskim. Otherwise - as I asked a couple of posts ago - how is this any different than what the conservative and reform do? "It's a big machlokes - there's gotta be someone who paskens the way I want, so that's what I'm gonna do." I shudder when I hear otherwise-observant people saying such things. There are indeed some cases where there is such a *lack* of consensus among the poskim that one can do as he wants (one of my teachers paskened this way and for this reason regarding brachos on dessert), but I do not see Siman 240 in this category. We seem to be abandoning the consensus of the Shulchan Aruch and Nosei Keilim, and running to minority rishonim. > Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing > this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing > to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation > of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional > closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly > pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least > some obligation to fulfill. Are we really sure that (for the wife) physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness from the Torah's perspective? Or perhaps that is only an invention of minds which have been clouded by the outside culture? Could it be that Onah requires physical closeness, but not emotional closeness? I get mixed messages on this. On the one hand, an awful lot of Siman 240 is devoted to husband and wife both being of the proper frame of mind, and this is extremely strong evidence to the real importance of emotional closeness. But when I see halachos about keeping conversation to a minimum, and keeping the time involved to a minimum, then I wonder how much closeness can be achieved. I had posted: : Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. : Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. R' Micha Berger responded: > ... because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: > ... 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... Really? Can we really survive without it? You and me, I suppose, but that's because we are male. RTK referenced mitzvas onah. In the Torah's view, sex is as essential as food and shelter are. But only for women. Regardless of whether we're talking about physical closeness or emotional closeness, it seems that the Torah is concerned about closeness only for the woman, and not for the man. For women, closeness is a need which must be met; for men, closeness is a taavah which must be controlled. Let's not allow ourselves to get confused between needs and taavos. A person may desire something so much that he thinks it to be a need, but he is deluding himself. Nowhere do I see any responsibilities of the wife which are comparable to Mitzvas Onah. Yes, she'll be a "moredet" if she refuses, but (as I understand it) that is due to the social contract implicit in the concept of marriage, which is a very cry from a Chiyuv D'Oraisa. ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b8c3465e5f543465c9est02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:01:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:01:07 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla Message-ID: according to the Hebrew wikipedia Matyha bat Baytus bought the high priesthood for her husband Yehoshua ben Gamla towards the end of the second Temple. As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai and they guess that it was from Agripas II. Furthermore Yehoshua Ben Gamla was killed during the revolt against Rome. (Where the high priest Yishmael ben Elisha fits in we have discussed in the past) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:07:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:07:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150729160759.GF12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 06:01:07PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> according to the Hebrew wikipedia Matyha bat Baytus bought the high :> priesthood for her husband Yehoshua ben Gamla towards the end of the second :> Temple. As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai and they guess :> that it was from Agripas II. : Furthermore Yehoshua Ben Gamla was killed during the revolt against Rome. : (Where the high priest Yishmael ben Elisha fits in we have discussed in the : past) The gemara is Yuma 18a and Yevamos 61a. The mishnah in Yevemos says that Yehoshua ben Gamla married Marta bas Baisus, an almana, but before consummating the marriage "umanahu melekh" to be kohein gadol, The point of the mishnah is that they can stay married, as actually happened in this event. The gemara comments on the language of "manahu" rather than the expected "nisnamneh" to denote that the appointment wasn't the usual approval of a candidate selected by the kohanim and vetted by Sanhedrin. Then the gemara says she spent two qavin ("tarqav" = trei + qav) of dinarim to buy it. The gemara in Yuma makes this last point as well. Josephus (Antiquities XX 9:4 ) wrote that he became KG during the reign of Herod Agrippa II. Nothing about how. The translation reads weird, calls him "Jesus the son of Gamaliel". I went to the Soncino, since I don't know who else would comment on a gemara - Josephus interaction. Fn 16 on Yuma, 20 on Yevamos make the identity. They first opine that "Jannai is often employed in the Talmud as a general patronymic for Hasmonean and Herodian rulers." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:30:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:30:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?HILCHOS_KIBUD_AV_V=92EIM?= Message-ID: <20150729153144.1CF3218089B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://halachafortodaycom.blogspot.com/2013/02/archives-hilchos-kibud-av-veim.html Some selections from this site. The Aseres HaDibros, the Ten Commandments given to us by Hashem on Har Sinai are divided into two parts, the first five are commandments between man and Hashem (Bein Adam L?Makom) and the last five are commandments between man and fellow man (Bein Adam L?Chaveiro) Kibud Av V?Eim ,the fifth of the Aseres HaDibros, is listed amongst the commandments that are between man and Hashem even though it is seemingly a commandment that is only between man and man. The reason for this is that honoring one?s parents is akin to honoring Hashem. There are 3 partners in every human being, the father, the mother and Hashem. If one honors any of the three it is as if all three have been honored, and if one dishonors any of the three it?s as if all three have been dishonored. 1)It is prohibited to contradict a parent. (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah Siman 240:2) If a parent has a verbal disagreement with another person, and the child tells the other person ?I concur with your view?, it is considered contradicting the parent and is prohibited. (Shach Yoreh Deah 240:2) 2) According to some Poskim this prohibition is only in the presence of the parent. Other Poskim, however, maintain that even not in the presence of the parent it is prohibited. 1)It is forbidden to call a parent or refer to them by their name; rather they need to be referred to as ?My father [my teacher]? or ?My mother?. 1) What constitutes ?Kibud, respecting? parents? One must speak to their parents softly, with respect the way one would speak to a king. 1) Children are obligated to stand up for their parents when they enter a room. 1) If a parent does something that is against the Torah and a child sees, the child should not say ?You transgressed a Torah prohibition?, as bluntly saying so will cause the parent embarrassment. Rather, the child should say something to the effect of: ?Father Does it say in the Torah that one should not .?? in a way that sounds like a question and not like a chastisement or rebuke, and the parent will realize on their own that they have committed the sin. 1) If one?s father asks for a glass of water or any other task, and at the same time his/her mother asked for a glass of water or another task, tending to the father?s needs takes precedence, as the son/daughter and the mother are both obligated to respect the father/husband. 2) If a parent is sleeping it is forbidden to wake them up. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:51:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:51:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B8F66D.2000701@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 11:33 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > > But few if any of us hold that the date line is 90 deg east of Y-m, > east down 125.2 deg E, down Dongeng St in Changchun, China. To quote > R Dovid Heber at: > Families on the eastern strip of Dongfeng Street would recite > kiddush while families a block to the west would recite havdala. > It may be possible for those who want two days of Shabbos to walk > one block eastbound, down Dongfeng Street, after Seuda Shlishis and > start Shabbos again. Those who want to skip almost all of Shabbos > could take a short stroll westbound, and go from sunset Friday to > sunset Saturday. > (This post needed something light to leaven it.) Shu"T Bnai Tziyon points to a gemara about two villages within techum shabbos, where it was Yom Kippur in one and not the other, because that was the last place the messenger had made it before sunset. (I can't figure out how that actually worked, but that is what the gemara says.) He avoids the awkwardness of the situation posited in this clip by positing that the line is not one-dimensional but is several miles wide, and that the area inside the line has an official din of sofek, like bein hashmoshos. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:21:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 19:21:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: saw some trivia questions: 1) Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters of the alph-bet (I only know one) 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:51:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:51:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150729165138.GH12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 07:21:20PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 1) Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters : of the alph-bet (I only know one) Soferim use Tzefania 3:8 to show their penmanship, because it not only includes all 22 letters, it also includes all the sofios. Is that a way to denote total ultimate justice (the meaning of the words ) or what? This question is easier than that, just asking for 22 letters, not whether sofis or not. I already heard this one so I will leave the other 6 for others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:58:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B8F834.5060103@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 11:01 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > according to the Hebrew wikipedia Which is no more authoritative than English WP, and in fact seems to have looser rules regarding sourcing. > Matyha bat Baytus Martha. > As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai As Tosfos already points out, in both places where the gemara quotes this memra. > they guess that it was from Agripas II. That seems like a good guess, that the Yannai in the memra refers to the king Josephus calls Herod Agrippa II, but it is only a guess. On 07/29/2015 12:07 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I went to the Soncino, since I don't know who else would comment on a > gemara - Josephus interaction. Fn 16 on Yuma, 20 on Yevamos make the > identity. They first opine that "Jannai is often employed in the Talmud > as a general patronymic for Hasmonean and Herodian rulers." Which, for all we know, it may have been. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 10:13:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:13:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B909C7.7070906@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 12:21 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach 1. The definition of an "edah" from "this wicked edah". 2. Hezek re'iyah from Bil'am. 3. Standing for a davar shebikdusha, from Eglon. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 14:57:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:57:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150729215724.GA3540@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:11:28PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : R"n Toby Katz wrote: : > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too : > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim : > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar.... : > What we are really talking about : > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan : > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... : : Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. : : I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount : of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as : "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" : (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken : literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that : these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might : also be RTK's point). Which is why I quibbled with RnTK's language. Becauser I think it's assur -- really and actually assur -- not to try for perishus where possible. It's a bitul asei of "qedoshim tihyu". However, a mitzvah of hilkhos dei'os is to stretch, to move the nequdas habechirah and is therefore not only "at least partly subjective" but necessarily subjective. And if the criteria for behavior could be spelled out non-subjectively, they would be spelled out in chovos ha'eivarim. : I had posted: :: Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. :: Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. : R' Micha Berger responded: :> ... because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: :> ... 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... : Really? Can we really survive without it? You and me, I suppose, : but that's because we are male. Under normal circumstances, one can't go 3 days without food and water. Not just "one would be miserable if", but actual death. I am not sure how you could compare the need for intimacy to that kind of mechanistic do-or-die. : RTK referenced mitzvas onah. In the Torah's view, sex is as essential : as food and shelter are. But only for women. I disagree. And BTW, my #1 which you ellided /was/ mitzvas onah. : Regardless of whether we're talking about physical closeness : or emotional closeness, it seems that the Torah is concerned about : closeness only for the woman, and not for the man. For women, closeness : is a need which must be met; for men, closeness is a taavah which must : be controlled. Or, the Torah presumes that opportunity is in the hands of men. Not a difference in desire. Or -- a 3rd possibility -- lehefech, men are presumed more likely to get distracted by their own taavos and objectify their spouse and therefore the chiyuv of onah to focus on someone else's psychological needs. In any case, the requirement to avoid misery would motivate a chiyuv, one needn't define it as a need. Esperically since biologically, it's not necessary for survival the way food, drink or air are. But getting back to what you're saying here... Let me repeat point #1 in different phrasing: Because onah is indeed a chiyuv, saying that it should be minimized outside the realm of mitzvah isn't that much of a minimization. And yet, the threat of erotic desire becoming an end in itself is both more damaging, since there will be other victims beyond the self-destructive aspect and more likely. (In most people's psychology -- it's not like there is an internet food "porn" industry.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 15:37:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:37:27 GMT Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> R' Eli Turkel asked: > The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov > mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are > forgotten after 12 months ... > > I have a personal problem with this statement. ... one never > forgets a child R"n Toby Katz answered: > I don't think "gezeira al hameis" means the person is literally > forgotten, but that the degree of mourning becomes less intense. > ... the parent goes on with life, even if a heaviness always > remains somewhere in the background. I have had the same question as RET, and I thank RTK for this answer. I have written on several occasions, about my belief that Chazal often exaggerate, and this misleads those who are not used to their style of speaking. I think we have here another example of the same thing. There's a tendency to take Chazal at literal face value. We need to be more careful when reading the poetry. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 08:02:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:02:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Parallels in Kiruv Message-ID: <56c357c0b3404dbcbfc7bce2d25a6162@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Here's a quote from "Their Rock is Not Like Our Rock" - Daniel Strange In a recent article addressed to evangelical pastors I outlined a three-point "to do" list that might begin to move us into this stance: * Develop and deploy a biblically rich and nuanced theology of religions * Discern and denounce the arrogance and intolerance of pluralism * Demonstrate and display, in both word and deed, the unique power of the gospel to change lives and communities My impression is the first two are not generally done by kiruv folks but I was wondering if you replace gospel with orthodoxy and evangelical pastors with kiruv professionals, what fits? Should it be considered as an approach? Kol Tuv, 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 09:30:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:30:47 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: 'oh hanisa elokim' is one; the other is in parshat haman , i forget which one. will leave the dvar tora connecting the two , to others , other than to say the import of 'zeh gilui shechina' and lechem mishamayim as fundaments of faith,,,, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 10:38:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:38:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: From: Eli Turkel via Avodah " 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach -- Eli Turkel >>>>> Don't know if this is what you had in mind but I can think of these: [1] A woman cannot be married without her consent -- learn from Lavan -- "Nish'alah es pi hana'arah" before sending Rivka off with Eliezer to marry Yitzchak. [2] A younger sister cannot marry before the older sister (unless she gets permission from her) -- from Lavan again, excusing himself for giving Leah to Yakov instead of Rachel. [3] Celebrating seven days of sheva brachos -- from two places. One is Lavan again -- give Leah a week to celebrate and then Yakov can marry Rachel. And from the Pelishti "friends" of Shimshon who celebrated his wedding for a week. [4] We also learn from Izevel (Jezebel) that it's a big mitzva to dance at a wedding, to be mesameach chassan vekallah, but strictly speaking this is not in Tanach, it's a midrash. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 11:41:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:41:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: In Avodah V33n109, RET posted > Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters of the alph-bet (I only know one) < In the Torah, a *pasuq* in P'Va'eschanan (4 :34) is usually noted, but it (containing letter *sin* but no *shin*) works only when the *shin* and the *sin* are considered the same letter (they are, so long as we're considering the written form). The other *pasuq* in the Torah of which I'm aware is Shmos 16 :16 (in it, the *shin* is extant but there's no *sin*). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 15:30:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:30:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months In-Reply-To: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150730223053.GA17753@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:37:27PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : I have written on several occasions, about my belief that Chazal often : exaggerate, and this misleads those who are not used to their style of : speaking. I think we have here another example of the same thing. There's : a tendency to take Chazal at literal face value. We need to be more : careful when reading the poetry. Tanakh sometimes does something else with a similar effect, and it may be what Chazal are doing here. Lei'ah, rather than being described as "less loved" is "senu'ah". It's not necessarily exageration as much as a language norm to express a relative statement uing the same terms as absolutes. Here too chazal are making a comparison. Was the reader expected to know it's guzma, or was the norm in mishnaic Hebrew as well to use the term for the end of the spectrum to mean "less mourned than"? My problem with this is the parent of the MIA who can't let go for years or decades, and then it's found out that the chayal r"l was killed upon capture (or their body was taken after petirah for a bargaining chip). We have no experimental evidence of parents having that mystical knowledge of their children's state, and quite a bit of evidence otherwise. Perhaps Yaaqov avinu, or even someone with "just" ruach haqodesh is that aware of what's going on on the plane of souls without learning about them through normal olam hazeh means. But I do not see it being true of the majority of humanity. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 20:39:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 03:39:12 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> I tried to make the point that although many try to show similarites between food and sex, if we look at the Torah's view, there are far more differences. I suggested a rule of thumb: > Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. > Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. Chazal see food as an entirely proper way of enjoying olam hazeh, to the point that it is actively encouraged as a form of all sorts of celebrations. (And not only happy celebrations, but eating is also involved in various mourning practices.) Under normal circumstances, one can and should eat as much as he needs, subject to the limitations of kashrus and brachos. One is never allowed to eat in a quantity or manner that he becomes a menuval, but that is not a major concern. Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah. And even there, the restrictions are many. Food has tremendous room for creativity even within the restrictions of hilchos kashrus and brachos. Sex could be similar, even within the bounds of hilchos nidda and arayos, but the restrictions set out in OC 240 go much farther than merely to insure that one does not become a menuval. R' Micha Berger responded: > I think the difference is just about that, but because of the > biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: > 1- It involves a second party. There is no threat of > objectifying [food]. > 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... > Therefore, the attitude toward perishus for each comes from > opposite directions. For food, which is necessary for survival, > we talk about how much is too much. For sex, we talk about the > right balance between keeping the other happy (chiyuv onah) > and turning them into a tool for your own happiness. I think that he is agreeing with me that food and sex are very different, but I disagree with his explanation of *why* they are so different. In his first point, intended to be "food"), he seems to feel that the restrictions on sex are to prevent people from taking advantage of each other: If I have even a small desire for a snack, the Torah has no problem at all if I go to the kitchen and take an apple (provided that I say the bracha to acknowledge Hashem's involvement) because the apple is nothing more than an apple. But while casual eating is fine, casual sex is not. Casual sex involves people, and they must not be taken advantage of. My problem with this is on several levels. First, Chazal are pretty explicit that the purpose of Hilchos Nida is to restore a honeymoon-style atmosphere on a regular basis, and that alone might suffice to insure that spouses aren't objectified. Also, we have the many parts of OC 240 which insure that husband and wife are in the same "place" emotionally: no one is drunk, words of "ritzui", and so on. But isn't that sufficient protection against objectifying? What is gained from the additional restrictions (such as various positions, or finishing quickly) which have no parallel in food? In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach the Torah uses for Onah. While men and women are pretty much identical in the halachos of food, Onah places the husband and wife in opposite situations. Any discussion of Onah that uses the word "spouse" will be flawed, because Onah treats the husband and wife so differently. For example, whenever the wife desires relations, then the husband has a clear and present chiyuv d'Oraisa. But if the husband desires, she has no corresponding obligation; in fact (if I'm not mistaken) she's not even labeled as a "moredet" until after prolonged and repeated refusals. It seems to me that Onah may have the effect of objectifying males. Those parts of Orach Chaim 240 which forbid unwilling relations ought to suffice to insure that the women are not objectified. But Onah seems to push the pendulum too far. In response to RTK, RMB wrote: > I'm not sure it's "hashkafah" as much as Hilkhos Dei'os / Chovos > haLvavos. After all "Qedoshim tihyu" is a chiyuv, not a nicety, > and that's a source for "perushim tihyu". > What a mitzvah to be or to become something (such as "qadosh") > is in practice, though, is inherently situational and subjective. > If we were talking about something reducible to black-letter > halakhah and objective rules, it would have been. And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective rules", is it not? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 1 22:55:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 00:55:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: I initially replied on Areivim to a post reminding women during the summer to cover their hair. Mrs. Katz added that there was no support for those who hold that hair covering in public is not necessary. Others have disputed what RYBS's position on hair covering was, in view of the fact that his wife did NOT cover her hair in public at all times(someone seems to have the impression that she wore a hat). Here are the sources I have collected, in addition to the fact that a significant percentage of Modern Orthodox women to not cover their hair in public except in shul/davening situations. In response to those who have stated that the younger more educated women are covering their hair, I would point out that they have been educated to believe that it is an obligation, and the permissive sources have not been shared with them- case in point Mrs. Katz who either is not aware or chooses to dismiss them out of hand. In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is: if it is the practice of women to cover [their hair] and she uncovered it, then this is immodesty ( *ervah*). But if it was not the regular practice [of women] to cover [their hair] then [going uncovered] is not in the category of immodesty at all. If they uncover one hand?s-breadth in a place where they are habituated to cover then it is [a case of] uncovering immodesty and it is prohibited to read the Shema prayer in their presence... But if their (ladies?) custom is to uncover their hair (or a hand?s-breadth of the body) ? as single women do who by custom walk around with head [hair] uncovered - then this [action] does not constitute immodesty (*ervah*)." If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. Here is a list of easily accessable sources: Rabbi Marc Angel(former president of the Rabbinical Council of America) discusses why hair covering is not mandated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbrQwEerLsY Massive article by Rabbi Michael Broyde: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/0095-0180.pdf I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and everyone can come to their own conclusion. Rav Yosef Haim(author of Ben Ish Chai) writing that hair covering is not necessary(and how his opinion was altered by others): http://text.rcarabbis.org/the-ben-ish-hai-and-women%E2%80%99s-hair-covering-an-interesting-case-of-censorship-by-jacob-sasson/ See Rabbi Broyde's article(pages 155-158) for citations of those who state that hair covering is not mandated in the current society: R. Yitzchak Hurwitz in Yad HaLevi R. Moshe Malka(late Chief Rabbi of Petach Tikvah) R. Josef Messas(late chief rabbi of Morocco and later Haifa) R. Yaakov Haim Sofer Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did not cover her hair? Was this permitted by the *halachah*, or was it not prohibited on the grounds of modesty? He took out a *Gemara Berachot*, opened it to page 24A and showed me the Talmudic statement. "Said Rav Sheshet: [showing] hair by a woman is *ervah *(an act of immodesty)." Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with uncovered hair. Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat common. Some will say that- 'they couldn't control their wives' or other such statements. I would point out that RYBS also went to the opera- perhaps in keeping with an approach that hair wasn't erva, a lenient view of kol isha, all of which seems consistent. Furthermore, it seems quite far fetched that a rav who knew that he had great communal status would abide by gross violation of halacha in public by his own family, and at the very least would make it clear that he did not hold by it. Obviously, the fact that he did not make a deal of it(certainly not a big deal), illustrates something. Do you think he would countenance his wife eating treif? furthermore, the chiyyuv is also for men not to see hair(if that is the position that is being taken), and by not protesting his wife's uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 2 03:40:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 13:40:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: <<> 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach 1. The definition of an "edah" from "this wicked edah". 2. Hezek re'iyah from Bil'am. 3. Standing for a davar shebikdusha, from Eglon. >> Some others are: 4. Lavan: Sheva Brachot; also the Bracha we give the Kalla at the bedeken 5. also "chaye shaah" is less important that "chaye olam" from the 4 lepers, gechazi and his sons -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 2 01:25:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 11:25:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: ""It's a big machlokes - there's gotta be someone who paskens the way I want, so that's what I'm gonna do." I shudder when I hear otherwise-observant people saying such things. There are indeed some cases where there is such a *lack* of consensus among the poskim that one can do as he wants (one of my teachers paskened this way and for this reason regarding brachos on dessert), but I do not see Siman 240 in this category. We seem to be abandoning the consensus of the Shulchan Aruch and Nosei Keilim, and running to minority rishonim." R' Lichtenstein was bothered by this point and answered that we need to rely on our teachers and Gedolim. "Probably most significant, however, is our reliance upon our own mentors. Sensing that modern gedolim, ?the judge of your era??for our purposes, most notably, the Rav, but not he alone?have examined the issue and the evidence and adopted a positive stance, we, ordinary students of Torah, follow in their footsteps as we identify with their position. Whether they felt justified in accepting, out of the depths of their own conviction, a minority view; whether they held that our topic was essen- tially a matter of hashkafic proclivity, not necessarily amenable to the nor- mal procedures of pesak; or whether some other unknown but imagined element?might, for instance, the hospitable climate of Kabbalistic sources, have had some impact?is a matter for conjecture. That the authority of our mentors can inform and sustain our sensibility is not." I understand that for many of us that is not a very satisfying answer and leads to many questions about why specifically here we follow minority opinions as opposed to other places (e.g. wombs issues, etc.) but I don't think there is a better answer. This is the way the halachic system works. Even after all of this, R' Lichtenstein himself was bothered by this very point: "I am left, nonetheless, with a lacuna. Even while adhering to the Rav?s position, one may freely concede wishing that he had done for us what we have been challenged and constrained to do here: examine the various tiers of tradition and elucidate the basis for his own judgment and commitment." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 01:21:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:21:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on tefillin Message-ID: There is a disagreement between Rashi/Rambam and R Tam whether one says one or two brachot on tefillin of the arm and head. While sefardim follow SA and say one bracha ashkenazim follow R Tam and say 2 brachot bur add "baruch shem kvod ..." to avoid a bracha le-vatala I have 2 things I don't understand about the ashkenazi minhag 1) The usual rule is "safek bracha le-kula" and so when in doubt don't say a bracha 2) How does saying "barch shem" help ? We have many disagreements about brachot. For example ashkenazim (again following R Tam) say brachot on customs, eg half hallel. We don't add "baruch shem ..." in these cases. Why only in tefillin? Furthermore whenever there is a doubt about a bracha (classical case is if one forgot to count the omer at night and remembered during the day) why do the act without a bracha - why not say the bracha and add "baruch shem" -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 07:43:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:43:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150803144333.GA30399@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 03:39:12AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed : in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah... ... and priya verivya, no? : Food has tremendous room for creativity even within : the restrictions of hilchos kashrus and brachos. Sex could be similar, : even within the bounds of hilchos nidda and arayos, but the restrictions : set out in OC 240 go much farther than merely to insure that one does : not become a menuval. ... : I think that he is agreeing with me that food and sex are very different, : but I disagree with his explanation of *why* they are so different. I have the same assessment. I am saying that the same principle of when perishus is appropriate is very different for food vs sex because food and sex are different in nature. Summarizing my point #1: : But while casual eating is fine, casual sex is : not. Casual sex involves people, and they must not be taken advantage of. : : My problem with this is on several levels. First, Chazal are pretty : explicit that the purpose of Hilchos Nida is to restore a honeymoon-style : atmosphere on a regular basis, and that alone might suffice to insure : that spouses aren't objectified.... If your objection is based on the "might suffice", all one needs to assert is or might not. : What is gained from the additional : restrictions (such as various positions, or finishing quickly) which : have no parallel in food? I am not sure that prohibitions based on mood are sufficient, as it's too easy to fool oneself about what the other person really wants. In any case, you return to OC 240 again at the end of the post and ask: : And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective : rules", is it not? Perhaps not. Is OC 1 black-letter halakhah? Is hitting the snooze button, or even lying around for a few seconds before getting up, actually assur? For that matter, there is a mitzvah to remember right vs left when putting on and tying shoes, but do you really think someone was oveir an issur if they don't? As the AhS OC often notes, the style of the SA is just to discuss do vs don't, and it blurs the distinctions between levels of issur -- a deOraisa can be next to an accepted minhag, and both may even be written in parallel language. : In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival : without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, : psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach : the Torah uses for Onah. : : While men and women are pretty much identical in the halachos of food, : Onah places the husband and wife in opposite situations... Whereas moredes has no parallel because she cannot initiate a gett. And for that matter, it has no parallel because he is obligated to support here. For that matter, the assymetry in who supports who is quite possibly why HQBH set up an assymetric process for gittin. The man who obligates himself in support can get of it. Onah is a protection against that objectification. Against turning that whole support thing into near prostitution. And with onah, the outcome is more symmetric -- he can end a marriage if dissatisfied, and is obligated to keep her satisfied. Without which BD can force him to willingly end the marriage. (Just paraphrasing the din...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 08:17:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:17:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on tefillin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150803151733.GB30399@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:21:03AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I have 2 things I don't understand about the ashkenazi minhag : : 1) The usual rule is "safek bracha le-kula" and so when in doubt don't say : a bracha : 2) How does saying "bar[u]ch shem" help ? ... The AhS (OC 25:11 ) agrees with you on both points, and therefore posits (se'ifim 12-13) a totally different meaning to the 2nd berakhah. And even though shel yad and shel rosh are two different of the 613, we make one berakhah on maaser rishon and maaser sheini. He also quotes that the BY rejects a possibility that if someone talks between the two tefillin, he would have to make both berakhos on the shel rosh -- repeting "lehaniach" and yet still saying "al mitzvah". But even though he uses this as proof, he requires (se'if 16, following the Ran via the MA s"q 15) loosening the shel yad so that you are still saying "lehaniach" the 2nd time on both. This is a pretty big chiddush, a birkhas hoda'ah that says "asher qidshanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu al mitzvas..." However, similar arguments are made about Birkhas haTorah, if one says the berakhah is deOraisa (Ramban) and therefore "aqb"v la'asoq bedivrei Torah" can't be a birkhas hamitzvah. The IM says as much (OC 2:3). : We don't add "baruch shem ..." in these cases. Why only in tefillin? Leshitas AhS, it follows enacting the qesher gadol between us and HQBH for the same reason the pasuq is said after the first pasuq of Shema. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:04:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 17:04:47 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> I wrote: : Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed : in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah... R' Micha Berger asked: > ... and priya verivya, no? I was trying to show differences between sex and food. I would say that, in the eyes of Halacha, there is no connection between pirya v'rivya and the olam-hazeh enjoyment of sex, in exactly the same manner that there is no connection between achilas matzah and the olam-hazeh enjoyment of food. The latter is a means of internalizing a historical connection, and the former is a biological imperative, but neither has any connection to olam-hazeh enjoyment. However, that it not to say that halacha is blind to the fact that sex *IS* enjoyable. This is recognized by the mitzvah of Oneg Shabbos, where if the act is to be done once a week, then Shabbos is receommended. Chiyuv Onah also recognizes that if the wife has a taavah for this particular hanaah, then it is the husband's obligation to satisfy her taavah. But pirya v'rivya? No, I don't see evidence of that. I asked: : And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective : rules", is it not? RMB suggested: > Perhaps not. Is OC 1 black-letter halakhah? Is hitting the snooze > button, or even lying around for a few seconds before getting up, > actually assur? For that matter, there is a mitzvah to remember > right vs left when putting on and tying shoes, but do you really > think someone was oveir an issur if they don't? I agree that there are degrees of obligation. A simple verb like "yaaseh" clearly implies a smaller obligation than "chayav laasos". "Must" is much stronger than "should". But if a subject makes it into Shulchan Aruch - as these did - that also shows a stronger obligation than something that appears only in Mesilas Yesharim, or even Gemara for that matter. Yes, I do think that when the alarm clock rings, one has an obligation to seriously consider whether he really *needs* to stay in bed a little longer, or whether he merely *wants* to. And I will admit that - b'shaas maaseh - I rarely consider that as seriously as I should. And that's one of the things I'm trying to improve on. Same thing for tying my shoes - I think that by now I do it correctly by habit, but I'm not really sure, and I'll try to remember to watch myself tomorrow morning. RMB wrote: > Whereas moredes has no parallel because she cannot initiate a gett. And > for that matter, it has no parallel because he is obligated to support > here. For that matter, the assymetry in who supports who is quite > possibly why HQBH set up an assymetric process for gittin. The man who > obligates himself in support can get of it. Yes, I agree that this could be part of why Hashem set it up that way. But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no corresponding safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55c0f0f9c892870f9653ast02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:43:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:43:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <117801d0cedd$1904bea0$4b0e3be0$@com> > But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan > Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went > uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why > aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? Good question. I can't help but thinking that this is one of those (many) halachic issues where the hanhaga of Klal yisroel in certain halachic (or hashkafic) areas has developed to be inline with yechidim than with the majority of chazal/rishonim/etc Why this happens is certainly a discussion - is it societal / siata shimaya guiding Klal yisroel / etc We have many others similar to this (some d'oriasa, some d'rabbanan) - human hair sheitals, chadash, live music after the churban, etc. When this should happen (and when it should be fought), I will leave to the einei haeida. Mordechai Cohen From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:49:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Baruch Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 10:49:07 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Halachic Requirement for Dayanim Evaluating In-Person Facial Expressions of Parties in Bais Din In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: List Mates: In an AMI issue that was reported in VosIzNais, Rabbi Hershel Schachter was quoted as saying: ""*There is a Mishna in Pirkei Avos that the oilam says a vort on. It says, "K'sheyihiyu habaalei dinim lifanecha, yihiyu b'einecha k'resha'im. K'she'yaamdu m'lifanecha yihiyub'einecha k'tzaddikim, shekiblu aleihem es hadin." ["When the litigants stand before you (the judges), they should be in your eyes like wicked people. When they stand up from being in front of you, they should be in your eyes like righteous people, because they have accepted the judgment."] They say from a few different dayanim that they would put a tallis over their face, to not see the face of a rasha. But that is wrong; part of the din Torah is to look at the person and see from his facial expression and how he talks...whether or not he is saying the truth. You have to be able to detect whether he is telling the truth*.'" ( http://www.vosizneias.com/92931/2011/10/11/new-york-in-exclusive-ami-magzine-intreview-noted-rabbi-schachter-slams-set-up-of-rabbinical-court-system/ ) Is there a Halacha that you can direct me to that mandates in-person and face-to-face participation by the parties to a Bais Din for the reasons given by Rabbi Schechter? I found this... The seating configuration of the Sanhedrin ??????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?? ?? The Mishnah describes how the members of the Sanhedrin sat in a row in the shape of a half-circle in order *for each person to be able to see everyone else*. Why was it necessary for everyone to be able to have direct eye contact with everyone else? Rashi explains that it is only when people have direct sight of each other that they can listen and then argue and debate with each other. ?"????? elaborates and says that when people argue and express their views, they often rise from their seats. If they did not sit facing each other, it is quite possible that they would not be able to hear when a person turns as he speaks from a standing position. Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin 1:3) explains that this arrangement was used in order for the President (????) and the Av Beis Din to be able to see everyone. Lechem Mishneh notes that this was a sign of respect for these leaders to sit in the middle and for everyone to easily be able to listen to them. Rashi also addresses why the Sanhedrin sat in a half-circle rather than in a full circle. From a technical standpoint, the witnesses and litigants would have to have a way to enter the circle to present themselves in front of the judges (see Rashi, Chullin 5a). Furthermore, if the judges sat in a full circle, while the witnesses would be facing some of the judges, their backs would be turned toward the others. *The judges might have a hard time hearing the witnesses and litigants, or they would not be able to see them as they spoke. Facial expressions and other subtleties are essential in communication, and the judges must be able to pick up on any and all such nuances during the deliberations*. The Tosefta (8:1) cites differing opinions regarding the seating position of the President of the Sanhedrin. Tanna Kamma holds that the President sat in the center of the semi-circle, with thirty-five of the members of the Sanhedrin seated on each side of him. R' Elazar b. Tzadok says that when Rabban Gamliel sat in the Sanhedrin in Yavne, one of the sages sat to his right, and all the others sat to his left. Rambam (ibid.) writes that the ???? sat with the Av Beis Din to his right, and the rest of the sages to his left, seated according to their ages and their wisdom, with the wisest among them to his immediate left, and the rest seated closer according to their level. Radva"z and Kesef Mishneh ask why Rambam does not rule according to Tanna Kamma, and, as he rules according to R' Elazar b. Tzadok, why the row begins with the Av Beis Din, and not with the ???? himself. Radva"z explains that it was not only the Av Beis Din who sat to the right of the ????, but the ???? sat in the middle, as Tanna Kamma explains, with the Av Beis Din to his immediate right. ??? ???? explains that Rambam rules according to R' Elazar b. Tzadok because he cites the actual case of Rabban Gamliel http://www.dafdigest.org/Sanhedrin/Sanhedrin%20036.pdf -- Respectfully, Baruch C. Cohen, Esq. Law Office of Baruch C. Cohen, APLC Los Angeles, CA 90010 e-mail: BCC4929 at gmail.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:24:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:24:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> From: Kenneth Miller via Avodah >> In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach the Torah uses for Onah. [snip] It seems to me that Onah may have the effect of objectifying males. << Akiva Miller >>>>>> To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without reproduction. Our nitzchius is absolutely dependent on this particular activity, which is why "peru urevu" is actually a mitzva and not "mutar if you wish." It is Hashem's chessed that He made this activity intrinsically pleasurable. If you were a robot or an alien without human emotions and you witnessed this human activity, you would wonder, "What the heck are these humans doing? And why?!" I am not an expert on male physiology but I am under the impression that for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. This reminds me of something else I wanted to say in response to some of RMB's posts. He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her. But human beings derive pleasure from each other all the time, whether the pleasure is a stimulating conversation, "please scratch my back," playing with a delightful, cuddly baby -- I could go on and on -- and it is just absurd to think that if another person gives me some kind of pleasure, I have "objectified" that person. Not to forget the main point I wanted to make: sex /is/ necessary for survival, and therefore some comparison to eating food /is/ valid. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:57:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:57:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> References: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150804185730.GA28011@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 02:24:43PM -0400, RnTK wrote: : To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS : required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human : species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without : reproduction... The question is the difference in relationship a person to their hunger compared to their sex drive. You appear to only be objecting to an overly broad use of "required for survival" by not saying "individual's survival", without touching the point that people relate to each desire very differently. (You also seem to ignore non-reproductive sex -- an infertile couple, post-menapouse, etc...) .... : This reminds me of something else I wanted to say in response to some of : RMB's posts. He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from : being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her... Pleasure is a positive thing, as long as it's not the only thing. It's turning a wife into a cheftzah by which he obtains his pleasure that is literally objectifying. If the husband is forced to think about her perspective, his wife as a person, during relations, the risk of the pursuit of pleasure taking over to that point, the mutual search for pleasure is humanizing and bonding, quite the reverse. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:10:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 14:10:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150804181031.667AC180E06@nexus.stevens.edu> At 01:51 PM 8/4/2015, Noam Stadlan wrote: >If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered >hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. Is it really true that what women in the general society do is some standard for tznius for Jewish women. If so, then the practices of "well undressed" gentile women (as R. A Miller used to call them) of today have eliminated all tznius standards. One sees women in public today dressed in almost nothing. [Email #2] At 01:51 PM 8/4/2015, Noam Stadlan wrote: >Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat >common. Just because something is or was commonly done does not make is correct according to halacha. Many, many people talk loshon hara, yet it is not proper according to halacha. [Email #3] Please see Covering the Hair by Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 13:07:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 23:07:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: >> Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters >> of the alph-bet (I only know one) < [R' Michael Poppers:] > In the Torah, a *pasuq* in P'Va'eschanan (4:34 > ) is usually noted, but it > (containing letter *sin* but no *shin*) works only when the *shin* and the > *sin* are considered the same letter (they are, so long as we're > considering the written form). The other *pasuq* in the Torah of which I'm > aware is Shmos 16 :16 (in it, > the *shin* is extant but there's no *sin*). We still need another 3 pesukim in the rest of Nach including one that has not only the 22 letters of the alphabet but also all the end letters -- Eli Turkel [Well in I already wrote: > Soferim use Tzefania 3:8 to show their penmanship, because it not > only includes all 22 letters, it also includes all the sofios. Is > that a way to denote total ultimate justice (the meaning of the words > ) or what? -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 15:31:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:31:53 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I see your pesukim and raise you a medieval Hebrew poem of four lines, where each line contains every letter of the alef-beit including sofiot exactly once with no repetition: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pagefeed/hebrewbooks_org_38040_154.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 5 02:53:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 05:53:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" Message-ID: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> I think a philosophy book just came out detending a variant of RSSchwab's "two clocks" explanation of ma'aseh bereishis. RSS's shitah appeared in AOJS's Challenge (ed. R Aryeh Carmel, R/Prof Cyril Domb pg 164 onward. surveys the area and summarized RSS as follows: Similarly, Rav Shimon Schwab talks of two types of time, cosmic time and earthly time. The 6 days of creation are counted according to cosmic time, during which period millions of years may have passed according to our measure of time. (Althugh I disagree with their next sentence on REED's position.) Now for the book. I just got this review : > he Fall and Hypertime > Hud Hudson, Oxford University Press, 2014, 211pp., $65.00 (hbk), > ISBN 0198712693. > Reviewed by Trent Dougherty, Baylor University > Hud Hudson's book is a brilliant and creative defense of the following > proposition. > There is a conflict between a literal reading of the book of > Genesis and science only if one assumes that the hypertime hypothesis > is false. > The import of Hudson's thesis is that those who allege a conflict between > science and a literal reading of Genesis are not basing that claim merely > on science but on controversial metaphysics as well.,,, > To understand the hypertime hypothesis (hereafter "HH"), begin > with the "growing block" theory of time, one of the standard set of > options. According to this theory, the past is real and "still exists" > as a "block" as spacetime and the future is "open," i.e. the future > does not exist. The block grows as the quantity of either space or > time increases. Hudson notes that there is nothing more intrinsically > mysterious about the block losing parts than its gaining parts. He > then points out that it is also not more intrinsically mysterious that > a "morphing block" shrink or grow not just in units of hyperplanes > ("slices" of the block) but also in sub-regions of hyperplanes. As a > result, there are no in principle limits to the ways in which a block can > morph, to the "shape" it can take. Furthermore, there is no good reason > why the hyperplanes (or sub-regions thereof) might not be "reshuffled" > in a different order. > Because the universe is here modeled as a spacetime block, the temporal > dimension only measures changes within the block. Hypertime measures, > as we may think of it, changes to the block (though technically blocks > at different hypertimes are numerically distinct,and there remains a > question concerning the status of various essentialisms about blocks > with respect to their parts). That means that at any given moment on > the hypertimeline, there can be a complete spacetime block, a complete > physical universe distinct from blocks at different hypertimes. Given > infinite hypertime, this generates a plurality of worlds not unlike that > of David Lewis. Hudson applies the possibility of this plurality in three > ways: to an understanding of omnipresence (which I will not discuss), to > (three versions of) the problem of evil (one of which I'll discuss below), > and in defense of his main thesis. The way HH helps with an understanding > of omniscience and the problem of evil gives it credit and motivates > it as a viable option so that its application to the main thesis is > not ad hoc (though it's being ad hoc would not prevent its success for > its purpose). I will describe the application to the problem of evil, > offer a criticism, then describe its application to the main thesis. > If there is a plenitude of spatiotemporally discrete universes, then it is > difficult to infer from any empirical observation that the actual world > is not the best possible world. It is important to remember that on the > hypertime hypothesis the spacetime blocks at different hypermoments are > only one portion of total reality. Our observable universe is a drop > in the bucket. So an argument from evil against the existence of God > from ours not being the best possible world would have to argue that > the observable universe could not even be a part of the best possible > world. That is not clearly an easy argument to make. > This move takes the form of what is traditionally called a "defense" > rather than a "theodicy"... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 5 15:22:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 18:22:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesak and Safeik Message-ID: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> Anyone know a source (or at least a theory) that discusses when we treat a machloqes as a safeiq, rather than applying the rules of peaq? The issue comes up in AhS YD 24:42. (Mazal tovs on completing OC will be graciously accepted.) Siman 24 discusses 4 of the 5 halakhos leMoshe miSinai of shechitah. (Shehiyah got its own siman.) There is a machloqes between the Behag and Rashi about the line between aqirah and tereifos. Rashi says that aqira is the displacement of the qaneh or veshet caused by using a nicked knife. Most rishonim hold like the Behag, and then there is a submachloqes about what kind of dislocated simanim are aqirah, ad what are tereifos. Leshitas Rashi, they would all be tereifos. Anyway, here the AhS says that Rama holds that midinei shechitah, we are machmir for every definition of aqirah. But midinei tereifah, which differ in that it would also prohibit the milk or eggs from such an animal, we recognize that the iqar hedin if the Behag, and are meiqil. So okay, one tiny bit of my question is answered -- we have a special rule by shechitah that machloqesin are resolved by safeiq deOraisa lehachmir. But WRT tereifos.... The AhS says that despite the Rama, we are nohagim lehachmir. So, while the Rama thinks this is a case where the rules of pesaq apply, the AhS says "we" disagree and treat it like a safeiq. Why? I also realize the line isn't all-or-nothing. I presume that not every shitah rises to the level of creating a safeiq, so there is some kind of pesaq-like reasoning necessary to assess which do and which don't. So it's more an issue of how balanced do shitos have to be for us to be unwilling to pasqen and just assume it's a safeiq. But still, these two acharonim are setting te line at a different place. So, does anyoe discuss the kelalim of when to bail out from the (other) kelalei pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 07:47:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:47:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] They Found Gat Message-ID: <20150806144710.GA2303@aishdas.org> As you may have heard, a team found the gates of Gat, Golias's home town. And, as I've noticed in the past, the question of whether they find evidence of the events as found in Tanakh or evidence against can be predicted in advance by checking the religious stance of who is running the dig. So you get this story from Haaretz : Philistine City of Gath a Lot More Powerful Than Thought, Archaeologists Suggest Powerful fortifications newly uncovered by Israeli archaeologists suggest the kingdoms of Saul, David may not have been quite as powerful as thought. Nir Hasson Aug 04, 2015 3:08 AM [IDT] ... According to Maeir, the discovery of Gath as a huge, fortified city on the border of Judea during an extended period, without any signs of destruction as a result of a war with Judea, proves the Philistines controlled the Judean plain. Because Khirbet Kaifa existed for a relatively short period -- about 30 years -- it is likely the remnant of a failure of the Israelite kingdom to spread westward and not a sign of its power. "The Judean kingdom is supposed to be big, important and strong," says Maeir. "But it turns out there is a very big city on its western border. For years, I claimed Gath was a big city, but they countered that it has no lower city, and if it has one it is not fortified. After finding a huge fortification, its clearly the most important city of the 10th and ninth centuries." Now, to get a hint of how we would have heard about Gat had the dig been run by a bilical maximalist, here's an element mentioned in : Near the gate, Maeirs team also unearthed the remains of the citys extensive fortification wall, a Philistine temple, ironwork and pottery. While the pottery bears hallmarks of the distinctive Philistine style, elements of Israelite techniques can be seen on the fragments as well, indicating there was more interaction between the two cultures than previously thought. Since Pelishti culture was importing Jewish culture, doesn't that lend MORE credibity to the idea that David haMelekh's kingdom was at east on the same scale if not overshadowing theirs? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 15:28:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 23:28:31 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] : Re: De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> RAM writes: >And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective rules", is it not? In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? And further read the Tur (and the meforshim on the Tur) in Even HaEzer simin 25 to get a fuller picture of the sources (and the original gemora sources) - so you can see the history of the machlokus on how to deal with this issue all the way back. As Rav Lichtenstein articulated it, the question is not so much that we differ from the position of Chazal, as our position (and the one quoted by the Rema) is much more in line with the majority position in Chazal, but why did the major rishonim - Rambam, Ra'avid etc differ so markedly from what appears to be the majority position in Chazal and posken - well like Rabbi Eliezer (shmuti hu?), as then did the Achronim. I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the influence of the outside world. The same sort of influence that reputedly led to the cherem of Rabbi Gershom (Jews who are supposed to be the upholders of morality cannot be seen to have more than one wife in a world where that is seen as immoral). In a world which identified relations with sin and death (standard Xtian theology of the time, and the Muslim theology in many circles was not that different) - it would have been inappropriate, and led to general looseness if the general non Jewish world view had been repudiated to the extent consonant with the positive positions found in Chazal. Hence Orech Chaim, the book most accessible to the masses, contains not a word of the Rema's position, that is buried in Even HaEzer, where it is more likely only the scholarly will look (or from the point of view of Maran, go look in the Tur). But to talk about relations positively in an open way in Xtian Europe would have created temptations for the non Jewish world that would have unleashed a level of vengeance (eg from the priesthood) that could likely not be endured. There was a lot of censoring and self censoring that went on in all sorts of areas, it seems to me also here, especially as there are the minority positions to bring and rely on. Only in the modern day world which has swung so far the other way is it possible to honestly and openly evaluate the position of Chazal, and that is what in effect has been done, by Rav Lichtenstein and others. >Akiva Miller Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 17:28:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 00:28:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? Message-ID: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Apparently, In the U.S., the therapist's duties are owed to the client, subject to statutory obligations such as the mandatory-reporting requirement. There is no exception for the therapist's religious custom or belief, unless, in limited circumstances, the client consents to it. Question-from a torah point of view should it make a difference who shows up at the therapist's (or Rabbi's)door (for any therapy or advice)? How does Halacha balance the needs of the individual, the family, the community, Jewish society and/or society in general? 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 12:56:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 15:56:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" In-Reply-To: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> References: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> What's the difference between this and Gerald Schroeder? KT, GS, YGB On 08/05/2015 05:53 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I think a philosophy book just came out detending a variant of RSSchwab's > "two clocks" explanation of ma'aseh bereishis. > > RSS's shitah appeared in AOJS's Challenge (ed. R Aryeh Carmel, R/Prof > Cyril Domb pg 164 onward. > > > surveys > the area and summarized RSS as follows: > > Similarly, Rav Shimon Schwab talks of two types of time, cosmic > time and earthly time. The 6 days of creation are counted according > to cosmic time, during which period millions of years may have > passed according to our measure of time. > > (Althugh I disagree with their next sentence on REED's position.) > > > Now for the book. I just got this review > : > >> he Fall and Hypertime >> Hud Hudson, Oxford University Press, 2014, 211pp., $65.00 (hbk), >> ISBN 0198712693. >> Reviewed by Trent Dougherty, Baylor University From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 13:32:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:32:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" In-Reply-To: <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> References: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150807203234.GA14121@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 03:56:56PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: : What's the difference between this and Gerald Schroeder? R' Gerald Schroeder is working within physics, using Relativity to try to make the timelines match up. R' Schwab, and for that matter this Hypertime idea are metaphysical, saying that the 6 days were not physical days, meausured using the same kind of time Galileo turned into a variable when he measured pendulum swings, Newton took derivatives with respect to, and Einstein unified with space. Rather, a logically prior idea altogether. This is more in line with the rishonim who said that science as we know it post-dates creation, and therefore time during creation is has to be measured with a different kind of clock than the one of physics. ------- And some day when humanity develops to this point, the two will finally be in sync. Which would fit RAYK's metaphysics in which every duality is an illusion, as everything is the Or Ein Sof from the Absolute Unity. And le'asid lavo, even the division between olam hazah and olam ha'emes will fall. Leshitaso, techiyas hameisim is a consequence of the reunification of the worlds of life and of death. Those souls don't so much come back to life as the distinction disappears. (I do not recall if RAYK invokes "hayinu kekholmim".) And yes, in such a situation, physical time will be back in sync with supernal time. Although one needn't believe in RAYK's eschatology in order to accept the concept that the two definitions of time will be unified, nor do we need to believe in eventual synchronization in order to talk about the 6 days of ceration being on a different kind of clock than physics. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 13:56:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 15:56:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Re; sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R. Levine wrote: "Is it really true that what women in the general society do is some standard for tznius for Jewish women. If so, then the practices of "well undressed" gentile women (as R. A Miller used to call them) of today have eliminated all tznius standards" Response: Of course there are baseline standards of tzniut for Jew, men and women, that are independent of surrounding culture. But hair covering is not one of them.(At least according the sources and shitta that I have brought). R. Levine then brings an article by Rav Breuer. That is his shitta, it doesn't mean it is universally accepted or binding. Much of what he brings is not specific halacha but advice or Nach based(the entire sugya of kol kevuda etc) I would note that the vast majority of shittot do not require single women to cover their hair I will not have access to respond for a week or so, but will be address further responses at that time. shabbat shalom noam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 8 12:02:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 22:02:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] depression Message-ID: Enclosed is a summary of the last shiur of R Zilberstein to the doctors. I am giving a shiur on this in my shul this coming shabbat. Since I feel it is controversial I am looking for input from the list. Question from a psychiatrist - A patient has 3 kids and has mild depression since the last birth. She wont take chemical drugs and instead uses one based on plants which is good for mild depression. It had some side effects and so the patient stopped that also. The dictor suggested various anti-depression drugs and other help which the patient refused, Contacting a social worker it turns out the woman runs a "nursery' (mishpachton) from 8am to 4pm. The social worker says she manages only with a great effort; her husband comes home from work at 1pm and the mother helps. The woman refuses to open a file in the social ministry because of this nursery which they may close down. The social worker pointed out that if something happens the state will prosecute the psychiatrist. Question: On one side there might be a danger to the kids in the nursery and the psychiatrist might lose her license OTOH this is a major income for the young family. She has successfully run the nursery for several months without any complaint with the help of the husband and mother. If this is all explained to the ministry it most likely won't help and they will closer her down Answer: The job of a bet din is to watch out for the welfare of the community. Hence, according to Torah law the doctor must go the rabbi of the city or neighborhood to hear their opinion, R Zilberstein notes that in Bnei Brak there is an agreement with the authorities that the local bet din deals with such problems and calls in the local authority only if they feel this is necessary. Such an arrangement should be set up in every town that the local bet din makes the decision. see YD 336:1 that ba doctor needs the permission of the bet din to practice, Therefore one needs the permission of the local secular authorities to rely on the judgement of the local rabbi. It is well known that the "mara de-atra" have the ability to treat broken and depressed people. In England there was a baby born with Down's syndrone whose Jewish parents disappeared. The local board of health turned to Rav Yoseph Dinner Zt'L what to do, Rav Dunner , who was the 65, (after checking with his wife) said they would adopt the baby since at that time there was no Jewish institution capable of handing this baby. The local board of health accepted this solution. The couple cared for the child until they reached the age of 80. At that point they transfered the child to an instituion in Afula, Each year R Dunner would come to Israel to bake matzot and then visit the child in Afula. The doctors in Britain said the best social workers are the Jewish leaders. In the beit midrash of R. Pam there was born a child with Down's syndrone. R Pam always tried to cheep up the boy. One year the boy complained that on simchat Torah they used all the sifrei Torah except for his paper one. After Musaf R Pam went to the Bimah and announced to everyone that now they were reading from the sefer Torah of this boy. This was the happiest moment for the boy and the angles surrounding "kise hakavod" Conclusion: The psychiatrist should explain to the local rabbi the situation in the nursery. The rabbi should come to some agreement with the local secular authotities to rely on his judgement -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 8 21:21:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 21:21:33 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? Message-ID: you are basically asking when must the rabbi/frum therapist offer halachic therapy and then risk prosecution? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 12:17:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:17:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] human hair sheitals Message-ID: In the thread "De-Chokifying Arayos", I asked: > But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan > Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went > uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why > aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? R' Mordechai Cohen answered: >>> I can't help but thinking that this is one of those (many) halachic issues where the hanhaga of Klal yisroel in certain halachic (or hashkafic) areas has developed to be inline with yechidim than with the majority of chazal/rishonim/etc >>> ... >>> We have many others similar to this (some d'oriasa, some d'rabbanan) - human hair sheitals, chadash, live music after the churban, etc. You are raising a great point. I have wondered this about chadash and music myself, and I'm somewhat surprised that I didn't see the connection. Thank you very much for bringing it to my attention. (Though, to be honest, these examples sharpen my question about Conservative "psak".) But for THIS thread, my question is simple and direct: Tell me more about why you specify "human hair sheitals". Have chazal/rishonim ever distinguished between wigs made of human hair vs other kinds of wigs? I was always under the (possibly mistaken) impression that chazal and rishonim - and even acharonim - only discussed the requirement to cover hair, and how much to cover, and the ramifications of leaving it uncovered. But I don't recall any discussion of the covering itself except by the leaders of very recent chasidic groups. Am I mistaken? Where is this discussed in the seforim? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 13:15:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 16:15:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: In Avodah V33n111, RET noted: >> Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters >> of the alph-bet (I only know one) << > We still need another 3 pesukim in the rest of Nach including one that has not only the 22 letters of the alphabet but also all the end letters < Fact-checking what I found via Google'ing (besides the *pasuq* already noted by R'Micha) provides these fifteen (!) *p'suqim* containing all the letters: -- Y'hoshua 23:13 -- M'lachim Beis 4:39, 6:32 -- Y'sha'yahu 5:25 -- Yirm'yahu 22:3, 32:29 -- Y'chezqeil 17:9 -- Hosheia 13:2 -- Amos 9:13 -- Esther 3:13 -- Daniel 3:22, 4:20, 7:19 -- Ezra 7:28 -- N'chemya 3:7 All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 14:11:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: <<< To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without reproduction. Our nitzchius is absolutely dependent on this particular activity, which is why "peru urevu" is actually a mitzva and not "mutar if you wish." >>> Yes, that's true. But please note that you yourself are referring to "peru urevu". My question concerns a different mitzva, namely Onah, wherein sex is explicitly linked to food and clothing/shelter. I don't think it is a big stretch to say that the common thread of these three things is how important they are to this particular individual, and NOT how important they are to the species. <<< ... for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. >>> I think we may be understanding the word "objectify" in different ways. Contrary to what some might think, not all men are constantly obsessed with having sex. At any given point in time, a particular man might have other priorities - other activities that he'd rather do than this one. But a husband cannot give higher priority to these activities over Onah, just like he can't choose them over minyan, or other mitzvos. He must be sensitive to his wife's needs and wants, and if he senses her mood, he is under a chiyuv d'Oraisa to act accordingly. (Actually, he'll have this chiyuv even if he does NOT sense her mood accurately, in which case he will have been Mevatel the Aseh b'shogeg, though I suppose it could easily be argued that it's more of a "shogeg karov l'meizid" if he hasn't even tried to judge her mood accurately.) But there is no flip side to Onah. The wife has no responsibility to judge her husband's desires. In fact, even if she does realize that he is "in the mood", there is no Chiyuv d'Oraisa for her to ignore her other desires and respond to her husband's desires. Sure, it could well be advisable for her to do so for Shalom Bayis reasons, and one might even call it a "chiyuv" in that context, but the imbalance remains: Her chiyuv would be Shalom Bayis alone, while the husband must deal with both Shalom Bayis and Onah. That's what I meant by "objectify": Much of Orach Chaim 240 is to protect the wife from a forcible rape (for instance, she can't be asleep or drunk), and much is also to protect her from more subtle rape (such as thinking of another woman). But there are far fewer protections offered to the husband. Neither can be drunk, and neither can have decided to divorce, but in general, the wife is within her rights to demand relations whenever she wants, and to me, this can "objectify" the husband. RTK reminds us that the husband *will* have pleasure from this. But that is exactly my point: If someone is required to have a pleasure that (for whatever reason) he does not actually *desire*, it is a sort of rape. RTK also wrote: <<< He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her. But human beings derive pleasure from each other all the time, ... it is just absurd to think that if another person gives me some kind of pleasure, I have "objectified" that person. >>> You are correct. Merely receiving pleasure does not automatically objectify a person. But if one receives pleasure without returning that pleasure to the giver, this carries a danger of objectifying the giver. And if one receives pleasure against the giver's will, that is the very definition of "objectifying" (in my view). R"n Chana Luntz wrote: <<< In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? And further read the Tur (and the meforshim on the Tur) in Even HaEzer simin 25 to get a fuller picture of the sources (and the original gemora sources) - so you can see the history of the machlokus on how to deal with this issue all the way back. >>> Indeed, the first few times I saw that Rema, he seemed to be saying, verbatim, that "you can do anything you want, and whenever you want to do it." A sexual hefkervelt, a world with no rules. But a more careful reading shows that he is only making two specific points: That there are no restrictions on positions, and that (as we've already said in this thread) the timing restrictions of O"C 240 are a "madrega" but not the basic halacha. But aside from these points, I see OC 240 and EH 25 as very similar: Their main focus concerns the *mental* state, and it is in this area (it seems to me) that Shulchan Aruch - including all acharonim until quite recently - endorses a very prishus-oriented approach. RCL again: <<< I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the influence of the outside world. ... In a world which identified relations with sin and death (standard Xtian theology of the time, and the Muslim theology in many circles was not that different) - it would have been inappropriate, and led to general looseness if the general non Jewish world view had been repudiated to the extent consonant with the positive positions found in Chazal. >>> There are many responses I could give to this. Perhaps the simplest would be: So then let Shulchan Aruch be silent; why did they choose to pasken overtly like the prishus view? Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 10 05:08:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:08:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: To continue from my previous post: R"n Chana Luntz wrote: <<< In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? >>> I think it is noteworthy that the Aruch Hashulchan often goes out of his way to justify the common practice in the face of the consensus of poskim, but does *not* do so in this case. In fact, Aruch Hashulchan EH 25:11 quotes the same Tur as the Rama did, but emphatically warns us *against* following it. This suggests that the turning of the tide, from a more prishus-oriented view to something else, occurred more recently than the days of the Aruch Hashulchan. Can anyone suggest a more precise time? Or, to put my question more blatantly: Does the less-prishus-oriented view appear only in recent articles such as the one by Rav Lichtenstein, and in the sort of verbal psakim such as he received? Does it appear anywhere at all in any of the seforim that one might happen to be learning, such as the Igros Moshe, Tzitz Eliezer, or similar? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 07:14:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akirah In-Reply-To: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> References: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150811141458.GA31500@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 6:22pm EDT, I wrote: : The issue comes up in AhS YD 24:42... : There is a machloqes between the Behag and Rashi about the line between : aqirah and tereifos. Rashi says that aqira is the displacement of the : qaneh or veshet caused by using a nicked knife. Most rishonim hold : like the Behag, and then there is a submachloqes about what kind of : dislocated simanim are aqirah, and what are tereifos. Leshitas Rashi, : they would all be tereifos. : : Anyway, here the AhS says that Rama holds that midinei shechitah, : we are machmir for every definition of aqirah. But midinei tereifah, : which differ in that it would also prohibit the milk or eggs from such : an animal, we recognize that the iqar hedin if the Behag, and are meiqil. In response RAF sent me offlist an essay he wrote in Dec 2001, titled "Hagdaras Iqur Simanim baTalmud", which I put up on-line here . The article does a survey of various definitions of ique hasimanim, which vary amazingly widely. He lists some causes: - The discussion is in scattered snippets across Chullin, not one organized sugya. - The rishonim do not agree about the girsa of the gemara that contrasts iqur from tereifah. - The rishonim do not even agree on basic defining features about iqur simanim. RAF also mentioned to me: "I have a very different peshat in ikkur, based on actually looking at the Behag." Sec. 4 does appear to quote a Behag that is at odds with the mesorah about shitas haBehag that the baalei Tosafos received. We've discussed the relationship between errors in reception and whether finding one would change pesaq before. Here, the nafqa mina lemaaseh is small but real, as per above. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: If anyone else has a Torah article they want up on-line, feel free to ask. -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 15:53:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:53:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150811225301.GA13480@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 12:55:06AM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : Here are the sources I have collected, in addition to the fact that a : significant percentage of Modern Orthodox women to not cover their hair in : public except in shul/davening situations. Although there is long evidence of rabbis saying it's a problem, but not a battle they can win. So the mimetic side is dismissable. (Also, how does someone who advocates for more roles for women in shul make a mimetic argument?) : In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of : uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is... : If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered : hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. But saying it's not a breach of tzeni'us doesn't say it's allowed, that's your addition not in the translated text you quote. RYB could mean what the AhS says, that it's terrible things came to this, but you may daven in her presence. Or, that whle it's not a tzeni'us problem, it's still prohibited deOraisa as per the implication in parashas sotah. : Here is a list of easily accessable sources: : Rabbi Marc Angel... Listening to his citing R' Masas and your quoting R Badad, maybe it's a Seph thing? He presumes hair covering is das Yehudis, which makes his a rare shitah. (Again, given the derivation from a pasuq.) But then again, R' Ovadiah Yosef firmly disagrees. But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. ... : I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and : not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. : However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and : everyone can come to their own conclusion. ... which is what he does, that the theory is there, but it's a shitah dechuyah. And noticably, he too quotes R' Yosef Masas, R' Moshe Malka and the Kaf haChaim -- Sepharadi sources. : Rav Yosef Haim... So, assuming the woman doesn't eat qitniyos, may she go with her hair uncovered? And even if she does... At what point is a shitah dechuyah? ... : Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony : of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. : R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: : "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did : not cover her hair? ... : Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in : this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." : I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the : artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with : uncovered hair. : Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat : common... And yet the rabbanim protested. This isn't even admissable as mimetic tradition, any more than noting how often people speak leshon hara or buy off-the-books or anything else rabbis have failed to curb. : uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his : wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. He too, would only need to be convinced is wasn't ervah in the sense of "all those men" sinning. But as we see in the AhS, that doesn't mean it's allowed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 16:00:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:00:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R' Noam Stadlan wrote: <<< Of course there are baseline standards of tzniut for Jew, men and women, that are independent of surrounding culture. But hair covering is not one of them. ... I would note that the vast majority of shittot do not require single women to cover their hair. >>> I both agree and disagree. Hair covering is NOT a "baseline standard", in the sense that it applies only to married women and not to single girls. But hair covering IS a baseline standard for Jewish women, in the sense that it remains in force independent of the surrounding culture. Thus, we have at least three different standards: males, married females, single females. And actually, we have several more than that, if we distinguish among various ages of boy and girl children, not to mention infants. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 21:26:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:26:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: From: Akiva Miller via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) <<< ... for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. >>> [--TK] >> I think we may be understanding the word "objectify" in different ways. Contrary to what some might think, not all men are constantly obsessed with having sex. At any given point in time, a particular man might have other priorities -- other activities that he'd rather do than this one. But a husband cannot give higher priority to these activities over Onah, just like he can't choose them over minyan, or other mitzvos. He must be sensitive to his wife's needs and wants, and if he senses her mood, he is under a chiyuv d'Oraisa to act accordingly.... But there is no flip side to Onah. The wife has no responsibility to judge her husband's desires. In fact, even if she does realize that he is "in the mood", there is no Chiyuv d'Oraisa for her to ignore her other desires and respond to her husband's desires....<< Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) >>>>> There is a great irony in what you have written. You seem to think that there is an inequality, a lack of reciprocity, in the mutual obligations of men and women -- with women having all the power and men all the obligation. It is ironic because the mitzva for men to be sensitive to their wives' feelings derives from the /curse/ that was given to Chava! Look at Rashi on Ber 3:16, "el ishech teshukasech -- your desire will be towards your husband." Rashi says the curse is: You -- the woman -- will desire relations, but will not be so brazen as to request it verbally. Rather, "he will rule over you" -- it is all from him -- the initiative is his -- and not from you. [end Rashi] To modern ears this Rashi might sound strange because the idea that "women are not brazen" sounds so old-fashioned. Modesty has gone out the window in modern society. But even the brazen women -- and certainly the more refined and eidel women -- want to be wanted. By their nature, most women do not want to be the ones taking the initiative or the ones pursuing the men. For most women it is embarrassing to have to ask outright. If you want an example of a woman in the Torah who was brazen even way back then, look at Eishes Potiphar -- "Lie with me." The very fact that she behaved this way shows what a hussy she was, but also, it shows that she was utterly humiliated. Not only was Yosef not seduced by her wiles, but even when she so lost her dignity as to ask him outright, he /still/ refused. It is no wonder she felt such a burning desire for revenge. It was in order to mitigate the harshness of Chava's curse that Chazal instituted the rule that men have to be sensitive to their wives' desires, that a woman should not have to humiliate herself by spelling out what she wants. It is a chessed that a man does for his wife, to mitigate the curse, to somewhat level the playing field in which men have all the advantages! I actually think this a wonderful example of Chazal's extraordinary sensitivity to women. They acknowledge and partially correct an imbalance that favors men at the expense of women, ever since Adam and Chava. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 22:47:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (bk via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:47:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: depression Message-ID: I have worked in the mental health field and have other personal experience with serious depression. The description which you provided "mild depression", would not at all indicate a danger to anyone including daycare children. It seems that the description is very much lacking. Either there is much more to warrant defying her confidence, including/especially to a rav, or someone doesn't understand what depression is all about. I'm assuming that the former is the case. So, the question is, what can we learn from a case in which the problem is not accurate? b'kavod, ChaimBaruch Kaufman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 06:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:19:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waiting Six Hours for Dairy- A Rabbanite Response to Qaraism Message-ID: <20150812131918.925F517FC6A@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/08/waiting-six-hours-for-dairy-rabbanite.html Qaraites are a Jewish group that began around 760 CE. They rejected the Talmud and rabbinic Judaism and insisted that Jews only observe halacha as expressed in the literal text of the Torah. "Qaraite" means "Scriptualist". The movement started in Iraq and Persia by Jews who objected to the authority of the leaders of the Babylonian Talmud Academies, the Gaonim. The Gaonim and their successors, the rishonim, are called Rabbanites because of their stance in defending the Talmud and rabbinic laws. Scholars have noted that many minhagim began as a response to the Qaraite movement. For example, the recital of Bameh Madlikim on Friday evening after davening [1] was started in the times of the Gaonim to reinforce the rabbinic stance on having fire prepared before Shabbos, in opposition to the Qaraite view that no fire may be present in one's home on Shabbos [2]. There is evidence that the reading of Pirkei Avos [3] on Shabbos afternoon, which began in Gaonic times, was to emphasize to the Jewish masses that the Oral Law was passed down since Moshe Rabbeinu as stated in the first mishna of Pirkei Avos. Professor Haym Soloveitchik [4] has argued convincingly that the unique arrangement of Hilchos Shabbos in Rambam's Mishna Torah was organized specifically with anti-Qaraite intent. Briefly, Rambam's formulation of the Shabbos laws does not follow a chronological order or any other expected logical order. See the above URL for more. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:03:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 11:25:27AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : R' Lichtenstein was bothered by this point and answered that we need to : rely on our teachers and Gedolim. : "Probably most significant, however, is our reliance upon our own mentors. : Sensing that modern gedolim, "the judge of your era" -- for our purposes, most : notably, the Rav, but not he alone -- have examined the issue and the evidence : and adopted a positive stance, we, ordinary students of Torah, follow in : their footsteps as we identify with their position... : I understand that for many of us that is not a very satisfying answer and : leads to many questions about why specifically here we follow minority : opinions as opposed to other places (e.g. wombs issues, etc.) but I don't : think there is a better answer. This is the way the halachic system works. To some extent, yes. However, I do not know what halachiccategory is "gedolim". My job is to have my own poseiq, someone ho cnot only knows the halakhah, but knows me and my situation. Or to get as close to that as possible. My rav's job is to have experts to inform him, and to know when a question is either too complicated for his skills, or the stakes to high (eg mamzeirus, potential intercommunal fallout, or....) to not consult others, starting with his own rav. Yes, you will eventually reach the few at the head of the pyramid, so I guess we can call them "the gedolim", and their opinions will end up shaping policy on big or broad issues. But I do not think RYBS would be happy learning that he had a talmid in the job of mara de'asra who had so little confidence in his own ability to map theory to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronos and desires of the people in it that he hands the job off to people who know less of that reality. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:19:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:19:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> References: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150812201911.GB8165@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 11:28:31PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the : influence of the outside world. The same sort of influence that reputedly : led to the cherem of Rabbi Gershom (Jews who are supposed to be the : upholders of morality cannot be seen to have more than one wife in a world : where that is seen as immoral)... I understood this as well as the Sho'el uMeishiv's take on intellectual property in a single way, and slightly different than your explanation. The Sho'el uMeishiv invokes "lo sehei Torah shelanu kesichah beteilah shelahem. If they recognize a kind of property as a right our native sense finds moral, we obviously must obligated to protect it as well. This is not DDD, as the protection isn't to the extent of the civi law, but to the extent of the halakhos of property. He is identifying a moral obligation we must halachically defend, not the civil law in and of itself... My understanding is that it's not that we learned morality from their law, but their law reflects a new social contract. The new expectations are a change in metzi'us. Now that we expect to have intellectual property, that is part of the new situation, to which a new pesaq applies. Similarly, I understood Rabbeinu Gershom's mandating monogamy in the same terms. He was less worried about being seen as immoral, or learning morality from Xian marriage norms. Rather, once society created different expectations of what marriage is, we had no ability nor obligation to reset to the old expectations (after all, even chazal referred to sister wives as "tzaros"), and therefore have to support a moral solution to the new expactations. A woman gets married expecting a man for herself. Rabbeinu Gershom mandated treating that woman morally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:22:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150812202233.GC8165@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:04:47PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : ... But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent : the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no corresponding : safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. Given the size of the two porn industries, or the difference between what "porn" usually refers to and locating smut in a romance novel, I would think that it's not just Chazal who would conclude the threat of objectfication is assymetric. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 16:24:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:24:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> References: , <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <13CC426F-297A-4E3A-AC33-979E5391FA35@sibson.com> > > But I do not think RYBS would be happy learning that he had a talmid in > the job of mara de'asra who had so little confidence in his own ability > to map theory to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronos > and desires of the people in it that he hands the job off to people who > know less of that reality. > > I agree but I think it's also true That RYBS would not be happy learning that he had a talmid in the job of mara de'asra who had so so much confidence in his own ability to create the theory to map to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronosand desires of the people in it that he doesn't hand the job off to those more qualified to break new ground. Kol tuv 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 20:21:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:21:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: I wrote: : ... But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent : the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no : corresponding safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. R' Micha Berger responded: > Given the size of the two porn industries, or the difference > between what "porn" usually refers to and locating smut in a > romance novel, I would think that it's not just Chazal who > would conclude the threat of objectfication is assymetric. Chazal were aware of the differences between those two industries, and they suggested reasons for it on the top few lines of Kesubos 64b. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 12:36:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:36:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Copyright Message-ID: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> Back in Jun 2001, Napster was in the news, and I heard a shiur from R Zev Reichman, then of REITS' Kollel Elyon. So at the first on-list mention of copyrights, I used it as an excuse to post a summary on-list at and . It's been 14 years, and I just learned of a beautiful einfahl by R' Asher Weiss on the subject. So, I'm reviewing the list, and adding to it. (v7n58 #13 is marked ">", #4 is marked ":".) > 1- Dina dimalchusa issues: > According to Tosafos on Gittin, dina dimalchusah dinah is only on > taxation. > The Beis Yitzchak does rule that ddd applies here. However, RZR opined > that ddd still wouldn't apply apply to Sony Bono's law that was aimed > specifically at Disney, allowing them to extend their copyright on some > animated characters. It's not an evenly applied rule. > 2- I already cited the most chamur, the Sho'el uMeishiv 1:44, who goes > beyond ddd. : The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral : obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it : is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership : of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal : (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights : are lehalachah also eternal. : Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for : that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a : halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos : of copyright. : I just want to note the SuM's assumption, and the importance he assigns : moral rights identified by the surrounding culture. > RZR wondered if the SuM would also recognize the French philosophy of > copyright: that the artist could sell reproduction and profit rights, but > eternally retains rights to controlling how the idea is changed. (So even > if you sell a painting, the owner is allowed to copy it, but not modify > it.) After all, this is also a secularly identified moral right. Would > it be a halachah only in France? > 3- Hasagas gevul: > There is an old cheirem, invoked in many if not most haskamos for a few > centuries, against copying sefarim. (The SuM mentions it.) The cheirem > is at least as old as the publication of Tomer Devora (about a century > after it was written) -- because it's mentioned in the haskamos. That > if one copies the sefer beli reshus, or buys such a copy he is subject > to the cheirem and will lose all the berachos showered on people who > learn TOmer Devorah listed in the begining of the haskamah. > The Chasam Sofer traces the cheirem back to the Maharam Padua's edition of > the Rambam. After he invested all the time and money preparing the plates, > a non-Jewish publisher, Justinian, took those plates and printed his > own copy of the Yad, charging one gold coin less than the original. The > Rama said that anyone who bought a Justinian edition was under cheirem, > as they prevented him from recouping his loss. > Given this lashon, the CS concludes that the problem is hasagas gezul. > However, as RZR noted, hasagas gevul only applies to unfair competition, > not to give copies away as a tzadakah or a fundraiser. > This is also the conclusion of R' Moshe. R' Bleich, back when he was > a talmid at Torah Vadaas found a rare publication of a notebook of R' > Chaim and had it published as a TvD fundraiser. The original publisher > found out about it and cried "hasagas gevul". They went to R' Moshe who > ruled in favor of R' Bleich. > 4- Issur geneivah: > R' Bleich himself, when writing on the subject, quotes "ein berei'ach > mishum me'ilah", and that there is no geneivah without a cheftzah. > 5- Hezek > Now we're in "Micha's 2 cents" territory. Li nir'eh that even for a > tzedakah to do it, even if not hasagas gevul, you are causing hezek to > someone who would otherwise earn money. > Even if not quantifiably assur, I would want to invoke bal tishaktzu on > this one. > 6- Chilul Hashem > In a case like Napster, where the case will have a kol and a trial in > the press, I would think that the risk of chillul Hashem, and therefore > *dinei nefashos*, is enough to assur it -- even in cases where the > copying would be found to be technically legal. 7- Chamas So I heard from R' J Ziring (YUTorah.org) that R' Asher Weiss in a 2013 shiur compared the theft of intellectual property to the dor hamabul (after revisiting some of the above). I found a blog post of RJZ's that describes it or : Chazal explain that the sin of the dor hamabul was that they would each steal less than a shaveh perutah. Thus, in the aggregate they would destroy people's livelihood, but none of them could be prosecuted in court. From here he argued that there is an issur to do something, which while not formally theft, lends to a society that destroys other people's financial well being. If no one respects intellectual property, then inventors, writers, and the like will have no way of supporting himself. Thus, even if no one can properly be called a gazlan, they have all participated in chamas. Tir'u baTov! -Micha > PS: While on the subject, I should point out that we obtain reshus to > include any emails that are reposted on Avodah. When asking, I make it > clear that a copy will appear in the web archive as well. -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 15:08:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baal Nefesh in the Igeros Moshe Message-ID: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> R' Elli Fischer contrasted the use of baal nefesh yachmir in the MB with its use in the IM. (Also heard via R' Jonathan Ziring.) The MB uses baal nefesh yachmir to refer to chumeros where the person is acting in a way to fulfill all shitos. The MB lists the more recent opinions, and then advises that the baal nefesh follow the most stringent. (Although I believe we found in previous iterations that the MB doesn't actualy use the expression particularly often. The IM argues that chalav hacompanies is actually chalav yisrael, so that there is no textual reason to only drink milk that was literally Yisrae'el ro'ahu, as opposed to using anan sahade eidus. But leshitaso, FDA certified milk is kosher even according to the Peri Chadash. (YD 1:47) In 1:48 he dismisses all other possibilities, and then says baal nefesh yachmir. RMF's baal nefesh is not being chosheish for all shitos, he dismissed those other shitos. Instead he is keeping minhag yisrael saba beyond halakhah. Pretty much the opposite of the MB's baal nefesh, who is ignoring accepted pesaq in order to make sure all the textual bases are covered. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 20:27:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 05:27:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Baal Nefesh in the Igeros Moshe In-Reply-To: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> References: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55CD6005.7020707@zahav.net.il> I don't have it open in front of me, but IIRC, in his psak on eating veal RMF makes it very, very clear that the baal nefesh will not eat it and anyone who does is (to use my words) walking on thin ice. The way he relates to a baal nefesh in the CY issue (it is a nice thing to do but if you don't keep, no big deal) vs the veal issue (you really shouldn't be eating this stuff) is stark. Ben On 8/14/2015 12:08 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In 1:48 he dismisses all other possibilities, and then says baal nefesh > yachmir. RMF's baal nefesh is not being chosheish for all shitos, he > dismissed those other shitos. Instead he is keeping minhag yisrael saba > beyond halakhah. > > Pretty much the opposite of the MB's baal nefesh, who is ignoring accepted > pesaq in order to make sure all the textual bases are covered. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 14 12:13:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Heather Luntz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 20:13:15 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> I have been struggling with this thread, but have not found it easy to explain why, although I will do my best: On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:153am EDT, R Saul Guberman wrote: : RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & : the Tosafists. : http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ : Our *Torah shebe'al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish : history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a : great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, : but the *Torah shebe'al peh* would have survived without him. However, : without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, : any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe'al peh* today. And RMB then wrote: >Which is a different statement than the subject line. >I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to >the survival of mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue understanding the gemara. I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? I really struggle with that statement. Now, if you want to limit the claim, and say that Rashi and Tosphos are far more key than the Rambam to what people do in modern day yeshivas all day, including (if not particularly) the Briskers, then it would be hard to disagree. But is what people are doing in yeshiva all day in the 21st century "the mesorah" or is the Shulchan Aruch "the mesorah"? What are the consequences if we relegate the Shulchan Aruch and elevate the Tosphists in terms of halacha as she is practiced? Somehow these seem troubling directions in which to be heading, but I must log off as shabbas is coming very soon in this part of England (and I, for one, am not about to rely on Rabbanu Tam, Tosphotist par excellence, regardless of his mesorah, I don't know about you,). -Micha Shabbat Shalom Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 14 13:48:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:48:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 08:13:15PM +0100, Heather Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> Which is a different statement than the subject line. : :> I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah :> through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who :> stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of mesorah :> than the parshanim... : : I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan : Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the : Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, : we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. : : Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the : Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? Let me make it far more more explicit. The subject line differs from my understanding of RGS' expansion of RYGB's idea in that it claims "Mesora ONLY through Rashi" (emphasis added), whereas I heard them talking about cofication being "less critical". Comparative terms, not absolute ones. IOW, the mesorah could survive without codes, if we had to. But it couldn't survive without parshanim. Without them we couldn't handle any new case that isn't in a code, nor even have the skills to always determine which are the new cases. In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that discusses how the conclusions are reached. Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The parshan connects the past to the now. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 15:41:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:41:09 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> I wrote: : I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan : Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the : Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, : we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. : : Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the : Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? And RMB replied: <<>Let me make it far more more explicit. The subject line differs from my understanding of RGS' expansion of RYGB's idea in that it claims "Mesora ONLY through Rashi" (emphasis added), whereas I >heard them talking about cofication being "less critical". Comparative terms, not absolute ones. >IOW, the mesorah could survive without codes, if we had to. But it couldn't survive without parshanim. Without them we couldn't handle any new case that isn't in a code, nor even have the >skills to always determine which are the new cases.>> Firstly of course, the Rambam wrote his perush on Mishnayos, so I don't think it is merely parshanut that distinguishes the two. Secondly, in the Rambam's code there are various "nire li" statements where he comes across areas where the answer from the gemora is not clear, and he therefore inserts his own view. It seems slightly bizarre to suggest that he or the Shulchan Aruch ever assumed that their code would make determining new cases more difficult, nor does that seem accurate historically. >In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that >discusses how the conclusions are reached. So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no Rambam and no Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any distinction at all between the halacha of the Orthodox and the halacha as championed by the Conservative movement? Is that not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would of necessity lead (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent than we have today - one that would perforce have to embrace the Conservative movement, and certainly all the forms of Open Orthodoxy that RGS is so vehemently against. Part of RAM's distress on one of the other threads on this list at the moment, regarding modern day psak vis a vis sexual relations versus the postion of the Shulchan Aruch has to do with the fact that Orthodoxy in general (although not, I would note, at least some of the Chassidic movements, such as Ger, and possibly increasingly not other groups within the Charedi world) has without appearing to notice, abandoned the position as set out in the Shuchan Aruch (albeit for one that can be said to be the more majority position of Chazal). But take the codes out of the equation and *all* these multiple rishonic positions become tenable, allowing a general free for all within the vastness of the parshanut tradition. The codes therefore are a critical part of what might be considered a dual process - equivalent to the situation where one first brainstorms ideas, and then whittles away to those most tenable. There are of course, situations where Sephardim do not posken like the Shulchan Aruch, and there are even more situations where Ashkenazim do not hold like the Rema, preferring a Shach, Taz or Magen Avraham (or even a Bach). But in the post-Shulchan Aruch world the conversation that RAM has been leading on the other thread is fundamental and critical - if we do not posken like the Shuchan Aruch in the particular case in question - we need to understand and investigate precisely why not, because by and large, the Shulchan Aruch draws the line as to where we go or do not go halacha l'ma'aseh. Without the Shulchan Aruch, we are only left with the brainstorming side of the halachic endeavour, and that means - as I intimated in my closing remarks, that if you find Rabbanu Tam's shkia analysis compelling (or indeed, that of a more minor rishon), there would seem to be little to prevent you holding like it halacha l'ma'aseh. What would hold us together? Indeed you are, I see, engaged in a debate regarding hair covering on another thread. But surely those who seek to justify the practice of many, many women who otherwise led and lead fully halachic lives are full square within the mesorah of tosphos. It is only those who also have an eye to the codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in the light of common practice. >Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The parshan connects the past to the now. That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation handed over to the next. And the generation of the Shulchan Aruch, in accepting it as "The" Code which shall be followed in most circumstances (with exceptions) handed that down to all generations following - making the Shulchan Aruch the mesorah par excellence. I can debate the nature of shkia with the Tosphotists in a conversation down the generations, but my mesorah regarding Shabbas is unlikely to be based upon any such conversation, nor is it expected to be. If you want to redefine the word mesorah to mean only that which Rashi has given us, then of course the title of this thread becomes 100% correct, just rather pointless. Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more of them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the Rambam, were able to formulate their halachic conclusions. Without them it would be far more difficult to have anything like the number of people we have today engaging with the gemora. The Rambam in contrast might well not see the point - if you can't manage without Rashi and Tosphos, then, in his view, maybe you shouldn't be trying, and should be relying on his code instead, leaving gemora engagement to the true elite who should be leading the people. That aspect of the Rambam's view has not dominated as "the mesorah" - using the more commonly understood use of the term. While we might debate the length of time that should be spent in yeshiva, and whether one should do work/army instead of long term yeshiva study - there is pretty close to universal agreement within Orthodoxy that all Jews should spend at least some significant time engaging with the fundamental texts, even if they are of only average intelligence. But what people do in yeshiva is still, in my view, only a small slice of "the mesorah", as it is commonly understood (as opposed to as redefined by RYBS) and a far greater slice is the Shuchan Aruch itself, and for that, the Rambam's influence is surely pre-eminent. >-Micha Shavuah tov Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 13:35:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:35:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim Message-ID: Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? [image: --] Shui Haber [image: https://]about.me/shuihaber *"The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are."* ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 19:20:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:20:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55CFF350.3030205@sero.name> On 08/15/2015 04:35 PM, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: > Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? Devarim 6:13, 10:20. Hil' Yesodei Hatorah 2:1 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 22:14:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:14:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R. Micha offered the following critiques: > Although there is long evidence of rabbis saying it's a problem, but > not a battle they can win. So the mimetic side is dismissable. (Also, > how does someone who advocates for more roles for women in shul make a > mimetic argument?) If the same rabbi's whose wives were not covering hair were the same ones saying it is a problem, this critique makes sense. otherwise, there is no reason to say that those whose wives were not covering their hair were unhappy with the mitziut. The mimetic argument here is that the shitta existed and was followed. It doesn't mean that it is obligatory. So I think this is apples and oranges regarding roles of women in shul. >: In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of >: uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is... >: If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered >: hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. > But saying it's not a breach of tzeni'us doesn't say it's allowed, > that's your addition not in the translated text you quote. RYB could > mean what the AhS says, that it's terrible things came to this, but you > may daven in her presence. Or, that whle it's not a tzeni'us problem, > it's still prohibited deOraisa as per the implication in parashas sotah. I think that you are making a moving target, one rationale knocked down and another rationale surfaces. Obviously hair covering could be mandated for a number of different reasons, but all of them? I am not sure it is necessary to be yotzei l'chol hadayot and even if so, the sources who permit, permit it regardless of the rationale against. I also have to go back and look at the source because I think it said more than the quote. >: Here is a list of easily accessable sources: >: Rabbi Marc Angel... > He presumes hair covering is das Yehudis, which makes his a rare > shitah. (Again, given the derivation from a pasuq.) > But then again, R' Ovadiah Yosef firmly disagrees. He obviously is not paskening like R. Ovadiah > But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And > two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. There are Ashkenazim among the sources as well.....I am illustrating that not only the shitah exists, but was followed and continues to be followed by a significant segment of the MO community. And, were it not for the shoah, it seems that a large segment of Lithuanian Jewry would still be following it. ... >: I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and >: not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. >: However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and >: everyone can come to their own conclusion. > ... which is what he does, that the theory is there, but it's a shitah > dechuyah. And noticably, he too quotes R' Yosef Masas, R' Moshe Malka > and the Kaf haChaim -- Sepharadi sources. >: Rav Yosef Haim... > So, assuming the woman doesn't eat qitniyos, may she go with her hair > uncovered? Again, apples and oranges, or peanuts and sesame. It isn't just a Sephardi shita. > And even if she does... At what point is a shitah dechuyah? Good question. From my limited point of view, if it makes sense and some Rabbonim of at least some stature (and I think Rav Messas et al quality) hold that position, it is not dechuyah. What is your definition? ... >: Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony >: of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. >: R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: >: "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did >: not cover her hair? ... >: Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in >: this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." >: I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the >: artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with >: uncovered hair. >: Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat >: common... > And yet the rabbanim protested. This isn't even admissable as mimetic > tradition, any more than noting how often people speak leshon hara or > buy off-the-books or anything else rabbis have failed to curb. I do not agree. Many in Meah Shearim protest that all women do not wear long thick stockings but that doesn't mean that every rabbi holds that long thick stockings are obligatory. if it is the rabbi whose wife didn't cover her hair, you have an argument. otherwise I suggest that those who protest do not speak for everyone. >: uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his >: wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. > He too, would only need to be convinced is wasn't ervah in the sense of > "all those men" sinning. But as we see in the AhS, that doesn't mean > it's allowed. It is a possible option, but not the probable one. It seems you are going out of your way to figure out how this could occur in consonance with your pre-selected approach, rather than accepting the most likely and obvious rationale. kol tuv. Noam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 16 14:05:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:05:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150816210531.GE28046@aishdas.org> : I think that you are making a moving target, one rationale knocked down : and another rationale surfaces... You gave two counterarguments: 1- Ashkenazi mimeticism 2- A list of sources that appear to be predominantly if not entirely Sepharadi. I therefore gave a teo part reply: 1- Ashk mimeticism was consistently gainst rabbinic will. Even the AhS who weighs halakhah-as-practiced as a major factor in pesaq laments the ubiquitous sin of neglecting this din. He also says it's not ervah. So, the sole person who does spell out Ashk position gives me no reason to equate either (1a) ubiquity nor (1b) a textual statement ruling out ervah with permissability. 2- Those sources are not only Seph, but are possibly dechuyos in their community as well. But at the end of the day, I did write: :> But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And :> two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. (And I still find it ironic that someone making a mimetic argument about hair covering wants to also change the role of women by looking at tets to the exclusion of 3-1/3 millenia of common practice.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 17 08:59:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 11:59:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Soloveitchik on Single Women Lighting Shabbat Candles Message-ID: <20150817155949.GA11283@aishdas.org> http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/single-women-lighting-shabbat-candles Snippet: Torah Musings Halakhic Positions of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik Single Women Lighting Shabbat Candles By Aharon Ziegler on Aug 14, 15 1:00 am in Halakhic Positions ... ... Those who have family customs and if their minhag [custom] is that the single women do not light their own candles then they should certainly not deviate from their custom- "Ve'al Titosh Torat I'mecha"... ... .... As a matter of fact Rav Soloveitchik suggested that Le'chat'chila, all women should indeed first turn off the electric lights, light the Shabbat candles, open the electric lights and then recite the Beracha. Regarding single girls, Rav Soloveitchik noted that this was the practice in Europe, even in his town, and that is how the Rav practiced with his daughters when they were single-that they lit their own candles, even with a Beracha, even when his wife also lit candles with a Beracha. Interestingly, RYBS promoted mimeticism in not taking on the practice of lighting candles if one's mother and grandmother didn't light when they were single and still living with their parents. Yet in the same discussion, he acknowledges how the new reality of electric lights makes relying on the mimeticism of making the berachah on the candles / oil alone just a bedi'eved. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 01:22:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 04:22:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Copyright In-Reply-To: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> References: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55D2EB40.1060303@sero.name> On 08/13/2015 03:36 PM, in a message that Gmail, for some reason, decided was spam, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Beis Yitzchak does rule that ddd applies here. However, RZR opined > that ddd still wouldn't apply apply to Sony Bono's law that was aimed > specifically at Disney, allowing them to extend their copyright on some > animated characters. It's not an evenly applied rule. This isn't true. > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, > it is impossible that the Torah is less moral. This assumes its own conclusion. The exact same reasoning could have been used during the Jim Crow era to "prove" that the Torah requires racial segregation of shuls and yeshivos, or during Prohibition to "prove" that the Torah requires teetotalism. > Now we're in "Micha's 2 cents" territory. Li nir'eh that even for a > tzedakah to do it, even if not hasagas gevul, you are causing hezek to > someone who would otherwise earn money. Even if not quantifiably assur, > I would want to invoke bal tishaktzu on this one. Why should he earn that money? You could invoke the same idea against giving anything away to someone who might otherwise have bought it. Every wedding takes parnassah away from wherever the guests might have bought their dinner that night. Sellers do not own their customers, and have no rights to them. > Chazal explain that the sin of the dor hamabul was that they would > each steal less than a shaveh perutah. [...] From here he argued > that there is an issur to do something, which while not formally theft, Stop right there. Stealing less than a shaveh pruta *is* formally theft. The thief is over on lo sigzol. It's not *returnable*, which is an entirely different matter. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 17 22:18:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:18:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Splendor of Clothes Message-ID: <20150818051824.9B2F7183235@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/the-splendor-of-clothes/ Rav Soloveitchik further added that wearing a Yarmulke, a Kippa, is more dignified than a baseball cap. He said, "If the President of the United States suddenly appeared and wanted to take a picture with me, would I wear a Russian hat, a baseball cap,- or a Kippa? That is the way we should stand Shemoneh Esrei when addressing the King of the Universe, HaKadosh Baruch-Hu. See the above URL for more. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 15:08:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:08:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150818220842.GA26873@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:35:26PM +0300, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: : Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? While it's obligatory (see Zev's citations), I am not sure it's halakhah rather than something prior to halakhah. As in Moshe rabbeinu's list: Mah H' sho'el mei'imakh, ki im - leyir'ah es H' Elokekha - lalekhes bekhol derakhav - ule'avah oso - vela'avod es H' Elokekha... - lishmor es mitzvos H' ve'es chuqosav... It would seem that MRAH is excluding these for thing from the realm of mitzvos and chuqim, and yet still mandatory. Even though the Rambam calls "lalekhes bekhol derakhav" to be "HILKHOS Dei'os". I don't know how to shtim this with the pasuq. It seems more like the Rambam's approach, that there is a duty of pursuing qedushah, yashrus and tov in ways beyond the limits of black-letter halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 10:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:17:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halachic Requirement for Dayanim Evaluating In-Person Facial Expressions of Parties in Bais Din In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150819171747.GA2506@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:49:07AM -0700, Baruch Cohen via Avodah wrote: : ... The Mishnah describes how the members of the Sanhedrin : sat in a row in the shape of a half-circle... : Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin 1:3) ... : The Tosefta : (8:1) cites differing opinions regarding the seating position of the : President of the Sanhedrin. Tanna Kamma holds that the President sat in the : center of the semi-circle, with thirty-five of the members of the Sanhedrin : seated on each side of him. R' Elazar b. Tzadok says that when Rabban : Gamliel sat in the Sanhedrin in Yavne, one of the sages sat to his right, : and all the others sat to his left.... My apologies to RBC that I don't have any thoughts about his intended topic, but he got me thinking about something else... To quote myself from 2010 : > REMT quoted the IE, which I found at Shemos 25:37, in what Bar Ilan > calls the short version of the IE: > Neiroseha: And the qadmonim said that one lamp was in the middle > ve"hashisha ne'erachim ze achar ze bachatzi iggul" (to cut-n-paste > from REMT's post) > And after the scripture said "vehei'ir al eiver paneha", and the > reason for "al eiver" one [eiver], behold the shape is clear. Not semicircular as seen from the front, but the lamps in that pattern as seen from above. Continuing: > The IE appears to very explicitly places all the lamps on the same side > of the middle one. Similarly, in the long version of the IE, Shemos 27:21: > Yaarokh: baavur hayos haneiros bechatzi igul. Ve'od adaber al zeh. Notice that leshitaso, the layout of the Sanhderin parallels the layout of the neiros in the keli most associated with chokhmah. Which makes it interesting that the definition of neir ma'aravi also parallels the machloqes about where the nasi sat. We generally assume it's the middle lamp, on the central shaft. However, Tamid 33a speaks of the two western lights, which we also find implied in Abayei hava mesader, "hatavas shetei neiros" being at a different time than "hatavav 5 neiros". >From which Rashi (see also Rashi Menachos 86b "mimenah hayah madliq") concludes that the neir ma'ariv was the 2nd in the row. So it looks like a two machloqes, leshitasam, setup. But... IE's semicircular menorah is based on the idea that the middle lamp was westmost, the other lamps curving off toward the NE and SE directions. A variant on the shitah that the menorah stood so the lamps run north to south. The idea that the 2nd was the ner hama'ari has the lamps running from west to east. The 2 neiros on the west are lit on their own. The second from the west end is the neir hama'arivi, a title not given the westmost candle because it is lit facing the NhM, with the wick on the east. But that leshitasam looked so pretty! Anyone want to help me salvage it? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 12:25:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:25:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? In-Reply-To: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> References: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150819192519.GB2506@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 12:28:27AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Question-from a torah point of view should it make a difference : who shows up at the therapist's (or Rabbi's)door (for any therapy or : advice)? How does Halacha balance the needs of the individual, the : family, the community, Jewish society and/or society in general? Confidentiality and for that matter focusing on the needs of the client serves society in general in the long run. Society needs not only therapists, but therapists clients are willing to get help from. If we tell therapists that they are to compromise client trust for the sake of the family, community or society, we will lose that. So, even if halakhah requires factoring others' needs in to a greater extent, it might not change things all that much. (After all, the profession developed those standards for a reason. That reason needn't reflect a different set of values.) There are also the secondary effects of the law... If someone loses the opportunity to offer therapy because disobeying those standards open them up to threat of suit or legal consequences, we still lose the therapy. Which has to be factored in to the halachic decision. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 14:45:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:45:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Bais Hamussar] The Small Things Message-ID: <20150819214542.GD812@aishdas.org> ----- Forwarded message from Bais Hamussar ----- Bais Hamussar Al Sheim HaRav Shlomo Wolbe zt"l Shoftim - Elul Rav Wolbe (Daas Shlomo) cites a mind boggling Medrash (Bereishis Rabba 2:7). Reb Avahu said, "From the beginning of time Hashem gazed at both the actions of the righteous and the actions of the wicked. Yet, it is not clear whose actions He desired. Once the Torah writes, 'And Hashem saw the light that it was good' it is clear that He desires the actions of the righteous and not the actions of the wicked." What is this supposed to mean? Could there be a possibility that Hashem prefers the actions of the wicked over the actions of the righteous? Rav Simcha Zissel Ziv, the Alter of Kelm, offers a beautiful explanation. Indeed, even the wicked perform good deeds. However, they limit their good deeds to grandiose actions whose effects can be heard around the world. They will found organizations, create moral ideologies and give their lives for the sake of their country. In contrast, the righteous focus on the small, even minuscule, actions. Chazal were asking who's good deeds are superior -- those performed by the righteous or those performed by the wicked? The answer was provided by the Torah: Hashem prefers the small actions of the righteous over the high-flying deeds of the wicked. A similar idea is mentioned by the Rambam. He asserts that for one who wishes to give tzeddaka, it is better that he give many small donations than one big donation. Many small mitzvos are preferential to a single big action. Rav Yisrael Salanter writes that the focus of teshuva also must be on the small actions. Many are overcome with despair when faced with the prospect of teshuva. "There is no possible way for me to stop speaking lashon hara" or "I simply can't overcome this middah" they lament. However, there is no room for despair when the topic is teshuva. They are absolutely right; at the present time they cannot entirely overcome their inclinations. Nevertheless, they can greatly reduce the severity of their actions if they would merely desist at the times when it is easy for them to refrain from transgressing. If they would take small steps and resist for five minutes here and there, they will already have progressed tremendously down the road of teshuva. With this in mind, our understanding of Chazal's well known statement becomes even more profound. "Hashem says to Klal Yisrael, 'Open for me a hole like the eye of a needle and I will open for you gateways that wagons and carriages will be able to pass through!'" Hashem specifically is interested in the small holes. Teshuva must begin with a focus on the small actions. "Just five minutes" is a mantra that can change your life. I will refrain from lashon hara just for five minutes. I will learn just for five minutes. I will spend just five minutes on helping another Yid. The truth is that sometimes one doesn't even need five minutes. A wave of the hand to motion that one can't talk now can save a person from pages of bittul Torah or loads of lashon hara. Moreover, Hashem guarantees that He will reciprocate our small gesture with a huge dose of Heavenly assistance, as He waves us through big gateways of teshuva! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 20:49:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:49:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: I'm really very unsure what this thread is asking. Let's take, for example, this paragraph from R' Micha Berger: > In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the > BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, > but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that > discusses how the conclusions are reached. What can you possibly mean, that we COULD HAVE limped along without it? We ARE limping along without it! There is so much that is ALREADY missing from the Mesora! There are so many masechtos missing from the Bavli, for example. I suppose it is possible that Ravina and Rav Ashi never saw a need to compile them, but it's much more likely that they were written and then lost, no? Now, imagine, if you will, a halacha which was decided (by a rishon, acharon, it doesn't matter) because of one obscure gemara that some ingenious thinker found and applied to a particular situation. Without this gemara, the halacha pesuka would have been different than we are accustomed to, but because that gemara -- obscure though it might be -- WAS found, and is a legitimate part of our Mesora, the halacha as we know it came to be. There must be hundreds of such halachos, maybe even thousands. But what if that particular gemara was not hiding in Chullin or Makos? Suppose it was a gemara in Terumos? Then that halacha would never be known to us, because that gemara has been lost. R"n Chana Luntz wrote: > Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more > of them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the > Rambam, were able to formulate their halachic conclusions. You do realize, of course, that there was no such person as "Tosphos". The Tosaphists were very real, and very important, but they were not the ones to decide on the inclusion or exclusion of any particular comment. That was the choice of the publisher of the gemara, and if his whim had gone in another direction, who knows what other views would have gotten more press coverage. (Yes, I know that there are many volumes filled with the writings of even the most obscure Tosaphists, but the fact remains that getting included in the standard printed edition is the path to widest influence.) My point is that while RMB and RCL are trying to imagine what Torah would look like without Tosaphos, as I see it, even the Tosaphos that we do have is a somewhat random document. If Hashgacha (or, some might prefer, blind luck) had gone in another direction, Tosaphos would be very different, and practical halacha with it. But it doesn't stop there. Need I remind anyone that even our Torah Sheb'ksav is a reconstruction (or, some might prefer, an approximation) created by the Baalei Mesorah? If the sources that they worked from had been just a bit different, then our Sifrei Torah today would be different too. And yet, somehow we manage. We use the Torah that we have today, because it rendered the previous versions (the source material of the Baalei Mesorah) to be passul. What an amazing concept! One day, these several Sifrei Torah, all with known yichus, each had its own chezkas kashrus. And the next day, a new document, different from those that preceded it, comes to center stage and replaces the others! I would like to suggest that this is exactly how it would have worked if there was no Rashi, or no Rabenu Tam, or no Rambam, or no Rav Yosef Karo: We would use whatever we did have, and that would be our Torah. It would be different than the Torah that we do have, but so what? Rashi's Torah was different too! IN CLOSING, RCL asked: > So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no > Rambam and no Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any > distinction at all between the halacha of the Orthodox and the > halacha as championed by the Conservative movement? Is that > not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would of necessity lead > (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent than > we have today ... If you've been following me, then my answer to this should be clear: No! This "much broader tent" is pure speculation. If we had no Rav ABC to guide us, the void would have been filled by Rav XYZ, whose views might have been to the right, to the left, or the same. And in *exactly* the same manner as how we are obligated by the new Torah created by the Baalei Mesorah, the possibility of differences is much less important than our confidence and emunah that this Torah is the right one FOR US. Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller on gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:19:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:19:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mesorah only through rashi Message-ID: <> Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against the concept. Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own interpretation and not rely or be bound by any text. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:29:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:29:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mimetism Message-ID: <> I understood mimetism and trying to follow the custom of one's family. This is of no help when the physical circumstances have changed. Would anyone suggest using outdoor toilets because that is what our ancestors did and would object to an indoor bathroom. Plumbing changed the halacha. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:25:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:25:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] splendor of clothes Message-ID: > Rav Soloveitchik further added that wearing a Yarmulke, a Kippa, is > more dignified than a baseball cap. He said, "If the President of the > United States suddenly appeared and wanted to take a picture with me, > would I wear a Russian hat, a baseball cap,- or a Kippa? That is the > way we should stand Shemoneh Esrei when addressing the King of the > Universe, HaKadosh Baruch-Hu. The average person would also not wear a black hat while taking a picture with the president. I have noted before there has become a new minhag of wearing a hat all the time not only when wearing davening or saying a bracha. I went this week to a charedi wedding and most of the men wore their hats throughout the meal. OTOH I also went to a shiur of Rav Zilberstein this week. Throughout the shiur he wore a kippah. In the break he took some food and put on his hat for the bracha and then removed it for the shiur. This is also what I observed from RYBS If so why do other rabbis insist on giving a shiur wearing a hat? [Email #2.] BTW I just received a copy of a formal photo of RYBS with Ed Asner. RYBS is wearing a black kippa -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 05:10:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 08:10:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] splendor of clothes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 3:25 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > I have noted before there has become a new minhag of wearing a hat all > the time not only when wearing davening or saying a bracha. I went this > week to a charedi wedding and most of the men wore their hats throughout > the meal. For me, at least, this is a practical matter: There is often no place to leave a hat, not even in the coat room; and certainly no place from which the hat can be easily retrieved before bentching. --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 16:16:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 19:16:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:49pm EDT, R Akiva Miller wrote: : I'm really very unsure what this thread is asking... Part of the difficult of this thread is that we came in mid-conversation. RGS quoted Qinot Mesorat haRav. The quote is long, so I'm just giving part: Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebe'al peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... This is a comment RYBS frequently made in shiur. Picture sitting in a brisker shiur, where every talmid needs a reference set of shas and Rambam. It is logical for the rebbe to need to remind people that they couldn't play this game of comparing that Yad back to shas if we didn't have Rashi and Tosados opening up shas to understanding. Interestingly, RGS compared this to the Yam Shel Shelomo: Rav Shlomo Luria, the Maharshal, famously said that Rabbeinu Tam was greater than the Rambam (introduction to Yam Shel Shlomo). In discussing Kinah 42, Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik suggests that the French and German Tosafists were more important than the Rambam, without discussing who was greater. The Maharshal was very opposed to the SA. He had a hostile attitude toward the whole notion of codification which goes way beyond RYBS's intent in ways RYBS wouldn't agree to. He and the Maharal (his brother) were of the "many" in RET's response. On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:19am IDT, R Eli Turkel wrote: : Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against the : concept. : Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own : interpretation and not : rely or be bound by any text. This coming in in the middle caused language confusion and consequent frustration for RnCL. On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:41:09PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the :> Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The :> parshan connects the past to the now. : That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. : Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation : handed over to the next. Yes, but if you want to know what RYBS meant, it requires knowing what the word means in RYBS's lexicon, with the connotations he assumed. Notice my suggestion about how "mesorah" was being used fits the quote from the qinos and the example of the Yerushalmi. I understand the frustration of thinking you were discussing a statement that meant one thing and only after formulating a log response being told that it likely meant something else. But that's a straightforward misunderstanding due to your being outside the target audience when RYBS was saying / learning Qinos, and therefore not being used to the connoctations he assumes; and Lewis Carrol refferences aren't needed. I intend to write a post on the meaning of the word "mesorah" as developed in RYBS's and RHS's thought as the start of its own thread. Because it not only comes up here, it comes up in the discussions raging elsewhere (Torah Musings, Cross Currents, Facebook) on RWMO's objections to Open O and feminism. RnCL argues for the importance of codes in that post: : So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no Rambam and no : Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any distinction at all between : the halacha of the Orthodox and the halacha as championed by the : Conservative movement? Is that not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would : of necessity lead (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent : than we have today... ... : But take the codes out of the equation : and *all* these multiple rishonic positions become tenable, allowing a : general free for all within the vastness of the parshanut tradition... ... : It is only those who also have an eye to the : codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in : the light of common practice. Actualy, it's only those who have an eye on common practice. After all, we discuss machloqesin between Rashi and the Rambam in halakhah lemasseh contexts all the time. And if Ashkenazim accepted Rashi's ruling, or one found in Tosafos, the Rama has no problem limiting his pesaq to that rather than that of the Rif, Rambam or Tur. And had there not been a Rama, then some shu"t or parshan could as well. For that matter, there is also the middle ground, the shu"t writer (eg the Ritva) who discusses halachic sevara and lomdus without either using a study of a pre-existing text as his organizing principle nor trying to codify a complete set of rulings. For that matter, the Beis Yoseif and AhS also sit in the middle ground -- code-like works that spend more space discussing how they understood the sources to get there. Returning to RAM's post for his reply to RnCL's question: : If you've been following me, then my answer to this should be clear: No! : This "much broader tent" is pure speculation. If we had no Rav ABC to guide : us, the void would have been filled by Rav XYZ, whose views might have been : to the right, to the left, or the same. And in *exactly* the same manner as : how we are obligated by the new Torah created by the Baalei Mesorah, the : possibility of differences is much less important than our confidence and : emunah that this Torah is the right one FOR US. Without the parshanim, there is no way to fill in the holes between se'ifim, to know how the conclusions were reached so that halakhah can survive beyond the limited set of cases in the Rambam or SA. However, without the codifiers, it's hard to find Rashi's ruling, but not impossible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 02:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:02:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha Message-ID: RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear as ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) 1) Prozbul - while the originial takanah was for individuals that made loans and meant a trip to bet din today it has become a piece of paper signed given to the rabbi or some ad hoc bet din (similar to hatarat nedarim). 2) nonJewish produce during shemitta - whther bought directly from nonJews or through heter mechirah the end result is that the consumer feels little difference between a shemitta year and a regular year. Only consumers that use Otzar bet din have to account for shemitta rules (of course it affects the farmer) 3) mechirat chametz - In the extreme one goes away for the entire Pesach, sells everything in the house and returns after Pesach to eat whatever is around, no need to even put away the chametz. For the rest of us it means putting what we sell in some closet and for some getting rid of "real" chametz like cakes 4) heter iska - again originally meant making a document for a specific loan and allowing a possibility pf loss. Today (in Israel) the banks and other financial insitutions have the document on the wall somewhere and most customers are not even aware of it. Because of court cases the heter iska has been refined so that the possibility of loss to the bank is essentially zero. In addition the heter iska today applies to non business loans - eg renovating a house, buying a car or going on a pleasure trip In addition to things that appear as cereonies to the average layman there are halachot called "ha-aramh" which is a trick way of avoiding the usual halacha. Again some eamples (again including inyana de-yoma" 1) paying the chazan for RH and YK for singing the first night of selichot 2) returning to shemitta - buying the lulav and throwing in for free the etrog 3) R Tarfon "married" 300 women so they could eat termah In an actual case involving yibum a couple without children and the husband was senile and near death while the brother-in-law lived in New Zealand. The solution was for the brother-in-law t "marry" the wife's sister and then divorce her but now the wife no longer needs a yibum or chaitzah. Note that pruzbol and heter iska began as ha-aaramah and later became a ceremony. I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview it. Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 11:57:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 14:57:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah Message-ID: <20150821185758.GA8815@aishdas.org> The word "mesorah" is overloaded with too many meanings. Literally, it's "that which was passed on". So logically, a common usage would make it synonymous with TSBP. And yet it's also used for the near opposite -- we speak of the mesoretic text, its vowels and its trope -- the ultimate in TSBK. And the collections of notes that describe that text are also called "mesorah". (So the mesorah describes the mesorah?! And you can join the email list if you wish to discuss the mesorah, diqduq, nusach hetefillah and the like.) More along the lines of the direction I want to head in, unlike talking about TSBP and thus focusing our attention on Divine origins, when we speak of mesorah we focus out attention on the chain of people. And so there is the usage of "mesorah" to mean mimetic tradition, and is often posed in contrast to textual TSBP. Notice R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik not only defines "mimetic tradition" as knowing what a kezayis is because you remember what your father and greandfather ate at the seder but also considers such cultural mesorah (my term) rather than textual transmission to be the carrier of value and emotion. It is the loss of mimetic tradition that he blames for the loss of dread of the Yamim Noraim and (in speech, not writing) for the loss of what his father RJBS called the "Erev Shabbos Jew" (from "On Repentance, pp 97-98): Even in those neighborhoods made up predominantly of religious Jews, one can no longer talk of the 'sanctity of Shabbat.' True, there are Jews in America who observe Shabbat... But it is not for Shabbat that my heart aches; it is for the forgotten 'erev Shabbat'.... There are Shabbat-observing Jews in America, but there are no 'erev Shabbat' Jews who go out to greet Shabbat with beating hearts and pulsating souls. There are many who observe the precepts with their hands, with their feet, and/or with their mouths - but there are few indeed who truly know the meaning of the service of the heart!" Then we speak of someone "having a mesorah" in two different uses: both if they have a received practice and cultural (as above) and if they have a known rebbe-talmid lineage. Still in contrast to texts, we're talking about the importance of all that Torah that doesn't fit into books. We also talk about those in the hands-on kelei qodesh, such as a sofer, a mohel, a shocheit, etc... also of "having a mesorah" from the one who taught them the craft. And that too is all about the kind of thing you need to learn with your senses and muscles, and not know from books discussing the topic in the abstract. To pasqen mar'os, a rav must also have a mesorah in that sense. It's a skill, a craft, that is learned from practice under the guidance of a mentor. Usually called "shimush". For regular pesaq too there is an element that is a craft, an art, a skill, the kind of thing one needs to learn from shimush, not by studying from abstract texts. Qara veshanah velo shamash TC, harei zeh am ha'aretz. ... - Sotah 22a This is why I like R/Dr Moshe Koppel's metaphor of laws of grammar for some usages rather than always comparing halakhah to civil law. (More as per his sefer "Metahalakhah" than in the essay "Judaism as a First Language" .) As I wrote in Feb : The "First Language" model is much like R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik's mimeticism, but also somewhat different. Halachic rules are an approximation of something that is inherently more complex in kind than rules and algorithms. Much the way grammar is only approximated by ever more complex rules which still never get a foreigner studying the language in class to the same feel for grammar that the native-speaker has. (And why TSBP loses something when not be'al peh.) So the ESL student may know what a past pluperfect is, and I don't, but the native speaker is more likely to know what is valid poetic license and what will produce non-English results. Similarly, a poseiq needs to pick up that feel, not the formal rules. Unstructured knowledge. I have two rather lengthy quotes that help create a feel for what I am talking about. They're quite beautiful, so I appreciate this excuse to share them. Notice how RYBS explicitly defines the word "mesorah" at the beginning of this first quote, UBiqashta miSham 10:1, pp. 63-65 (tr. RARR, The Rav, vol. I, pp. 247-250): Let me stress the idea of the Mesorah by telling you a personal story. I remember that when I was growing up I was frightened and lonely boy. I was afraid of the world. For me, the world was a cold and strange place. I imagined that everyone was mocking me. But I had one friend; do not laugh at me, it was the Rambam [Maimonides]. How did we become friends? Simply, we met. Rambam was a constant guest in our home. During the days when my father was newlywed, supported by my grandfather... father studied Torah day and night. A small group of outstanding young scholars gathered around him and eagerly absorbed his teachings. My father studied with his disciples in the room where my bed was located. My wont was to sit on my bed and listen to my father's words. He constantly quoted Rambam. His method was to first open the Talmud and analyze the text under discussion and the relevant commentaries. He would generally say: these are the explanations of Tosafot. Now, let us analyze the explanations of Rambam. My father would inevitably discover that Rambam rejected the basic explanation of the text and differed with Tosafot. My father would declare, as if to complain, that we cannot comprehend the approach and conclusion of Rambam towards the Talmud text. It was almost as if my father were directly saying to Rambam: "Rabbi Moshe, why have you taken this approach?" My father would continue, "at first glance, the Ra'avad (commentary on the Rambam) is correct at his criticism." The students would jump forward and each would express his thoughts. My father would carefully listen but would refute their proposed interpretations. Once again he would exclaim that the words of Rambam were incomprehensible. Nevertheless, my father would not give up. He would place his head on his hand and soon be engrossed in deep thought. The students would not disturb his thought process. Finally, my father would gradually lifts his head and begin to expound the true meaning of Rambam. Sometimes he would be lengthy, and on other occasions brief. I would strain my ears to catch my father's every word. In my young and impressionable mind, there developed a duel impression: First, that the Rambam was being attacked by enemies who wanted to hurt him, and second, that the Rambam's only defender was my father. I felt strongly that without my father, who knows what would happen to the Rambam? It was as if the Rambam himself were with us in the room, listening to my father's words. The Rambam sat next to me on my bed. What did he look like? I don't know exactly. He seemed to look like an exceedingly handsome and good father. His name was also Moshe, just like my father. Intensely following my father, the students absorbed his every word. Slowly but surely, the tension evaporated. My father continued his discourse with strength and courage. New ideas were clarified; the laws under discussion were classified and carefully articulated. A new light emerged; the questions were resolved and the topic properly explained. Rambam emerged triumphant, and my father's face was filled with happiness and delight. He had defended his friend, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon. The Rambam was comforted and smiled. I too was delighted and joined in the feeling of joy in the room. I would jump from my bed and run to my mother and cry out the good news: "mother, mother, the Rambam won; he beat the Raavad. Father helped him. Look how wonderful my father is!" But once in a great while my father did not succeed, and despite all his efforts the enemies of the Rambam defeated him. Their questions were as strong as iron. Although my father mustered all his strength, he could not save the Rambam from his detractors. Salvation did not come for the Rambam. Deep in thought, my father would lean on his head on the palms of his hands on the table. The students and I, and even the Rambam, waited in great tension for my father's words. But my father would raise his head and sadly state: "there is no answer. The words of the Rambam are difficult. The shiur ended with no explanation. The students were sad, and even my father was depressed. A sense of despair descended upon all of us. I cried. Even the eyes of the Rambam glistened with tear-drops. With a broken heart, I would walk slowly to my mother and cry out to her: "Mother, father cannot answer the Rambam. What will we do? He did not succeed today." And my mother would tell me: "Don't worry. Father will find and answer to the Rambam. If he does not succeed, then when you grow up perhaps you will find an answer to the Rambam. Always remember, my son, the important thing about Torah is to study it in happiness and enthusiasm." It is true that this story is part of my youth. It is not, however, the fantasy of a young child or the creation of mystical feelings. This story is an historic and psychological reality that guides me at all time. When I sit down to learn, the giants of the Mesorah are with me. Our relationship is personal. The Rambam sits to my right, Rabbeinu Tam to my left. Rashi sits at the head and explains, Rabbeinu Tam asks, the Rambam decides the halacha, and the Raavad objects. All of them are with me in my small room, sitting around the table. They look at me with fondness. They world the text out with me, and life a father, they encourage and strengthen me. Learning Torah is not just a didactic, formal, and technical experience whose purpose is the creation and exchange of ideas. Learning Torah is the intense experience of uniting many generations together, the joining of spirit to spirit, and the connecting of soul to soul. Those who transmit the Torah and those who receive the Torah are invited to meet one another at the same historic juncture. And Reflections of the Rav, vol II, pp. 21b-23 (original language in: RARR's The Rav vol II, pp 186-189) this quote winds up with mention of the mesorah: The old Rebbe walks into the classroom crowded with students who are young enough to be his grandchildren. He enters as an old man with wrinkled face, his eyes reflecting the fatigue and sadness of old age. You have to be old to experience this sadness. It is the melancholy that results from an awareness of people and things which have disappeared and linger only in memory. I sit down; opposite me are rows of young beaming faces with clear eyes radiating the joy of being young. For a moment, the Rabbe is gripped with pessimism, with tremors of uncertainly. He asks himself: Can there be a dialogue between an old teacher and young students, between a Rebbe in his Indian summer and students enjoying the spring of their lives? The Rebbe starts his shiur, uncertain as to how it will proceed. Suddenly the door opens and an old man, much older than the Rebbe, enters. He is the grandfather of the Rebbe, Reb Chaim Brisker. It would be most difficult to study Talmud with students who are trained in the sciences and mathematics, were it not for his method, which is very modern and equals, if not surpasses, most contemporary forms of logic, metaphysics or philosophy. The door opens again and another old man comes in. He is older than Reb Chaim, for he lived in the 17th century. His name is Reb Shabtai Cohen, known as the Shach, who must be present when civil law (dinai mamonot) is discussed. Many more visitors arrive, some from the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, and others harking back to antiquity -- Rabbeinu Tam, Rashi, Rambam, Raavad, Rashba, Rabbi Akiva and others. These scholarly giants of the past are bidden to take their seats. The Rebbe introduces the guests to his pupils, and the dialogue commences. The Rambam states a halacha; the Raavad disagrees sharply, as is his wont. Some students interrupt to defend the Rambam, and they express themselves harshly against the Raavad, as young people are apt to do. The Rebbe softly corrects the students and suggest more restrained tones. The Rashba smiles gently. The Rebbe tries to analyze what the students meant, and other students intercede. Rabeinu Tam is called upon to express his opinion, and suddenly, a symposium of generations comes into existence. Young students debate earlier generations with an air of daring familiarity, and a crescendo of discussion ensues. All speak one language; all pursue one goal; all are committed to a common vision; and all operate with the same categories. A Mesorah collegiality is achieved, a friendship, a comradeship of old and young, spanning antiquity, the Middle Ages and modern times. This joining of the generations, this march of centuries, this dialogue and conversation between antiquity and the present will finally bring about the redemption of the Jewish people. After a two-or three hour shiur, the Rebbe emerges from the chamber young and rejuvenated. He has defeated age. The students look exhausted. In the Mesorah experience, years play no role. Hands, however parchment-dry and wrinkled, embrace warm and supple hands in commonality, bridging the gap with separates the generations. Thus, the "old ones" of the past continue their great dialogue of the generations, ensuring an enduring commitment to the Mesorah. So there is a community of baalei mesorah that carries down a mimetic tradition of how to pasqen. A tradition of informal knowledge that cannot be codified into books and that creates a feel and emotional consequence. This is RYBS's usual usage of the word, "mesorah". No better or worse than any of the other usages, but more relevant to two of the conversations we've (we as in various members of the A/A chevrah, not necessarily here on Avodah) been having lately. In the discussion of feminism and Torah (which hasn't been here, but we have had identical cycles here before), RHS's piece "Preserving Our Mesorah in Changing Times" and others like it are often cited. RHS opens: What is Mesorah? Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today.[1] The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers.[2] 1. Avot 1:1. 2. For a more extensive discussion of mesorah, see Nefesh HaRav, pp. 34-58 and Beikvei HaTzon, pp. 21-37. Firmly in line with what we've seen from his rebbe, mesorah is used in the sense of the chain of transmission down time that conveys the art and culture of halakhah decision-making and Torah as a whole. And a bit further down he discusses "Who Is Authorized to Institute Change?" {emph mine): Changes in practice require delicate evaluations that only a master Torah scholar, a gadol baTorah, can properly conduct. Only someone with a broad knowledge and a deep understanding of the corpus of halachah, with an intimate familiarity with both the letter and the spirit of the law, WITH A MASTERY OF BOTH THE RULES AND THE ATTITUDES OF THE MESORAH, can determine when a change is acceptable or even required. The more wide-reaching the proposed change, the greater the expertise required to approve it. The evaluator must not only be a master of the mesorah, but he must also be able to consider new practices based solely on values internal to the mesorah, removing external influences from the deliberation.[14] 14. See Halakhic Mind, n. 98. But I think this example from a teshuvah (tr and poor title by YWN is more on-topic: Indeed, the Rav would often say (see drasha to Parshas Korach), that every person must recognize that he needs a Rav or a Rebbe. Even a Talmid Chochom whose Rebbe had passed away must constantly ask himself in truth (when they present questions to him) what his Rebbe would have said in such a scase, and what stance he would have taken. ... The expression that some of those who have permitted this utilize that according to the technical halacha a certain act is permitted, and that which people wish to prohibit it is because of political considerations is incorrect. For even a matter such as changing the mesorah the traditions of the Jewish people is in and of itself an integral section of halacha. When one rules on the donning of Tefillin for women it is not enough to merely examine the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch in Hilchos Tefillin and in the sources there and treat it as a simple question. The version of mesorah in RYBS's usage is the same concept RHS invokes to reject a "but it can be fit to the technical halakhah so your objection is merely political" attitude. Change must conform to mesorah to be valid, even if the textualists are satisfied. This is not an invocation of "daas Torah", because we're talking about questions of Torah, not politics or other metzi'us; we are invoking knowledge, if cultural and informal knowledge rather than book knowledge, and not invoking any metaphysical or mytical power; and because we do not expect a single correct answer that "the gedolim hold". But it still makes halachic decisionmaking when it comes to significant change subject to the skill of a few, and the rest of us are forced to submit to their understanding. The other use we've been knocking around, and this was here on-list, is RYBS's statement (Qinos Mesorat haRav, quoted by RGS here : Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebeal peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... RYBS identifies mesorah as the ineffible skill to think like a poseiq. And that we do get from those who explain how the prior generations developed the law, how the community down the ages conversed about the law, from living in the culture whose mimeticism is mesorah. And we saw Sotah's opinion of someone who learns without shimush. From only a little further down in that sugya (22a): Tanna: Hatannaim (those who repeat codified law) are swallowers of the world. Could you really think [they] are "swallowers of the world"? Ravina said: For they are morah halakhah from their repetition of the law. There is a a beraisa like this: R' Yeushua said, "And are they 'swallowers of the world? Aren't they settlers of the world, as it says 'halikhos olam lo' (Chavaquq 3)? Rather, because they are moreh halakhah from their repetition of the law. You can't pasqen from codes, from legal knowledge. It takes knowledge of how the codes reached their conclusion -- both textual knowledge obtained from the meforshim, and the skills to pasqen obtained by shimush. As R Yochanan quotes besheim Rashbi (Berakhos 7b), "gedolah shimushah shel Torah yoseir meilimudah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 22 16:06:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 00:06:16 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:41:09PM +0100, RMB wrote: :> Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the :> Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The :> parshan connects the past to the now. I replied: : That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. : Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation : handed over to the next. And RMB further replied: <> I read the quote and the original RGS posting before commenting on the thread because I generally try not to jump in mid-conversation without understanding what has previously been said. And that is precisely what I am objecting to. Because the RGS piece (including the quote) - is actually about our mesorah *regarding learning* (ie a much narrower slice of the wider definition). In that, as I said, I think it correct - our mesorah regarding how to learn - how to sit in Yeshiva and deal with the texts owes far more to Rashi and Tosphos than to the Rambam. But as stated in the quote, this suddenly becomes "our mesorah" in general and that is what I find problematic as I will try and articulate below. So let us look at the quote again: RGS quoted Qinot Mesorat haRav. The quote is long, so I'm just giving part: Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebe'al peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... The point I am making is that "any mesorah, "any chain of tradition" is much, much wider than what is done in Brisker yeshivas as part of the learning process. <> Now, if the point you are making is that RYBS was addressing yeshiva bochrim within a yeshiva setting (albeit explaining kinos on Tisha B'av) and hence explaining what it is that they do all day learning-wise- then the use of such language is probably excusable without the modifier - ie in this context mesorah is simply short for "mesorah with regard to how to learn". But the problem is that this language has now been pulled, by way of RGS's article (and lends itself to being pulled by its sheer breadth), into a wider application and wider audience, and not modified as such. It was then pulled across into Avodah, and the reference questioned, which I think it should be, because RGS's argument is implicitly if not explicitly far wider. And that I think is a problem, because what is true for one slice of "the mesorah" is not necessarily true for the whole. Whether this imprecision is RYBS's or RGS's is hard for me to be sure, as you say, this is a quote taken out of context. <> And this is where this slide from discussing one slice of the mesorah - what to do in Yeshiva, to a much wider slice of the mesorah becomes problematic, because of the implication you have just made which is that what is true of the section applies to the whole. And in this context you are dealing with what is called in common parlance the mesorah, not about conversations down time. So by slight of hand what you are doing is taking a definition which you acknowledge is a very limited and idiosyncratic one, but then sliding the conclusions that arise from that definition into the more standard debate, and claiming that was RYBS's opinion regarding the debate about what is more commonly known as "the mesorah". Let us therefore back up for a minute and discuss that aspect of RGS's post which in my view is unquestionably correct, even using the usual definition of mesorah: RGS comments that he and his father tried to learn meseches Nedarim just using the meforash, in the absence of Rashi, and were not able to do so (they were then only able to do it using the Ran, a much later commentary) - thus demonstrating the point of the post, which is, without Rashi, most of the Talmud Bavli would be a closed book to most people of average, and even above average, intelligence (like the Talmud Yerushalmi). This is unquestionably true. The Rambam was also aware of this problem (after all he learned all of Talmud Bavli without Rashi and everybody he knew either did so or tried to do so). His solution to RGS's problem was to tell RGS and his father, and people like him, not to try and learn Talmud Bavli, but to learn his, the Rambam's, Code instead. Ie instead of trying to tackle Maseches Nedarim, he would suggest that RGS and his father learn Hilchos Nedarim from the Mishne Torah. Now the truth is that if RGS and his father had in fact learnt all of Hilchos Nedarim from the Rambam, and all of the rest of the Mishne Torah, backwards and forwards and inside out - they are likely then to be well set up to tackle the Talmud Bavli without Rashi. Ie you *can* use the Rambam as a guide back into the Talmud if you are bright enough (because you have most of the concepts already explained by him), but it is not an easy way to do it. The Rambam assumed that the average person would stop with his Code, and only the best and brightest would need then to go back to the Talmud, to help determine the ambiguous cases not caught by his code, in a method not a million miles away from the one use by smicha students in learning Hilchos Shechita or Kashrus - first learn the Shulchan Aruch, then work your way back to the underlying gemoras so you are in a position to posken those cases the Shulchan Aruch doesn't catch. Our mesorah is like Rashi in this regard and not the Rambam (except when it comes to smicha students). We open up the Talmud Bavli even to children using Rashi and hundreds of thousands are sitting in yeshiva following Rashi. The problem is that people (it would appear including you) then generalise from "how we learn" to "how we posken" - which is what really is involved in the discussion regarding Open O and feminism. And they are not the same thing at all. Indeed, the fact that smicha students (those that are being set up to posken) are taught in a totally different way to the more general way of learning in yeshiva, and one that owes far more to the Rambam than to Rashi and Tosphos should alert you to that. I am then going to diverge a bit to discuss RAM's post, because he is discussing something completely different again: I wrote: > Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more of > them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the Rambam, were > able to formulate their halachic conclusions. And RAM replied: <> But you here (and it is even more explicit later) are discussing something completely different to what I was and am discussing. To best differentiate, I would say that you are discussing *content* and I am discussing *process*. Yes with regard to *content* it makes a difference which particular one of the Tosphosim were included on the page, and which weren't - but that is not what I am discussing. Rather I am discussing *how to learn* - ie how to make sense of this Talmud Bavli which (as RGS elucidated so eloquently) is so difficult for people to get into without help. What Rashi did was to provide a clear and simple explanation of the words on the page. What Tosphos did (and in this regard the whole commentary called Tosphos - despite the fact that it was made up of many different people, in fact teaches pretty much the same thing) was to teach people to say "hold on a minute, if we take the simple explanation provided by Rashi, then: a) there is a contradiction with what the gemora says somewhere else; or b) there is a contradiction with what in fact people do - so therefore we need to try and solve this problem. I then further goes on to teach people to say: very commonly we can solve this problem by: (i) re-interpreting this gemora; and/or (ii) reinterpreting that gemora; and/or (iii) finding some way of harmonizing the two gemoras, or the gemora and people's practice, or if we cannot manage to that (but only in extremis), (iv) working out that a certain gemora is more authoritative or the people are wrong. Note that when you are considering the process, it doesn't matter which particular sets of Tosphos' questions made it onto the page and which didn't - what is far more important is the fact that the commentary in general teaches people to ask these questions and mechanisms for trying to answer them. That is what a (eg child) who is first taught to study the gemora with Rashi suddenly encounters when he moves on to Tosphos. Hold on, Rashi's commentary may make a lot of sense in localised context, but we now have to try and consider the whole. Now of course the Rambam had not only to be his own Rashi, but he had to be his own Tosphos. He could not have written his Code if underneath the surface he did not deal with the fact that the gemora appears to contradict itself all over the place, and also to contradict what people are actually doing. The fundamental job of most meforshim on the Rambam is therefore (a) to explain how the Rambam understood the simple explanation of the gemora (ie what the Rambam would have said if he had written Rashi) and (b) how the Rambam resolved the contradictions in the various gemoras and with common practice (ie how the Rambam deals with the kinds of problems raised by the Tosphosim). But all of this is under the surface. All we have from the Rambam is the result, what we have from Tosphos are the questions. And it is the questions which give people a better window into how to learn gemora. So that is why, when discussing *process* it does not matter that: <> Because while we might have different Tosphos questions (ie content) on (or off) the page if hashgacha had gone in a different direction, or if there were gemoros on some of the mesechtos on which we have none, the process of *how* Tosphos (or the Rambam) would have dealt with that content is still the same. But if we would have had no Rashi and no Tosphos at all, ie the process they originated, but only the Rambam, we would all have learnt the code backward and forward, and a few bright sparks would have then used that to understand the gemora - a very, very different process of learning. In that regard our mesorah of learning comes from Rashi and Tosphos. On the other hand, RET is correct: <> Although I would modify that statement not to say "and not be bound by any text", as most at that point agreed that they should be bound by the gemora (and the Tanach as understood by the mishna/gemora), just not beyond that. And that is the point. There are two different concepts being discussed here, the mesorah of "how to learn" and the mesorah of "how to posken" (which then leads into what it is that people do). And when the Shulchan Aruch came out a lot of people strongly objected to the way of poskening that is a consequence of the codes. They thought that each posek should re-learn the relevant underlying gemoras, and work out their own harmonisation of them without being influenced, and certainly not bound, by what the Shulchan Aruch said. Some people perhaps thought that was a bit extreme, and that at least they should learn the underlying gemoras with all the rishonim, and, to the extent there was rishonic view, at least make a judgement within that spectrum (but not necessarily prioritise eg the Rambam, Rif and Rosh, or the Trumas HaDeshen and the Mordechai, being the most recent, over the others). The problem you have though is that - well, according to the gemora there are at least 50 ways of determining that a sheretz is kosher. Even if you then say that the gemora draws certain lines in the sand, there is no question that - well, let us take the hair covering question as illustrative. There are clearly (at least) two ways of reading the question: (a) hair covering for married women is an absolute and immutable d'orisa principle; (b) hair covering for married women is a tznius related convention - and given the convention at the time of the gemora (and earlier) it is required in those societies where it is practiced by modest Jewish women by virtue of rabbinic decree. If you can't see that the underlying sources (eg the mishna and gemora) *could* lead to either interpretation, then you are either wilfully blinding yourself or you can't learn. If you purely follow Rashi and Tosphos, then *if* you can read the underlying gemora sources in such a way as to harmonise with common practice today (even if you believe it is a bit of a dochek), then you would be free to do so, or at least, have no basis to criticise others who do this. However, nobody has that conversation today. The conversation you are having is about "how authoritative" are the various poskim (and from which tradition) who do appear to rule in one way or another. The power of Rav Broyde's article for example - is that he argues that the Rosh (and hence the Tur) and even the Rambam actually posken (b) out of the options, and this can be seen in the Shulchan Aruch. That is the kind of conversation we have today - with others of course rejecting that this is what can be read into the Shulchan Aruch. Hence I said: : It is only those who also have an eye to the : codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in : the light of common practice. And RMB replied: <> But neither Rashi nor Tosphos gave us any method of limiting where psak went, and indeed the Ri can hold one thing and Rabbanu Tam another within the same Tosphos. The Codes are far less open. And the language of the Shulchan Aruch is in the vast majority of cases the language of the Rambam thereby leading back to the thought process of the Rambam. The Rema then picks up a few of the cases where Ashkenazi practice differs and used a Code process to insert Rashi's explanation into the Code (although often where it had already been filtered through the Rosh and the Tur first). That is taking Rashi content and using it in a Rambam like way. Which is why the mesorah for how we posken is much closer to the Rambam than it is to Rashi. And what we do outside of the yeshiva is more about how we posken than about how we learn. Which is why I disagree: >Without the parshanim, there is no way to fill in the holes between se'ifim, to know how the conclusions were reached so that halakhah can survive beyond the limited set of cases in the Rambam >or SA. Of course there is, you have to go back to the original gemora - having first learnt through all of the related si'ifim in the Codes, and then make sure you understand how the rulings that are in the Codes relate to the underlying gemora. Once you have done that you can start to fill in the gaps, But only the select few who need to actually posken need to know this method - which is why it only needs to be taught to smicha students. But it is obvious that is the method used by the Rambam when answering questions outside of his own code in his teshuvos. <> And if you don't find it, it probably doesn't matter - because without the attitude of the codifiers, you really only need Rashi to understand the gemora and if you can do it without him, then great. And if you can't understand the gemora without him you wouldn't have a hope of formulating any ruling as the gemora would be a closed book. >Micha Shavuah tov Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 04:38:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:38:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Daf HaKashrus August 2015 Message-ID: <20150823113822.1203D183A0B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/daf_hakashrus_aug_2015.pdf This issue includes articles about bishul on Shabbos and dairy bread as well as other topics. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 02:10:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:10:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: [Email #1, in reply to R' Akiva Miller.] > My point is that while RMB and RCL are trying to imagine what Torah would > look like without Tosaphos, as I see it, even the Tosaphos that we do have > is a somewhat random document. I believe this is somewhat of an exaggeration. The school of Tosafot was basically begun by Rabbenu Tam followed by Ri (haZaken). Unfortunately we don't have much of their notes and Sefer haYashar is fragmentary. However, from Tosfat Shantz through Tosafot Tuch we have several manuscripts. It is true that the early publishers (or more exactly the rabbis chosen by these publishers) used whatever material they had however, I don't think that in most cases the differences between different talmidim were that great. Obviously some were more verbose and some less so and each included their individual rebbes and their own opinions. Nevertheless on the whole they were similar. Tosafot haRosh was the main version used in much of Spain. For reasons that are not clear to me this version was lost for many centuries before reappearing relatively recently. In individual cases one learns something new from Tosafot haRosh but I am not sure that on the whole it is that dramatically different from the printed versions [Email #2, in reply to me. -micha] > To pasqen mar'os, a rav must also have a mesorah in that sense. It's > a skill, a craft, that is learned from practice under the guidance of > a mentor. Usually called "shimush". I recall seeing recently (on avodah?) a machloket of poskim whether one needs shimush in order to pasken on maaros or it is sufficient to learn from seforim. In general some poskim feel that for many areas shimush is no longer needed now that we have detailed seforim. A number of gedolim of the 20th century essentially learned alone with minimal input from teachers. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 07:20:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 17:20:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] child conversion Message-ID: The recent court to allow conversion of under bar/bat mitzvah children is controversial. The bone of contention is whether it is considred a zechut for children to become Jewish when they grow up in a non-religious setting. R. Rosen recently gave a list of rabbis that allow it (at least bideved) and those that forbid it. I found the list interesting and not what I would have guessed Machmirim and not allowing the conversion: R Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor, Sridei Eish,R. Kook and R. Yisraeli Mekilim (at least bideved) Bet Yitzchak, Mateh Levi, Achiezer, RMF, R. Elyashiv, ROY -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 15:03:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:03:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150823220352.GA13158@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:10:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : In general some poskim feel that for many areas shimush is no longer : needed now that we have detailed seforim. A number of gedolim of the : 20th century essentially learned alone with minimal input from teachers. Well, RYBS's notion of "mesorah" is broader than that, as Rashi and Tosafos are considered part of it. Yes, shimush is more central to relaying a feel for how halakhah should be decided, but books that spell out past decisions also apparently play a role. But the truth is most of the gedolim in the 20th cent (Slabodka alumni aside) learned one-on-one often moving in with their rebbe. What you call "minimal" I would call "short and intense". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 25 18:27:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:27:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion Message-ID: The assumption is that it is better to be a non-religious Jew (thereby violating numerous halakhos) than a moral non-Jew. (I am being over simplistic as being non-Jewish citizen in Israel is more of a liability than elsewhere, so there may be a zechus to be a non-religious ger katan.) The irony as many have noted is that those who are most lenient about child conversion tend to be those who are also lenient in accepting that one could lead a perfectly good life as a non-Jew. Those who think that it is better to be Jewish than non-Jewish by extension should accept the conversion of a ger katan who will be raised by a non-religious family. The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for reasons of Nationalism. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 25 18:50:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:50:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) Message-ID: To parachute into an ongoing discussion, I have found that people use Mesorah in four different ways: 1) Personal Mesorah from a Rebbe to a Talmid. What a scholar or layman learns from his teacher. 2) Mesorah as the unbroken chain of Torah going back to Sinai. Rambam zt"l has the most famous mesorah chart, though I like Micha Berger's. (Parallels can be in Hadith transmission traditiona, Sufi traditions or the Catholic Church's assumption of an unbroken chain back to Peter). 3) Communal norms and traditions. This is how the term is commonly used in the Chareidi communities and also how it is being used in the ongoing discussion. This is the idea that there are legitimate practices, norms, values or halakhic understandings. For example different methodologies of learning. Or, as my brothers-in-law say to me, well if that is the mesorah of your community, then it is legitimate, even if they don't relate to this practice. (Personally, I do not relate to such a usage. Either an approach is valid/true or not valid/true.) I discussed the last category in an essay that Gil was kind enough to post: http://www.torahmusings.com/2011/07/two-types-of-orthodox-judaism/ There are probably other uses of the term *mesorah*, but I cannot think of them at the moment. Best wishes, Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 26 00:43:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:43:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] smart lighting Message-ID: can one use smart lighting on shabbat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_lighting -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 05:00:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:00:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov Message-ID: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? KVCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 10:37:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:37:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:00:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party : to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not : actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) My own lexicon: hakaras hatov: realizing that a good thing came into your life hoda'ah: acknowledging the one who / One Who provided that good Say Avi gives Berakhah a ball. Berakhah's hakaras hatov has an primary object, which is the ball -- the tov she received from Avi. Not taking life's gifts for granted. But her hoda'ah has a primary object -- which is Avi, and a secondary object, the ball. As in the grammar of "Modim anachnu Lakh al..."; the prespositional phrase giving you the secondary object is a list of all the things Hashem does for us. I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. Which, if you think about it, is what Chazal say about the early makos and how Moshe would not be the one to launch a makah that afflicts the water that saved him as a baby or the sand that hid the body. I'm not thrilled with the whole idea of exchanging favors, creating a market. It turns everything back on self-service -- every positive act is tainted by expectation of being repaid. : How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? Perhaps kibud av va'eim and kavod harav are their own concepts for a reason. And that hakaras hatov might explain the issur against hurting or cursing one's parents, but not kavod and yir'ah. I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 10:55:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:55:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". Tir'u baTov! -Micha Zechiyah uMattanah - Chapter Seven Translated by Eliyahu Touger Halacha 1 It is a universally accepted custom in most countries that when a man marries, his friends and acquaintances send him money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Then the friends and acquaintances who sent him this money come and eat and drink with the groom during all - or part - of the seven days of wedding celebration; everything should be done according to the accepted local custom. The money that he is sent is called shushvinut, and the people who send the money and then come and eat and drink with the groom are called shushvinin. Halacha 2 Shushvinut is not an outright gift. For it is plainly obvious that a person did not send a colleague 10 dinarim with the intent that he eat and drink a zuz's worth. He sent him the money solely because his intent was that when he would marry, he would send him money as he has sent him. Therefore, if the sender marries a woman, and the recipient does not return the shushvinut, the sender may lodge a legal claim against the recipient and expropriate the money from him. KVCT 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 12:01:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:01:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55DF5E92.9020405@sero.name> On 08/27/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". I believe the reference is to the law of shushvinin. But that is not a matter of hakaras hatov; it's an explicit quid pro quo arrangement. If you don't pay it back when it falls due, you're cheating the person of a quantifiable amount of money that you explicitly owe him, so he can sue you for it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 12:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <55DF64EA.6000201@sero.name> On 08/27/2015 01:55 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Mistranslation: This should be "...the expenses of the feast." -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 11:40:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 11:40:40 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus Message-ID: if there is a general assumption that one eats in another shomer shabbos' house without going thru their pantry, does the same hold in a shmitta year in israel where there are also multiple minhagim ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 14:08:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:08:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> On 08/28/2015 02:40 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > if there is a general assumption that one eats in another shomer > shabbos' house without going thru their pantry, does the same hold > in a shmitta year in israel where there are also multiple minhagim ? Lich'ora, since there is no consensus about shmita standards among shomrei shabbos, one who has a stricter practise can't assume that a randomly selected shomer shabbos is at least as strict as his. Therefore, without ascertaining this he can't eat those things which (according to his practise) are subject to shmita, but can eat those things which are not. Most importantly, though, he *can* eat from the other person's kelim, even if he *knows* that his shmita practices are more lenient than his own; for this purpose he can rely on "stam keilim einam benei yoman", even though normally one may only rely on this bediavad. This is the famous kula of "keilim divnei rhenus". -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 13:56:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:56:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov Message-ID: R' Micha Berger: <<< I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. >>> "Mah ashiv laShem, kol tagmulohi alai?" Akiva Miller On Aug 28, 2015 2:46 PM, "via Avodah" wrote: > Send Avodah mailing list submissions to > avodah at 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 at lists.aishdas.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." > > > A list of common acronyms is available at > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi > (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Child Conversion (Kaganoff via Avodah) > 2. Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) (Kaganoff via Avodah) > 3. smart lighting (Eli Turkel via Avodah) > 4. hakarat hatov (Rich, Joel via Avodah) > 5. Re: hakarat hatov (Micha Berger via Avodah) > 6. Re: hakarat hatov (Rich, Joel via Avodah) > 7. Re: hakarat hatov (Zev Sero via Avodah) > 8. Re: hakarat hatov (Zev Sero via Avodah) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:27:59 -0400 > From: Kaganoff via Avodah > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion > Message-ID: > oOARsdknGfHD5uwwUfKrmZGA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > The assumption is that it is better to be a non-religious Jew (thereby > violating numerous halakhos) than a moral non-Jew. > > (I am being over simplistic as being non-Jewish citizen in Israel is more > of a liability than elsewhere, so there may be a zechus to be a > non-religious ger katan.) > > The irony as many have noted is that those who are most lenient about child > conversion tend to be those who are also lenient in accepting that one > could lead a perfectly good life as a non-Jew. > > Those who think that it is better to be Jewish than non-Jewish by extension > should accept the conversion of a ger katan who will be raised by a > non-religious family. > > The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious > Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also > for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for > reasons of Nationalism. > > Yonatan > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150825/68f7e72c/attachment.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:50:52 -0400 > From: Kaganoff via Avodah > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) > Message-ID: > JWwz1eftmfgGuULn71A at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > To parachute into an ongoing discussion, I have found that people use > Mesorah in four different ways: > > 1) Personal Mesorah from a Rebbe to a Talmid. What a scholar or layman > learns from his teacher. > > 2) Mesorah as the unbroken chain of Torah going back to Sinai. Rambam zt"l > has the most famous mesorah chart, though I like Micha Berger's. (Parallels > can be in Hadith transmission traditiona, Sufi traditions or the Catholic > Church's assumption of an unbroken chain back to Peter). > > 3) Communal norms and traditions. This is how the term is commonly used in > the Chareidi communities and also how it is being used in the ongoing > discussion. This is the idea that there are legitimate practices, norms, > values or halakhic understandings. For example different methodologies of > learning. Or, as my brothers-in-law say to me, well if that is the mesorah > of your community, then it is legitimate, even if they don't relate to this > practice. (Personally, I do not relate to such a usage. Either an approach > is valid/true or not valid/true.) > > I discussed the last category in an essay that Gil was kind enough to post: > http://www.torahmusings.com/2011/07/two-types-of-orthodox-judaism/ > > There are probably other uses of the term *mesorah*, but I cannot think of > them at the moment. > > Best wishes, > Yonatan > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150825/4814ca39/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:43:29 +0300 > From: Eli Turkel via Avodah > To: Avodah > Subject: [Avodah] smart lighting > Message-ID: > < > CAGDtJ1GVgO0Ez55DoorrtQw_kfhbpGcPtQS8J8mV2rq-8rjYAA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > can one use smart lighting on shabbat > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_lighting > > -- > Eli Turkel > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150826/394e7ffd/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:00:05 +0000 > From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" > To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group (avodah at lists.aishdas.org)" > > Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: > <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de at VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party to > return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not > actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) > How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? > KVCT > 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. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150827/99422da9/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:37:32 -0400 > From: Micha Berger via Avodah > To: "Rich, Joel" , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <20150827173732.GA29088 at aishdas.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:00:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > : Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party > : to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not > : actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) > > My own lexicon: > hakaras hatov: realizing that a good thing came into your life > hoda'ah: acknowledging the one who / One Who provided that good > > Say Avi gives Berakhah a ball. > > Berakhah's hakaras hatov has an primary object, which is the ball -- > the tov she received from Avi. Not taking life's gifts for granted. > > But her hoda'ah has a primary object -- which is Avi, and a secondary > object, the ball. As in the grammar of "Modim anachnu Lakh al..."; > the prespositional phrase giving you the secondary object is a list > of all the things Hashem does for us. > > I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although > there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, > Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an > obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. > > Which, if you think about it, is what Chazal say about the early makos > and how Moshe would not be the one to launch a makah that afflicts the > water that saved him as a baby or the sand that hid the body. > > I'm not thrilled with the whole idea of exchanging favors, creating a > market. It turns everything back on self-service -- every positive > act is tainted by expectation of being repaid. > > > : How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? > > Perhaps kibud av va'eim and kavod harav are their own concepts for a > reason. And that hakaras hatov might explain the issur against hurting > or cursing one's parents, but not kavod and yir'ah. > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, > micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just > http://www.aishdas.org beginning. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:55:37 +0000 > From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" > To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group (avodah at lists.aishdas.org)" > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: > <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7 at VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > > Zechiyah uMattanah - Chapter Seven > Translated by Eliyahu Touger > > > Halacha 1 > > > It is a universally accepted custom in most countries that when a man > marries, his friends and acquaintances send him money to support the > expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Then the friends and > acquaintances who sent him this money come and eat and drink with the groom > during all - or part - of the seven days of wedding celebration; everything > should be done according to the accepted local custom. > > The money that he is sent is called shushvinut, and the people who send > the money and then come and eat and drink with the groom are called > shushvinin. > > > Halacha 2 > > > Shushvinut is not an outright gift. For it is plainly obvious that a > person did not send a colleague 10 dinarim with the intent that he eat and > drink a zuz's worth. He sent him the money solely because his intent was > that when he would marry, he would send him money as he has sent him. > > Therefore, if the sender marries a woman, and the recipient does not > return the shushvinut, the sender may lodge a legal claim against the > recipient and expropriate the money from him. > > KVCT > 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. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:01:38 -0400 > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > To: Micha Berger , The Avodah Torah Discussion > Group > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <55DF5E92.9020405 at sero.name> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > On 08/27/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > I believe the reference is to the law of shushvinin. But that is not > a matter of hakaras hatov; it's an explicit quid pro quo arrangement. > If you don't pay it back when it falls due, you're cheating the person > of a quantifiable amount of money that you explicitly owe him, so he > can sue you for it. > > -- > Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you > zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in > the street and commands me to surrender my purse, > I have a right to kill him without asking questions > -- John Adams > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:28:42 -0400 > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > To: "Rich, Joel" , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <55DF64EA.6000201 at sero.name> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > On 08/27/2015 01:55 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > > money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. > > Mistranslation: This should be "...the expenses of the feast." > > -- > Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you > zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in > the street and commands me to surrender my purse, > I have a right to kill him without asking questions > -- John Adams > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Avodah Digest, Vol 33, Issue 117 > *************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 30 20:32:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 23:32:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz - Lu'ach 5776 Message-ID: <20150831033207.C42DF1831DF@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 00:33:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 03:33:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz - Lu'ach 5776 Message-ID: <20150831073325.1618E182644@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 18:44:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 21:44:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: <20150901014419.GA6761@aishdas.org> Something I noticed... After the animal is shechted, a lung could be hollow, or full of liquid, and it's still kosher. But if there is a pinhole in both membranes around the lung, it's treif. Similarly the brain -- if the outside is solid, the inside could be rotten and the animal is still kosher. These are laws of tereifah that we refuse to change recardless of whether veterinary medicine disagrees about survivability. So I assume there is some point being made about chiyus in general in all this. However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is more important than penimius. Maybe something more like "fake it till you make it" -- as long as you keep the externals going, there is hope that the internals will fill in. But I'm fishing for better suggestions. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 19:18:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 22:18:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Factory Farming and Panicking the Animals Message-ID: <20150901021819.GA14109@aishdas.org> If the lung is tzemuqah (dried enough to be wrinkly like a raisin, but not dry enough to be called yeveishah)... There is a halakhah leMoshe miSinai that if it was due to fright caused by a person, the animel is tereifah if it's caused by HQBH (eg a lion attack), the animal is kosher. (AhS YD 36:70) If you do not know what the cause was, you check the lung -- man-made rei'ah tzemuqah won't rehydrate when soaked in water for 24 hours. But, this test is only used if the cause of the fright wasn't known (se'if 74); the cause of the stress is the iqar, not the dryness. Interesting is a comment at the end of se'if 70: Therefore it is correct that shoechtim be careful not to shecht one ba'al chai in front of another ba'al chai so that the lungs not get wrinkly and will require checking, ae will be explained. Also, there is tza'r ba'alei chaim in it ve'issur gamur hu and so wrote a number of gedolei ha'achronim. So I'm wondering, is our factory-style slaughter mutar? Can you say that this speed is a tachlis that makes the tza'ar needful, and thus mutar? Do people disagree with the AhS and his unnamed acharonim? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 20:52:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 05:52:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus In-Reply-To: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> References: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> Message-ID: <55E5210A.9050302@zahav.net.il> I would just add that like any other kashrut issue, a lot depends on why one has a particular practice. If one refuses to eat heter michira vegetables (that is the real issue) because he feels the HM is simply invalid, that is quite different than not using HM products because one wants to be machmir (assuming of course that not relying on the HM is a chumra). Ben On 8/28/2015 11:08 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > Lich'ora, since there is no consensus about shmita standards among > shomrei shabbos, one who has a stricter practise can't assume that > a randomly selected shomer shabbos is at least as strict as his. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 10:49:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 13:49:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another Tereifos Observation Message-ID: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> As I mentioned yesteday, any hole in the surface of the lung large enough to leak air would make the animal tereifah. What if the hole heals? AhS YD 36:7 (and elsewhere) says that a qerum (membrane) she'alah machmas makkah doesn't count. In se'if 14 he learns peshat in Rashi (Yavamos 76a "eino qerum") that there are two sevaros: 1- because this kind of closure isn't permanent 2- the closure is new. Akin to Chullin 68b "kivan shenitrefah, shuv ein lah heter) But in reality, the AhS says, "be'emes chad ta'amah hu" -- what makes the closure temporary is that it is made from the liquids of the makah. And therefore once the makah is healed, it has no cause. RYME notes that this is bedavqa when a new membrane is closing the hole. But if the side grow in until it closes, the lung is kosher. What about "kivan shenitrefah"? He writes "keshehaheter hayah mukhan be'eis hatarfus, lo chal alahh sheim tarfus ba'olam." Continuing what I wrote yesterday, that there must be much lehislameid from the halakhos of tereifos, given how we etched them in stone despite many of the rules losing their veterinary explanations.... We are told to have bitachon that before sending troubles, "Ein HQBH makeh es Yisrael ela im kein borei lahem refu'ah techilah" (Megillah 13b) This rule of tereifos, that the chalos sheim "tereifah" doesn't apply if the means by which the hole would close were pre-existing, seems to imply something further. In a sense, the makah itself isn't real because the refu'ah is already prepared. It is not that the bad times cause the good ones. Because they aren't permanent enough to be the root of permanent solutions. Rather, it is because it's all one process, the bad times being a bump in a road that from the moment you strarted traveling it leads to good. Or as Nachum ish Gam Zu said, "gam lu LEtovah" (emphasis mine), not "gam zu tovah". What redeems the bad times is that the route from them to tov is there before they even begin. ---- Language note: I noticed that rei'ah means "lungs", even though the term is in the singular and the translation is in the plural. There is no term of art for a single lung -- the main body of each lung is an omah and the lobes are onos or in Hebrew "aznayim". Tir'u baTov! -Micha Off-topic PS: I am seriously finding the beginning of YD turning me off to meat. -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 09:55:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 19:55:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Kosher Switch, Grama and Rav Osher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://podcast.headlinesbook.com/e/8-15-15-headlines/ where Rav Osher Weiss explains in detail his approach to grama, and electricity on Shabbos in general. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 11:17:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 14:17:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another Tereifos Observation In-Reply-To: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> References: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55E5EBB7.7060400@sero.name> On 09/01/2015 01:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Language note: I noticed that rei'ah means "lungs", even though the term > is in the singular and the translation is in the plural. There is no > term of art for a single lung -- the main body of each lung is an omah > and the lobes are onos or in Hebrew "aznayim". Yes, Chazal conceived of the lungs as a single organ. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 18:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 21:45:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > Similarly the brain -- if the outside is solid, the inside > could be rotten and the animal is still kosher. > ... > However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that > chitzonius is more important than penimius. > > Maybe something more like "fake it till you make it" -- as > long as you keep the externals going, there is hope that > the internals will fill in. > > But I'm fishing for better suggestions. I will offer another data point which also seems to suugest that chitzonius is more important than penimius. Mechaber 78:1 and Mishne Brurah 78:2,3 are obviously talking about a person who unfortunately suffers from incontinence. If he urinates while davening, he must pause, but can continue when the flow stops. This applies even if his legs and undergarments are totally wet, but NOT if the urine is on his outer garments. It seems that the cleanliness of one's outer garments is more important than the cleanliness of his undergarments, or even of his body itself. Similarly, if one needs to defecate, but he can hold himself for 4 mil, he will be yotzay davening b'dieved -- Mechaber 92:1. But that leniency is because it is mere pnimius; Mechaber 76:4,5 seems to be stricter once the tzoah has gone external. (Note: I think that it would not be difficult to show that chitzonius *is* important. The problem as I see it is that we've found some cases where it is *more* important than pnimius.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 00:17:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 10:17:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] bavli variants Message-ID: We are pleased to announce the launch of a new version (1.2) of the ' *Hachi **Garsinan*' Site for Variant-Readings of the Talmud Bavli. The site is freely accessible to all through the Friedberg portal: http://jewishmanuscripts.org . Version 1.1 of the website shows all hand-written text witnesses of the Talmud Bavli from the Cairo Genizah, with digital images (more than 4,600) and their transcriptions, in the framework of a software that allows the display of all text-witnesses of a specific Talmudic text in parallel columns in small units. Identical excerpts in a specific text-witness and in the Vilna can be marked, in order to spare the user the effort of comparing the texts. There are also additional helpful functions such as Save and Print, as specified in the website Homepage. *In the new version (1.2) - text witnesses from the following early printings have been added:* - *Guadalajara**(1480?), Spain / Portugal (Toledo? 1480-1490), Portugal (Faro? before 1498), Faro (1497?), Fez (1516-1521)* - *Soncino (1484-1489), Italy (1489-1498), Barco (1498-1499), Pesaro (1509-1516), Constantinople (1505-1509)* - *Venice** (1520-1523) * *(for details on tractates included in early printings - see Homepage). * *Furthermore, a function has been added to enable the user search for **terms or expressions in the Vilna** edition and each of the text witnesses that take part in the current version (Genizah and early printings) as well as a function to display the lexicon (**list of different words and their frequency**) of Vilna and of each of the other text-witnesses. Finally, the new version allows each user to alter the way that the text units are displayed on the variant-readings screen, using special editing tools designed for this purpose.* -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 05:05:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 08:05:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In my previous post, I cited some halachos which seem to demonstrate - surprisingly - that externals are *more* important than internals. Perhaps the source pasuk for those halachos might help us out. Devarim 23:15: "... v'hayah machanecha kadosh, v'lo yir'eh v'cha ervas davar..." "... your *camp* will be holy, and nothing unseemly will be seen in *you*..." We learn much from each of these phrases, but does anyone compare the relative importance of the reisha to that of the seifa? Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 08:31:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 11:31:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150902153128.GB27954@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 09:45:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Mechaber 78:1 and Mishne Brurah 78:2,3 are obviously talking about a person : who unfortunately suffers from incontinence... : Similarly, if one needs to defecate, but he can hold himself for 4 mil, he : will be yotzay davening b'dieved -- Mechaber 92:1. But that leniency is : because it is mere pnimius; Mechaber 76:4,5 seems to be stricter once the : tzoah has gone external. I am not sure these are examples. It may have to do with when tzo'ah smells, or when it starts being "tzo'ah" rather than part of the person. : (Note: I think that it would not be difficult to show that chitzonius *is* : important. The problem as I see it is that we've found some cases where it : is *more* important than pnimius.) Thinking about it more, I have more confidence in my earlier guess, that chitzonius is a better indicator of future penimius than current penimius is. Someone who is a passionate eved H', but for some reason isn't acting on it will likely lose that passion, and someone who develops the right habits in attempt to develop the feelings, mitokh shelo lishimah, ba lishmah. So it's not that it's more important; it's still of derived value. And yet, this reasoning explains Yahadus's focus on halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 18:30:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 21:30:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In Avodah V33n118, R'Micha wrote: > However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is more important than penimius. < Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what can be seen? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 06:30:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:30:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We recently had a thread which discusses the meaning of the word "mesorah". Coincidentally or not, I'd like to ask about the meaning of the verb "moser" as it occurs in the context of the Prozbul. I'd like to begin by giving two different *colloquial* uses of "moser": It can refer to the act of literally handing a fellow Jew to the authorities, but it can also refer to merely informing the authorities about a fellow Jew. My question about Prozbul is this: When the Prozbul says that the lender is "moser" the loans to Beis Din, does he actually hand them over, or does he merely inform? For decades, I had thought that the lender actually gives the loans to the Beis Din, in a manner similar to how anyone can use a commercial collection agency: Usually, if someone owes me money, I can sell that debt to a collection agency, but in the context of Shmitta, I give it as a gift to the beis din. Then, the beis din authorizes me to collect the debt on their behalf, and will allow me to retain 100% of it as my service fee. With the above, I have accomplished three important things: (1) When Rosh Hashana arrives, no one owes me anything, so I have no possibility of violating any halachos of Shmitas Kesafim. (2) When I collect from the borrower, I'm merely acting as an agent of beis din, to whom Lo Yigos does not apply, so I'm not violating anything. (3) Although the lender did not repay anything to me directly, my finances did not suffer, and future Shmitos will not influence to me avoid lending. BUT - From what I've learned, when a Prozbul is done, no kinyan ever occurs between the lender and the Beis Din, not even a kinyan sudar of the sort that I do when authorizing the rav to sell my chometz. Without a kinyan, I can't see how the loan ever leaves the ownership of the lender. So it is clear to me that Prozbul does NOT follow the "collection agency" model. Is there some other model that it does follow? The Mechaber Choshen Mishpat 67:8 talks about a situation that I will presume occurs before Erev Rosh Hashana: "If one claims money, and the other denies it, and the first sues in beis din and wins, and the psak din is that the second one must pay - this is a gibui, and shmita does not cancel it." If I'm understanding this correctly, then when a court verdict declares the A must pay B, this is not the sort of debt that shmita cancels, because the requirement to pay does not come from any interaction between the two men, but directly from the beis din's power. In other words, the lender can ask the borrower for money, but he is not asking for the loan to be repaid; rather, he is enforcing the court's ruling. This is a new obligation upon the borrower, which was created by the court, and is therefore exempt from Shmitas Kesafim. Perhaps this is how Prozbul works: Without any evidence or documentation, or even an itemized list, a person approaches the beis din and tells them that there are debts which are owed to him. The beis din responds with a court order that those debts must be paid. He can now collect them, because it is the *Beis Din* that wants them to be paid (irrespective of the fact that the lender wants them paid). This explanation solves the problem of Lo Yigos: The lender is not pressing the borrower for repayment of a personal loan; he is pressing the borrower to pay the court judgment. But the personal loan does still exist, doesn't it? The lender would still have an obligation to be personally m'shamet the loan at some point, but I think most people think that the Prozbul relieves them of that obligation. I'm stumped. When the lender is "moser" the loan to Beis Din, exactly what is happening? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 11:26:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 18:26:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0b20dda77d534fbdbec18095eaf0ce72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> We recently had a thread which discusses the meaning of the word "mesorah". Coincidentally or not, I'd like to ask about the meaning of the verb "moser" as it occurs in the context of the Prozbul. Akiva Miller ================================= Listen hear for discussion on point http://www.torahbase.org/prozbul-concept-halachos-5775/?lang=en Rav Asher Weiss-Prozbul ? Concept and Halachos 5775 Kvct 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 13:07:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:07:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch Message-ID: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> S"A O"C 55:11 as recorded in the 1st volume of the mishna brurah (it's not in my regular S"A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of the S"A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn't apply "now" because dina dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? KVCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 14:41:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2015 23:41:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What am I missing? Message-ID: <55EB6184.5050706@zahav.net.il> Re prozbul, I seem to be missing something. Personally I haven't loaned out any huge sums such that if I don't get them back, I would be reticent about loaning in the future. If I did loan out something small, why should I sign the prozbul? If the borrower doesn't pay me, well he doesn't have to (right?). If the borrower does pay me, he gets a bracha and everyone is a winner. What am I missing? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 21:10:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 00:10:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <55EBBC9C.9070304@sero.name> On 09/04/2015 04:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > S?A O?C 55:11 as recorded in the 1^st volume of the mishna brurah (it?s not in my regular S?A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of the S?A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn?t apply ?now? because dina dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? The note appears in the first edition, so presumably it was put there by the original publisher, in order to get it past the censor. Or perhaps it was inserted at the censor's insistence. In any case it houldn't need saying that it was not intended to be taken seriously by the intended audience. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49623&pgnum=170 (BTW, the censor's approval is dated 23-Dec-1882, the Hebrew date on the front page is 5683, but the secular date on the front page is 1884. Presumably that's how long publishing took.) -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 21:04:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 00:04:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Factory Farming and Panicking the Animals Message-ID: From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> If the lung is tzemuqah (dried enough to be wrinkly like a raisin, but not dry enough to be called yeveishah)... There is a halakhah leMoshe miSinai that if it was due to fright caused by a person, the animel is tereifah if it's caused by HQBH (eg a lion attack), the animal is kosher. (AhS YD 36:70) ....Interesting is a comment at the end of se'if 70: Therefore it is correct that shoechtim be careful not to shecht one ba'al chai in front of another ba'al chai so that the lungs not get wrinkly and will require checking, ae will be explained. << Micha Berger >>>> I remember reading that Temple Grandin had designed a spiral ramp with high walls for cattle to walk along before reaching the slaughtering spot. The design was such that the animal could not see out the sides or very far ahead as it walked, and would thus not witness other animals being slaughtered. This was meant to keep the animal calm and not frightened. I did not find the article with a quick google search but I am sure it's available somewhere. Temple Grandin is a famous expert in humane methods of animal slaughter. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 01:19:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 11:19:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? Message-ID: Most of selichos is us beseeching Hashem (poetically) for forgiveness and declaring that we are unworthy and sinners. However, the main part of selichos is the recitation of the 13 middos. However, the recitation of the 13 kiddos seems like almost magic, something we say because Hashem told us to as we say in the preceding paragraph "Hashem you commanded us to say the 13 [middos] ... as you told Moshe [the anav] ...". What is our kavannah supposed to be when we say the 13 middos? What should we be thinking? Why is saying the 13 middos so important? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 16:25:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 19:25:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150906232531.GA15175@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 11:19:51AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Most of selichos is us beseeching Hashem (poetically) for forgiveness and : declaring that we are unworthy and sinners. However, the main part of : selichos is the recitation of the 13 middos. However, the recitation of the : 13 kiddos seems like almost magic, something we say because Hashem told us : to as we say in the preceding paragraph "Hashem you commanded us to say the : 13 [middos] ... as you told Moshe [the anav] ...". What is our kavannah : supposed to be when we say the 13 middos? What should we be thinking? Why : is saying the 13 middos so important? Actually, the wording in the gemara is Whenever Israel sins *ya'asu* lefana keseder hazaeh, and I will pardon them. The point isn't to say the 13 Middos, they're just a reminder that we're supposed to do them. If we remember the essential, to be merciful people in His Image, HQBH is ready to pardon everything else. (I am defining "mocheil" as pardon as in being mochel a debt, in contrast to full forgiveness. That's a choice among how acharonim take selichah, mechilah and kapparah, so your mileage may vary.) I passionately recommend printing up and keeping it with your selichos and YK Machzor. It's a summary of the 13 Middos as per Tomer Devorah mapped to the version of the Thirteen Middos in Shemos that we say in Selichos. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 16:58:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 19:58:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 08:07:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : S"A O"C 55:11 as recorded in the 1st volume of the mishna brurah (it's : not in my regular S"A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of : the S"A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting : for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn't apply "now" because dina : dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. However, the MBs Poland wasn't it. Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 07:31:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 10:31:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: Let's go back to one of the sources: Yoma 72b - "Any talmid chacham whose tocho (inside) is not like his baro (outside) is not a talmid chacham." Is this speaking only of one who appears fine externally, but is deficient internally? Or does it also apply to one who is fine internally, but doesn't look it to an outside observer? If it applies to both, does anyone compare the two? I have always presumed that the one who is not-so-good on the inside is a bigger problem than the one who is okay on the inside. But if I understood them correctly, RMB and RMP brought independent reasons why one should focus on the externals. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 01:32:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 11:32:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What am I missing? Message-ID: R' Ben Waxman asked: > Re prozbul, I seem to be missing something. Personally I haven't loaned > out any huge sums such that if I don't get them back, I would be > reticent about loaning in the future. If I did loan out something small, > why should I sign the prozbul? If you have money in the bank in Israel then you have lent the bank money and therefore Shemitta will cancel your loan and the bank could keep your money. Now, the fact is that all the banks in Israel have a hater iska so that they can pay interest, but even with a heter iska half the amount is an iska but half is a loan, so the half that is a loan would be cancelled by shemita. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 17:56:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 20:56:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> I passionately recommend printing up . It explains the 13 Middos as found in Shemos and therefore Selichos in terms of the version in Michah and the Tomer Devorah thereon. Rather than repeating the same words / names over and over throughout selichos and much of Yom Kippur, it can become an opportunity to commit and recommit to emulating them. As the gemara (RH 17b) says Whenver Israel sin, they shall perform before Me like this structure (ya'asu lefanai keseider zeh), and I will forgive them. Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:27:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:27:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 08:56 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > As the gemara (RH 17b) says > Whenver Israel sin, they shall perform before Me like this structure > (ya'asu lefanai keseider zeh), and I will forgive them. > > Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:18:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:18:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55ECF3DF.8090003@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 04:19 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > However, the recitation of the 13 middos seems like almost magic, > something we say because Hashem told us to as we say in the preceding > paragraph Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we say them and invoke that promise. Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a magical power that the holy ketores has. The Malach Hamaves told Moshe Rabbenu about this trick, and when the occasion arose Moshe told Aharon to use it. "There are more things in heaven and earth..." -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:22:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:22:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was > written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? No. > Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law > and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't > practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. > > However, the MBs Poland wasn't it Yes, it absolutely was. > Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 12:08:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 15:08:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dr. Leo Deutschlander - Father of the Bais Yaakov Movement Message-ID: <20150907190830.A1951181640@nexus.stevens.edu> The name of Sarah Schneirer is invariably associated with the Bais Yaakov Movement. However, she was not the only one who was responsible for the success of the movement before WW II. Sarah Schneirer was an idealist who decided that religious schools for girls were needed in Poland and who set out to found such schools. However, WADR to Sarah Schneirer, she had a very limited academic background and her Jewish education was quite basic. (This was the case for most girls who lived when she did.) Thus others were needed to assist her in the development of the Bais Yaakov Movement. One such person was Dr. Leo Deutschlander. Up until today I knew very little about him. I did know that there had been an article in the Jewish Observer about his life, but I did not have access to it. Today a friend mine, who has a complete collection of all issues of the JO, brought me a copy of the article about Dr. Deutschlander. I have put it at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/deutschlander.pdf Note that other people who helped Sarah Schneirer with the development of the Bais Yaakov movement are mentioned and almost all of them have a Frankfurt background which means they attended the school that RSRH started in Frankfurt that educated both boys and girls. Thus in a certain sense RSRH is to be considered the grandfather of the Bais Yaakov Movement. Judith nee Rosenbaum Grunfeld played a key role in the development for the Bais Yaakov movement. See her article about Sarah Schneirer at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/sara_schenierer.pdf Anyone really interested in the history of the Bais Yaakov movement should read Rabbi Abraham Atkin's PhD thesis which is titled The Beth Jacob Movement in Poland 1917-1939. I have put this document at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/beth_jacob_movement_poland.pdf Note that the article about Dr. Deutschlander says that he never had children. To the best of my knowledge, he never married, yet he taught Bais Yaakov girls of seminary age and perhaps even younger, something that would be considered scandalous today! Given that Dr. Deutschlander never married, I find him being characterized by Chaim Shapiro as the "Father of the Bais Yaakov Movement" somewhat amusing. >:-} YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 11:41:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 14:41:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar Message-ID: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> Please click here to download a back issue of Halachically Speaking on eating before Shofar. ---------- From the article Custom of Some Gedolim The Steipler zt"l used to recite the zohar and other tefillos during the break. In his later years he recited portions of tehillim.[1] He did not make kiddush before tekios.[2] Harav Moshe Feinstein zt"l did not eat before tekios.[3] Harav Elyashiv zt"l [4] and Harav Yisroel Belsky Shlita do not eat or drink before tekios. [1] Orchos Rabbeinu 2:page 182:4. Refer to Darchei Chaim V'sholom 716:page 251. [2] Orchos Rabbeinu 2:page 181:1. Refer to Chelek Levi 189. [3] As related by Harav Aron Felder Shlita. [4] As quoted in Chag B'chag page 113:footnote 79. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 14:13:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 17:13:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar In-Reply-To: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <55EDFE13.7010505@sero.name> I have to admit that this is one of the Lubavitcher customs that puzzle me. All year, not just on Shabbos but also on weekdays, the official Lubavitch minhag is to allow eating before davening (after saying sh'ma, on weekdays in tefillin), on the grounds that it's difficult to daven properly without it. In the Tzemach Tzedek's words, "it's better to eat in order to daven, than to daven in order to eat". If you find that you're davening in order to get to breakfast, you'd do better to get breakfast over with and then daven with kavanah. And yet on Rosh Hashana, when one often doesn't get to kiddush until 2 or 3 in the afternoon, and when one needs kavanah in davening more than ever, Lubavitchers fast until kiddush! I don't understand it. If you can make it on Rosh Hashana, why not on any other day? And if you can't daven on an empty stomach on a weekday without thinking about breakfast, then how can you daven on an even emptier stomach on Rosh Hashana without thinking about lunch? -- Zev Sero KVChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 16:32:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:32:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:18:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. : Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we : say them and invoke that promise. : Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores : to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a : magical power that the holy ketores has.. Where is this made explicit? On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:27:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. : That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". Who said that remembering something in tefillah, unlike lekhishah, talks about the words themselves without internalization? What's the verb for tefillah, anyway? In any case, the idea that it's about saying the words until we're committed to emulating them isn't mine, it's R' Elimelekh miLetzhinsk's, the Chafeitz Chaim's and R YL Chasmin's. The latter two relate this gemara to "mah Hu 'Rachum' af atah..." Hashem is not only just, He's not a Vatran. The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 16:43:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:43:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:22:37PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was :> written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? : No. Source? :> Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law :> and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't :> practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. :> However, the MBs Poland wasn't it : Yes, it absolutely was. Again, source? Actual excommunications were commonplace. Comes up in teshuvos on agunah. :> Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. : Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could : be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the : MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. In the CC's hayday, Radun was in the Vilna Voivodship, Poland. And I didn't ask about censortship, I asked about autonomy, as in having courts empowered to punish, and the Jewish community certainly did. At least, azoi shteyt YIVO The Polish government never recognized Jewish communal autonomy de jure, but autonomy existed de facto in hundreds of local communities, school systems, and youth movements during the interwar period. Because regardless of whether this appeal to dina demalkhusa was real or to satisfy a censor, the mileau that created this footnote had to have such a law. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 17:42:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 20:42:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EE2EF6.2060509@sero.name> On 09/07/2015 07:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:18:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. > : Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we > : say them and invoke that promise. > > : Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores > : to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a > : magical power that the holy ketores has.. > > Where is this made explicit? It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell? Also, the gemara deduces that this is where Moshe must have got it, because how else could he possibly have known about it? Now if it was about the kavanos or the zechus of the mitzvah stopping plagues, then why couldn't Moshe Rabbenu have worked it out from first principles? This shows that it isn't anything that could be worked out, there's no reason why it should be so, it just is. In other words, magic. > > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:27:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. > > : That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". > > Who said that remembering something in tefillah, unlike lekhishah, talks > about the words themselves without internalization? What's the verb for > tefillah, anyway? "Lehazkir" doesn't mean to remember, it means to mention, to pronounce words. For that matter, the word "yaasu" that you're basing yourself on refers not to the midos themselves but to the "seder tefillah", i.e. the ritual of naming the midos. > Hashem is not only just, He's not a Vatran. The notion of magic words > that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah > would be very problematic. But that is what the gemara seems to say. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 18:06:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 21:06:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EE34A8.7060303@sero.name> On 09/07/2015 07:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:22:37PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was > :> written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? > > : No. > > Source? There is no source that it was banned then. Why would you even imagine that it would be? There is no such note in any edition of the Shulchan Aruch. In any case, the concept of banning cherem doesn't seem to have come up until the late 18th century. http://t95.el.sl.pt > :> Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law > :> and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't > :> practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. > > :> However, the MBs Poland wasn't it > > : Yes, it absolutely was. > > Again, source? Actual excommunications were commonplace. Comes up > in teshuvos on agunah. Catherine the Great banned cherem in 1795. Of course they ignored the law and did it anyway, but to get a sefer past the publisher they had to pretend to be obeying the law, so if the sefer mentioned cherem they had to note that this was written before it became illegal. > :> Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. > > : Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could > : be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the > : MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. > > In the CC's hayday, Radun was in the Vilna Voivodship, Poland. What Poland? There was no such place as Poland. It was Russia, and there was no autonomy. > And I didn't ask about censortship, I asked about autonomy, as in having > courts empowered to punish, and the Jewish community certainly did. > At least, azoi shteyt YIVO > > The Polish government never recognized Jewish communal autonomy de > jure, but autonomy existed de facto in hundreds of local communities, > school systems, and youth movements during the interwar period. Read what you just wrote: "The Polish government". What period could this paragraph possibly be talking about? The period when there was a Poland and a Polish government. IOW not the time we are discussing. And indeed if you look at the page again, you will see that it is explicitly discussing the interwar period, after Polish independence. > Because regardless of whether this appeal to dina demalkhusa was real > or to satisfy a censor, the mileau that created this footnote had to > have such a law. Yes, it did. Catherine's law that I mentioned above. And it also had a strict censorship law, which this sefer was subject to. If you need any further convincing, note the language of the censor's stamp. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 20:16:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 23:16:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Joel Rich wrote: > Listen hear for discussion on point > http://www.torahbase.org/prozbul-concept-halachos-5775/?lang=en > Rav Asher Weiss - Prozbul - Concept and Halachos 5775 Thank you very much for showing me this. I listened to it a few times, and it seems that he gives his conclusions right at the beginning: (00:42 to 01:05) "The takana of Pruzbul is that there is no need to physically give over your notes to Beis Din and there is no need Beis Din should be the ones to collect your money. Hillel was metaken: it is enough if you declare, either orally or in writing, Mosrani lachem..." (02:00-02:24) "The takana of Hillel was: It is enough if you write 'Mosrani lachem ploni v'ploni'. It is considered AS IF you transferred your notes to Beis Din, and when you collect the money, you would be considered AS IF you would be shliach of Beis Din even though it's not really the real thing in practicality. But that was the takana of Pruzbul." But how does it work? He clearly says (at 8:40 to 9:23) that the functions of a Beis Din do not include acting as a collection agency. There ARE (9:49 to 10:30) are very limited circumstances where Beis Din does have that function, such as collecting for yesomim, because that *is* one of the roles of the Beis Din, as "avi yesomim". One the other hand, (10:30 to 10:52) yesomim do not need to make a pruzbul at all, because Beis Din is *automatically* the Avi Yesomim, and their loans will not be cancelled by shmitta. So he suggests (12:19 to 12:40) that although it is not Beis Din's practice to accept the responsibility of collecting loans except for unusual cases, perhaps the difficulties posed by Shmitta put other loans in this category, and so if someone would be moser his loans to Beis Din, then Shmitta will not cancel them. But exactly why are such loans exempt? He explains (14:20 to 14:40), "You have to be m'shamet loans, but the moment you gave your notes, your loans over to Beis Din, it is k'gavui dami - it is as if those monies were already collected." He then compares this situation to the case where the lender has collateral for the loan, and that too is "already collected" and exempt from Shmitas Kesafim. It seems to me that this is how Rav Weiss understands the Pruzbul: The loan was and remains property of the lender, but Beis Din accepts the responsibility to go to the borrower to demand payment. From that point, it is considered as "already collected". Since it is already collected, not only is he allowed to request the money after Rosh Hashana, but there's no need to even state "M'shamet Ani". There is no need for any kinyan, because the loan remains property of the lender, and the role of Beis Din is simply to accept responsibility for collecting the loan; this occurs automatically at the inception of the loan where the lender is an orphan, and it also occurs automatically at the execution of a Pruzbul per Ezra's takana. ON THE OTHER HAND, over Shabbos a friend lent me his copy of Sefer Dinei Shviis Hashalem, published by Keren Hatarbut Degel Yerushalayim, which contains a photo of a pruzbul on the stationery of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and (apparently) in his handwriting, dated 29 Elul 5754. It contains a very interesting clause. Other pruzbuls avoid details, and simply say something like "I am moser my loans to beis din", but this one adds some very significant points. Here is the full pruzbul, as best as I can render it: "[B'mosav tlasa bei dina k'chada havinu] We were three dayanim sitting together, [uva l'faneinu...] and R' Aharon Dovid Goldberg came [v'amar lanu] and said to us: [Hen shana zu hee shnas hashviis] This year is the seventh year, [v'yesh li chovos b'shtar uv'al peh] and I have loans - both in writing and orally - [al ayzeh anashim] against certain people. [V'hareni moser lachem pruzbul] I am now moser a pruzbul to you, [viyhavis l'chon b'matana] and give it to you as a gift [b'kinyan dalet' amos karka] with a kinyan of four amos of land, [me'arah d'ees li] from the ground that is mine. [V'al gabayhon] And through that, [arshees yas'chon] I give you permission [limigbah kol chovos] to collect all my loans, [d'ees lee al inshee] which I have against people. [Mayatah t'havoon li daiyna] Henceforth you will be my dayanim, [v'sagbuhu uskabluhu li] and you will collect and accept payment for me. [V'im lo tagbuhu atem] And if you do not collect it yourselves, [mayata kayvan shemasarti lachem pruzbul zeh] then since I was moser this pruzbul to you, [ani goveh kol chov] so I can collect any loan [sheyesh li ad hayom etzel kol adam] which I have up to today against anyone, [kol zman she'ertzeh] any time I want. [next paragraph] - "[Anachnu beis din] We the court [shamanu dvarav] heard his words, [veefinu kocho] and affirm its validity, [shelo t'shamet lay] that he will not have a cancellation, [v'yigbeh kol chovosav] and he can collect all his loans, [al ydei pruzbul zeh] via this pruzbul, [k'takanas Hillel v'Chazal] in accordance with the takana of Hillel and Chazal. [next paragraph] - "[Banu al hechasum] We have signed below [yom kaf"tes l'chodesh Elul, shnas heh-tav-shin-nun"dalet] this day, 29th of Elul 5754 [poh Ir Hakodesh Yerushalayim] here, the holy city of Yerushalayim. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach [I cannot read the other two signatures]" (end of pruzbul) I don't understand the purpose of the four amos of land. (Yes, I'm quite aware of the requirement in halacha, I just don't understand why that requirement was included. That's a topic for another thread.) And I quite likely made some errors in the transliteration and the translation. But I think that I understood it well enough to state with confidence that it seems that RSZA does indeed subscribe to the "collection agency" model, which Rav Asher Weiss had so clearly rejected. RSZA explicitly uses the word "kinyan". One could argue that the "matanah" which the lender is giving to the beis din is merely the pruzbul and not the loans. One could also point out that after the kinyan has occurred, the lender continues to refer to the loans (which beis din would collect) as "MY loans", suggesting that they are still owned by the lender and not the beis din. But if that is so, then what does it mean to make a kinyan on the *pruzbul*? This pruzbul is merely a record of the court proceedings, and it seems very likely to me that the intent is for the court to acquire the loans themselves, in very much the same way that a modern collection agency works. If anyone disagrees, and feels that RSZA does *not* subscribe to the "collection agency" model, please explain how you think this pruzbul works. And if anyone does agree with me, then I wonder if any other poskim hold that way, because every explanation of pruzbul that I've seen describes the document itself, and no one ever mentions any requirement of kinyan. Thank you Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 02:10:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 05:10:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar Message-ID: And if you can't daven on an empty stomach on a weekday without thinking about breakfast, then how can you daven on an even emptier stomach on Rosh Hashana without thinking about lunch? Kal v?chomer, how can you daven on T?B and Y?K when you wake up without having even drinking or eating and then must go another good 12 hours on an empty stomach? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 03:51:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:51:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote; > "It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that > ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to > have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there > the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so > obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. > How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell?" Rashi in Chumash quoting the Mechilta offers a second explanation of why the ketores was used to end the plague. Bnei Yisrael were complaining about the ketores that it was a sam hamaves, that it killed people. The ketores killed Nadav and Avihu, it killed the 250 people, therefore Hashem said watch that it can stop the plague and that sin is what really kills people. We see clearly from this explanation that there was nothing magical about using the ketores, rather Hashem wanted to make a point to the Jewish people about the ketores. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 07:35:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:35:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very problematic. (Or perhaps "confusing" would be a better description, as it moves the focus away from a "problematic halacha", chalila, and towards my obligation to understand it.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 08:14:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 11:14:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:35:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a : measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very : problematic... And I don't believe there is such a thing, so I have no problem. I suggested twice now 2007 http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol23/v23n174.shtml#12 and 2010 http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n130.shtml that itzumo shel yom mechaperes only someone who acknowledges and embraces the etzem shel yom. >From 2007: > My understanding is that itzumo shel yom is mechapeir, but without inuyim, > one isn't connected to that etzem. IOW, someone who eats on YK doesn't > get kapparah, but someone who observes YK gets kapparah from YK itself, > not the zekhus of observance. > And it's clear from R' Elazar ben Azaryah on Yuma 86a that YK is never > effective in and of itself. > - For an asei, teshuvah is effective > - For a regular lav, teshuvah must first achieve selichah (removal of > onesh) before YK can effect kaparah > - For a chayav kareis, one needs teshuvah and YK for selichah, and onesh > brings kaparah > - For chillul Hashem, only misah brings kaparah. > The philosophical problems are > (1) The justice in YK being mechapeir > (2) Given a ba'asher hu sham approach, why would onesh or misah in and > of itself help? > I couldn't make heads or tails of it without stretching the notion, > and saying that YK is mechapeir to the extent that one allows oneself to > experience the soul-changing nature of YK, and thus change the ba'asher > hu sham. Similarly oneshim or misah. I know all this could be seen as dachuq BUT, Divine Justice is the 11th iqar. I would prefer to take a number of chazal's statements as colloquial shorthand for more nuanced ideas than to dismiss what we have blessed as a defining feature of Yahadus. Or IOW, given that Ani Maamin and Yigdal made it into the siddur, I feel the burden rests on those who take itzumo shel yom in its simple sense. (And yes, "problematic" should be tken as "a problem for us to understand.") Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 10:08:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:08:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 midos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55EF15F0.8060200@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 06:50 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote; >> "It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that >> ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to >> have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there >> the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so >> obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. >> How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell?" > Rashi in Chumash quoting the Mechilta offers a second explanation of > why the ketores was used to end the plague. Bnei Yisrael were > complaining about the ketores that it was a sam hamaves, that it > killed people. The ketores killed Nadav and Avihu, it killed the 250 > people, therefore Hashem said watch that it can stop the plague and > that sin is what really kills people. > > We see clearly from this explanation that there was nothing magical > about using the ketores, rather Hashem wanted to make a point to the > Jewish people about the ketores. Yes, this is an alternative explanation, offered because the primary explanation leaves some question unanswered. But it is the second explanation rather than the first, because the problem with it is obvious: Hashem didn't tell Moshe to do this. Moshe told Aharon on his own initiative, which is why the gemara wonders how he knew that it would work. This is also why the Malach Hamaves challenged Aharon's right to stop him; if the instruction had come from Hashem he would have had no reason to object to being stopped. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 12:04:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:04:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55EF3124.3060704@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 05:10 AM, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: > Kal v?chomer, how can you daven on T?B and Y?K when you wake up > without having even drinking or eating and then must go another good > 12 hours on an empty stomach? Absolutely. But you don't have a choice. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 12:07:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:07:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> References: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EF31E7.5090303@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 11:14 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:35:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > : True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a > : measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very > : problematic... > > And I don't believe there is such a thing, so I have no problem. > > I suggested twice now 2007 > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol23/v23n174.shtml#12 and 2010 > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n130.shtml that > itzumo shel yom mechaperes only someone who acknowledges and embraces > the etzem shel yom. Rebbi is the one who says Itzumo shel yom mechaper, and he explicitly says that one who eats on YK is automatically forgiven the moment he swallows the food, so that the only way to get kares for eating on YK is to choke on the food and die before swallowing it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 10:18:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:18:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] thermostats Message-ID: as thermostats for the house get more sophisticated do they present a shabbat problem? http://www.cnet.com/products/nest-learning-thermostat-third-generation/?ftag=CAD1acfa04 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 10:37:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:37:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 12:11:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 15:11:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> References: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F08476.8010605@sero.name> On 09/09/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay > (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan. Whether it's allowed is a different question from how it works. Moser Shtorosav leveis din worked even when shmitah was d'oraisa. Tosfos says that Hillel didn't invent it, he merely legitimised it. Before his day it was known, but it was considered unethical, and no reputable beis din would go along with it. To do it required finding a fly-by- night beis din willing to entertain it, so upstanding lenders didn't take advantage, and instead were reluctant to lend. Then Hillel decreed his "solution for rich and poor", which was to instruct botei din to accept and even encourage such applications, so that people would be willing to lend. And he only felt comfortable doing so because shmita was d'rabonon. -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 15:32:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 18:32:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 09:30:46PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V33n118, R'Micha wrote: :> However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is :> more important than penimius. : Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what can : be seen? How is the surface of a lung or brain more visible than the innards? The only difference is how much cutting is required. In general, halakhah only deals with what can be seen in principle, not what happens to be visible in this instance. You can't eat unchecked lettuce any more readily because the light bulb blew in the room you're in. And in principle, these things can be checked. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 17:23:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:23:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> Re: Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom - Rabbi Natan Slifkin From: Ben Rothke via Areivim <_areivim at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:areivim at lists.aishdas.org) > >> "The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom" is the latest book by Rabbi Natan Slifkin. I found it to be a fascinating work. My review is here: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/book-review-the-torah-encyclopedia-of-the-ani mal-kingdom Let me know what you think. << --Ben Rothke >>>>> I think the book is magnificent. I've seen the first volume and read a good chunk of it (the projected second volume is not out yet). It is a fascinating work based on tremendous research, and also aesthetically beautiful. The first volume is about wild animals mentioned in the Torah. The projected second volume I believe is about domestic and kosher animals. The book definitively answers, at least to my satisfaction, a question I've wondered about for a long time: What is a re'em? According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). In Moshe's brachos to the shevatim he says Yoseph has "the horns of a re'em" (Dev. 33:17). Bil'am says when Hashem took the Jews out of Egypt He had "like the strength of a re'em" (Bamidbar 23:22). R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs, a huge and powerful horned animal, a wild ox, nearly the size of an elephant, that lived in Europe, Asia and North Africa. It went extinct only about 400 years ago. The last recorded aurochs died in Poland in 1627. BTW a description and drawing of the aurochs can be seen on pages 17 - 18 of a lovely 28-page monograph that is particularly appropriate for this season. See *Exotic Shofars: Halachic Considerations* by R' Natan Slifkin. http://zootorah.com/assets/media/essays/ExoticShofars.pdf --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 21:37:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:37:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> ------------------------------ I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem?s love for His people: ?If you sin, even if you?re not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here?s a ?ticket? of sorts that I?m giving you _now_ to show my love for you, that if you ?remind? me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate that you see yourselves as close to me, and I?ll give you some measure of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah.? The best Mashal I could think of for this is a PBA placard ? you buy it and put it in your car, and when the cop pulls you over for speeding, you show it to him and he goes easy on you, because he sees that you?re really a friend of the police. NOT because you demonstrated regret for speeding, necessarily. Does that make sense? KT, MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:14:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:14:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Thinking about, knowing about, and knowing G-d In-Reply-To: <000601d0eb81$09d77c90$1d8675b0$@gmail.com> References: <20150901180343.GC11612@aishdas.org> <20150903002115.GA1793@aishdas.org> <55F08884.3010503@sero.name> <000601d0eb81$09d77c90$1d8675b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150910191452.GD3345@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:27:43AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Areivim wrote: : R' ZS: :> The Nachum in your story is too busy to think about HKBH, and that's not :> good, but OTOH HKBH Himself said "I wish they would forget me and keep my :> Torah", so this Nachum is better than someone who is constantly :> thinking about HKBH but doesn't keep mitzvos. But this is why Tanya :> (ch 41) says to interrupt ones learning once an hour to think about why one :> is learning. : This discussion reminds me that there's another step - not only to think : about Hashem, but to _know_ about Hashem, as in the old story (excerpted : from a piece I wrote for "A Daily Dose of Torah"): : R' Levi Yitzchok of Berditchev studied for an extended period of time with : the Maggid, R' Dov Ber of Mezeritch. When he returned, his father-in-law - : who did not approve of R' Levi Yitzchok's leanings towards chassidus - asked : him, "What did you learn there?" R' Levi Yitzchok answered, "I learned that : Hashem exists." His father-in-law, annoyed, protested that everyone knows : that, and to prove it, asked the maid, "Does Hashem exist?" She answered, : "Certainly!" : "She says it," R' Levi Yitzchok responded, "but I know it!" : Certainly pertinent to Malchiyos. I often quote something R/Prof Shalom Carmy wrote in (Aug '01): > [RGStudent: ] >> However, in his Al HaTeshuvah (pp. 195-201), R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik >> investigates what it means to "know" God. As he points out, it is >> impossible to know God. Rather, the Rambam means that we are obligated to >> constantly recognize God's existence. As it says in Mishlei (3:6), "In all >> your ways know Him." Cf. Rabbeinu Yonah's commentary to Mishlei, ad loc. > People who throw around big words on these subjects always seem to take > for granted things that I don't. > The people who keep insisting that it's necessary to prove things about > G-d, including His existence, seem to take it for granted that devising > these proofs is identical with knowing G-d. > Now if I know a human being personally the last thing I'd do, except as > a purely intellectual exercise, is prove his or her existence. RMYG's point is similar to that in the quote from RGS. There is a difference between knowing about Gcd and knowing Gcd. The latter is experiential, and doesn't demand proof. And IMHO more related to Malkhios. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:23:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:23:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150910192331.GA25852@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 04:56:04PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger: :> I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although :> there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, :> Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an :> obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. : "Mah ashiv laShem, kol tagmulohi alai?" I do not see obligation here. Rather, how can I possibly repay, given that everything I have is from Him. Even if voluntarily. Therefore (next pasuq), I will simply recognize what He gave me (kos yeshu'os esa) and that He was the One Who gave it (uvsheim H' eqra), follow through on what I already promised.... Do you see new obligations in this pereq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:47:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:47:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:02:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. : I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear as : ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) ... It's an intersting point, but relating it to RYBS's position just confuses the matter. You're using the word "ceremony" in nearly the opposite sense. And while you note that: : I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview it. : Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not : ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view This isnt' merely an answer, it's an indication that you're discussing two different topics. There is no question, just a miscommunication. Anyway, the contrast between the usages of the word "ceremony" interested me. You listed a number of cases where a halachic legality can be accomplished through something the lay-person considers meaningless ritual: pruzbul, mechiras chameitz, heter isqa, ha'aramos, etc.. RYBS made that statement about ceremony in the sense of ritual in which the person finds meaning, but lacks halachic structure. The two examples that most readily leap to mind are (1) his disparaging kiruv that focuses on white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos candelabra, and (2) his modifying the minhagim of the Three Weeks and Nine Days because leshitaso, the minhagim must follow the same forms as ones found in hilkhos aveilus. I posted about this in Aug '08 at . I also noted in 2011 that RYBS's position that minhag must mirror halachic structure is in opposition to the Brisker Rav's (his uncle's) shitah. RYZS holds that one makes berakhos on minhagim that have a cheftzah shel mitzvah (eg lighting a Chanukah menorah in shul), and that the Rambam and Rabbeinu Tam don't argue about that. What they do argue about is whether Chatzi Hallel is close enough to Hallel to qualify for a berakhah. However, leshitas RYBS, there are no such minhagim that wouldn't require a berakhah. If Chatzi Hallel didn't require a berakhah because it's not close enough to the cheftzah shel mitzvah, it would be "ceremony", and not a valid minhag. He therefore would have to reject his uncle's chiddush. Neo-Chassidus is basically a MO rebellion to this kind of Halakhic Man approach to Yahadus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 10:54:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:54:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle Message-ID: <20150910175503.5E910182948@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6500 Picture, if you will, the hallowed halls of almost any Yeshivah, almost anywhere in the world, on Rosh Hashanah morning. As the strains of Shiras Chanah conclude, followed by the post-Haftarah brachos, there suddenly is a loud bang on the Bimah and the Gabbai calls out "Kiddush!" Most of those assembled take a break for a quick Kiddush and then return for the day's main Mitzvah - the Tekiyas Shofar, the Blowing of the Shofar. The reciting of 'Lamnatzeach' soon reach a crescendo, not unlike a deafening roar, as the congregation eagerly anticipates and prepares for the Shofar Blowing. Although this is indeed the common custom in almost every Yeshivah, curiously, the idea of making Kiddush and eating prior to the main Mitzvah of the day is considered an anathema to some. In fact, the Matteh Efraim, who is considered the authority on issues relating to the Yomim Nora'im, writes that it is actually prohibited to eat before Tekiyas Shofar, barring if one is weak, and, even only then, a small 'Te'imah', tasting of food, in private, is allowed.[1] If so, why do so many make Kiddush[2] and eat before Tekiyas Shofar? To sum up the matter, and although this dilemma is quite complicated, one must ascertain from his knowledgeable halachic authority, as well as taking his personal situation, strength level, and minhag into account, as to what to do on Rosh Hashanah morning.[23] Postscript: One interesting upshot of this machlokes seems to be the recent proliferation of Vasikin Minyanim on Rosh Hashanah. In this way, it is possible to daven all of Shacharis and Mussaf and still be able to make Kiddush after completing davening but still before Chatzos, as well as gain all the spiritual benefits of 'Davening Haneitz'.[24] A seemingly excellent way to avoid spiritual conflict on the Day of Judgment, all the while literally fulfilling the Rambam's famous dictum (Hilchos Teshuvah Ch. 3: 4) of 'Uru Yesheinim Mi'shnascham, Wake up you slumberers, from your sleep', for the clarion call of the Shofar. See the above URL for more. ---------- Any one living in Flatbush is welcome to come to the YI of Ave J Haskama Minyan on RH morning. We start at 7:15 and davening will be over by 11:30 (with Musaf). Then there is plenty of time to go home and make kiddush before Chatzos. Davening is on the second floor in the Simcha Hall. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 08:46:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:46:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha responded to me: >> Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what >> can be seen? > How is the surface of a lung or brain more visible than the innards? > The only difference is how much cutting is required. And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an external tool is required in order to 'see' something. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 13:00:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:00:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:46:32AM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: : And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external : magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an : external tool is required in order to 'see' something. You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying glass. To me that seems obvious. But to articulate it, I find myself going to words like cheftzah, which is a bit too technical to be appropriate language for relaying why I find it self-evident. The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. The magnifying glass compensates for the fact that water bears and other microscopic beasties are not in the realm of experience. We aren't getting the situation right, we are compensating for something with the cheftzah itself. To put it another way, maggot eggs do not have halachic existence. Do tiny crustaceans cease to exist and come back into existence if you flip the light off or on? (This is just different kind of appeal to cheftzah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 13:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:19:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha noted: > You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. < I omitted the blown lightbulb because IMHO the level of required light is a murky subject (poor attempt at humor :)). > I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying glass. < And I am disagreeing: you need an external tool to reach that inside area. Since you're pushing your "kasuv hashelishi", you also need to define what level of light is "normal" -- surely you're not saying that a bug which can only be 'seen' when the level of light exceeds *olam-hazeh* norms (e.g. the lumen level exceeds that of the sun at its strongest) qualifies as visible? > The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. < I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:46:32AM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: > : And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external > : magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an > : external tool is required in order to 'see' something. > > You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen > by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. > > I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing > the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying > glass. > > To me that seems obvious. But to articulate it, I find myself going > to words like cheftzah, which is a bit too technical to be appropriate > language for relaying why I find it self-evident. > > The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, > the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside > the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an > aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is > within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. > > The magnifying glass compensates for the fact that water bears and > other microscopic beasties are not in the realm of experience. We aren't > getting the situation right, we are compensating for something with the > cheftzah itself. > > To put it another way, maggot eggs do not have halachic existence. > Do tiny crustaceans cease to exist and come back into existence if > you flip the light off or on? (This is just different kind of appeal > to cheftzah.) > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole > micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." > http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, > Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 17:40:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:40:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911004049.GA29555@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 05:20:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> The recent court to allow conversion of under bar/bat mitzvah children is :> controversial. The bone of contention is whether it is considred a zechut :> for children to become Jewish when they grow up in a non-religious setting. I thought we dissuade geirim (non-qetanim) in part because this is not true. Alternatively: How do the meiqilim justify this practice, particularly in venues (Golden Age of Spain, much of the world today) where there is comparatively little antisemisim? Rashi (Yevamos 74a, "de'amar) is concerned about the sinning convert's influence on other Jews. This being R' Chelbo's "qasheh ... kesapachas". Tosafos understand R' Chelbo as referring to the extra issurim of mistreating a geir, or that they make us look bad. The Semag (Lav 116, quoted by the BY YD 268) says we dissuade the ger to make sure he knows exactly what he is accepting, avoiding a "meqach ta'us" (my term). On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:27:59PM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious : Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also : for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for : reasons of Nationalism. Or, that being a Jew in Israel is so much better that zakhin le'adam shelo befanav applies. IOW, not by reasons of nationalism, but by taking nationalism into account as part of the metzi'us. Similar to those who rule that we do not dissuade a non-halachic convert, since they will be living among the Jews and their children will quite likely marry Jews either way. And in the latest volume of IM (vol 9, EhE 14), RMF similarly tells a BD to be proactive in convertain someone who thought until now they were Jewish. He even invoked the case of Timna, saying that to not do so would be to be repeating the avos' mistake. So we do see that facts on the ground about whether it is beneficial for the life they will be leading do matter. The bigger problem I have is qabbalas ol mitzvos. RnCL and I argued at length about whether the following qualifies as QOM, but whatever you want to call it.... Upon reaching adulthood, the geir has to affirm their acceptance of the mitzvos. While people pictures this means coming to BD on their 12th or 13th birthday, that is impossible -- the affirmation would have to be tokh kedei dibur of growing shenei sa'aros. Instead, BD sees if during that span of their lives they were observant, and if they were, we consider the geirus affirmed. This din is real enough that the gemara asks about a giyores from when she was less than 3, who is married of to a kohein as a qetana may be given terumah. After all, she might annull the geirus, in which case should would retroactively not have been an eishes kohein! The gemara answers based on rov (most children do not choose to convert out of the religion they were raised with), not that the affirmation is optional. So, what's going to happen to these qetanim when they reach adulthood? How can they be said to have effectively accepted ol mitzvos? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 17:20:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:20:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan >>> Agreed. But there still has to be rules, logic, framework. My original post was a request for help in identifying those rules. (And for now, Rav Asher Weiss' explanation seems quite plausible.). Example: If the streets in my town are a reshus harabim, there's no way to carry on Shabbos without actual walls. If the streets are merely karmelis, then we can make a haarama to say that the area is surrounded by a series of doorways. But they have got to be real halachic doorways; if even one lechi has the string on the side instead of above, forget it. So too here. I don't mind being moser to beis din, if only I was clear on what it is that I'm giving them, and how that happens, and what it accomplishes. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:04:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:04:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911010426.GA12008@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 08:20:47PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I actually thought pruzbul only works because : ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan >>> : : Agreed. But there still has to be rules, logic, framework... I was mostly dismissing your mentioning the lack of qinyan sudar. We can make a shaliach without one, for a ha'aramah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:25:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:25:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> References: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150911012558.GA18449@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:37:41AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: :> The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without :> necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> : I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem's love for His people: "If you : sin, even if you're not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, : here's a "ticket" of sorts that I'm giving you now to show my love for : you, that if you 'remind' me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate : that you see yourselves as close to me, and I'll give you some measure : of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah." But spending time demonstracting our desire for or actual closeness to HQBH is itself arguably a measure of teshuvah. And in any case avoids my problem with ascribing power to a sequence of syllables in and of themselves. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:29:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:29:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:23:44PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job : 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and : 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). : R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs... He argues that it's an auroachs. Calling any identification of this sort a "demonstration" is overly confident. Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we can use mythical creatures as metaphors. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 20:00:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:00:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I was mostly dismissing your mentioning the lack of qinyan sudar. We can make a shaliach without one, for a ha'aramah. >>> I presume you mean like how I can make the rav my shaliach for mechiras chometz without any kinyan. (In practice we do make a kinyan, but only as a chumrah.) So I don't need a kinyan at pruzbul either, and I can make the beis din a shliach without any kinyan. Okay. But if so, then exactly what is it that I'm making the beis din my shaliach FOR? What are they doing on my behalf? If I am making them my shaliach to collect my loans on my behalf, then that sounds like Rav Asher Weiss' explanation. Sure, beis din is patur from lo yigos, but it was a big chidush to me that that's enough to exempt me from being m'shamet a loan that I still own. (But if one wants to go with the Collection Agency idea, then shlichus is irrelevant - beis din would need to own the loan.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 20:51:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:51:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: <1a9316.271c37fb.4323a9c7@aol.com> In a message dated 9/10/2015 9:29:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, micha at aishdas.org writes: Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. >>> That is a fascinating and insightful point! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 02:00:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:00:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha In-Reply-To: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> References: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > Please elaborate BTW The Jewish Action had a recent article on the popularity of MO neo-chassidut. I went to a wedding this week where the chatan learns in a yeshiva from Ofra. To my sight it looked like a Breslov Yeshiva. Big white kippot with extreme dancing. The boys mostly has long peyot. The Rosh Yeshiva/mesader kedushin put on a tallit for the chuppa which I had never seen. He stressed that the chatan's tallit had techelet and he should make a shecheyanu but no bracha on the tallit since it was night, etc However, this was a RZ wedding with a bracha for the soldiers etc. On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:02:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > : RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. > : I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear > as > : ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) > ... > > It's an intersting point, but relating it to RYBS's position just > confuses the matter. You're using the word "ceremony" in nearly > the opposite sense. And while you note that: > : I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview > it. > : Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not > : ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view > > This isnt' merely an answer, it's an indication that you're discussing > two different topics. There is no question, just a miscommunication. > > Anyway, the contrast between the usages of the word "ceremony" interested > me. > > You listed a number of cases where a halachic legality can be accomplished > through something the lay-person considers meaningless ritual: pruzbul, > mechiras chameitz, heter isqa, ha'aramos, etc.. > > RYBS made that statement about ceremony in the sense of ritual in which > the person finds meaning, but lacks halachic structure. > > The two examples that most readily leap to mind are (1) his disparaging > kiruv that focuses on white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos candelabra, > and (2) his modifying the minhagim of the Three Weeks and Nine Days > because leshitaso, the minhagim must follow the same forms as ones found > in hilkhos aveilus. I posted about this in Aug '08 at > . > > I also noted in 2011 that RYBS's position that minhag must mirror halachic > structure is in opposition to the Brisker Rav's (his uncle's) shitah. RYZS > holds that one makes berakhos on minhagim that have a cheftzah shel > mitzvah (eg lighting a Chanukah menorah in shul), and that the Rambam > and Rabbeinu Tam don't argue about that. What they do argue about is > whether Chatzi Hallel is close enough to Hallel to qualify for a berakhah. > > However, leshitas RYBS, there are no such minhagim that wouldn't require > a berakhah. If Chatzi Hallel didn't require a berakhah because it's not > close enough to the cheftzah shel mitzvah, it would be "ceremony", and not > a valid minhag. He therefore would have to reject his uncle's chiddush. > > Neo-Chassidus is basically a MO rebellion to this kind of Halakhic > Man approach to Yahadus. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, > micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just > http://www.aishdas.org beginning. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 09:03:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:03:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> I have been asking this question to various people, and several have suggested that the answer is somewhere in the range of "hefker bes din" and "amiraso legavoah kimsiraso lahedyot". IOW, beis din doesn't need to make a kinyan; its inherent power is sufficient to take possession of your loans as soon as you verbally relinquish them. -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 08:02:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:02:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony Message-ID: <> It would seem that RYBS's definition of a ceremony is almost a tautology. If it is anything of religious significance then its not a ceremony. Otherwise who cares. It is only modern customs that present a difficulty because we don't establish new categories. In the old days customs like lighting the menorah in shul or havdala in shul became invested with religious significance because they were public customs Question minyana d-yoma Is the custom of "simanim" on RH a ceremony? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:53:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:53:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911175305.GC18449@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 06:02:04PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : It would seem that RYBS's definition of a ceremony is almost a tautology. : If it is anything of religious significance then its not a ceremony. If a ritual is of halachic significance then it's not a ceremony (as RYBS used the word in coining the aphorism we're discussing). Now, to Halakhic Man, one can say there is no Yahadus except halakhah, and therefore ceremony is not part of Yahadus. So, RYBS's position on ceremony is a natural consequence of Halakhic Man, but they aren't a tautology according to other derakhim. To other hashkafos, white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos licht may not define Shabbos, but they can for many help foster the atmosphere hilkhos Shabbos create. Which is why I mentioned the spread of Chavaquq-like Judaism in YU. Because Chassidus is big on ritual. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 05:49:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:49:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. >>> R' Michael Poppers responded: <<< I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. >>> The lungs of a *dead* cow are easily accessible if one has a knife; no super-vision is needed there. It is only the lungs of a *living* cow where one would need super-vision (especially if I need the cow to stay alive for more milk next week). Hmmm... Do we consider the lungs of a living cow as visible like a large insect, or as nonexistent like beitzei kinim? The nafka mina is the kashrus of that cow's milk. I would *like* to say that the lungs are invisible and inconsequential. But IIRC we can drink the milk because of rov - most lungs are kosher. There is a real possibility that the lungs are treif, and we deal with that possibility in a manner *other* than "lo nitna Torah l'malachei hashareis". Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 09:47:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:47:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] asmachta Message-ID: see point 5 , on the idea that could asmachta be a talmudic example of , well let the reader decide http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/09/artscroll-and-more.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:23:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:23:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? Message-ID: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, but again whatever Hashem does is good.) Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 11:06:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:06:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150911180646.GE18449@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 01:23:04PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" : (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever : Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the : year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, : but again whatever Hashem does is good.) >From my blog post at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov :-)BBii! -Micha Shetir'u baTov The Bostoner Rebbe (of Boston) commented once on the expression "Shanah tovah umsuqah - a good and sweet new year", which is related to the famous custom of having apple and honey on Rosh haShanah.What does "umsuqah -- and sweet" add, beyond the notion of "tovah -- good"? As Rabbi Aqiva often said, "All that the All Merciful does, He does for the good". An echo of the words of one of his rabbeim, Nachum ish Gamzu, who would greet events that would disappoint or depress most of us with "Gam zu letovah -- this too is for the best." So actually, wishing one another a good year could be thought of as being redundant. Everything is good, how could this year be any different? However, not everything I was told was "for my own good" was particularly pleasant. Therefore, the rebbe teaches, we wish that the year not only be tovah, good, but also be mesuqah, sweet to our perception as well. Along the same lines, I had a thought about a phrase in Shabbos and Yom Tov davening : Our L-rd, and the L-rd of our fathers, sanctify us bemitzvosekha (through Your mitzvos), and put our portion beSorasekha (in Your Torah), satisfy us mituvekha (from Your Goodness), and make us (or: our souls qua living force) biyshuasekha (in Your salvation)... The predicate prefix has an oddity: it says bemitzvosekha, beSorasekha, and later, beyshu'asekha. But by goodness, the prefix is "mituvekha" -- "from", not "be-" ("in" or "through") like by the others. The reason, I believe, is because we are asking for something inherently different. We can ask G-d to make us more holy by allowing us to do more mitzvos, or give us the opportunity to learn more Torah, or make us happier by saving us more often. This is "be-", we are asking for more of a gift by asking for more of the vehicle He uses to give it to us. Since everything G-d does is good, we can't be asking for G-d to give us more good, and thereby make us more satisfied. There is no more good for us to get. Rather, we are asking for more satisfaction with the goodness He already provides. This is why the "mi-" prefix is used. This is also in contrast to Rebbe's words (Berakhos 50a) about benching, that a wise person says "uvtuvo chayinu -- and through His good we live", and a boor, "umituvo chayinu -- and from His good, we live". Rebbe says that "umituvo" is incorrect because it says that we live through some of His Good, implying that Hashem gives meagerly. Perhaps it's different here, when we ask for happiness, because the truth is that if we had a full realization of even a small part of His Good would be enough to satisfy. Like the piyut we sing at the seider. We list fifteen things Hashem did for us when taking us out of Egypt. But had He done any one of those 15 alone, "Dayeinu"! R Shelomo Wolbe^zt"l would part someone's company wishing him "shetir'u batov -- may you see the good!" Because the tense of "tir'u" is ambiguous, this is both a berakhah and a mussar shmuess. Taken in the future tense, "May you see", it becomes a blessing that Hashem allow him to see all that's good in his life. In the imperative, the same work becomes "Look", advice to the person to take the initiative and seek out the good of every situation. To aspire to the middah of Nachum ish Gamzu and Rabbi Aqiva of realizing the Hand of G-d in everything, and looking to see how even the tragedies in our lives are necessary steps to something bigger which He has in store for us. The two together yields a profound combined meaning. Live is the product of a partnership between myself and G-d. It is the sum of my free-willed decisions and the hand Hashem deals me. "Shetir'u beTov" addresses both at the same time, by praying that Hashem show the person good, and that the person look to find it. A greeting that recognizes the fundamental covenant by which man is redeemed. It's a beautiful greeting, one worth adopting. Wishing others could taste the sweetness. Shetir'u baTov! (With thanks to RYGB for helping me find the gemara.) Like this: Like Loading... Related You may also like... * [13]3 [14]The Devastating Power of Leitznus ? ???? ???? - December 28, 2006 * [15]0 [16]The Desire to Desire ?? ????? ???? - August 28, 2007 * [17]0 [18]Nine Qavim at the Buffet ?? ????? ???? - March 27, 2008 2 Responses * [19]Comments1 * [20]Pingbacks1 1. Anonymous says: [21]? ????? ???? - September 29, 2006 at 1:25pm Possibly related - stolen waters are described as sweet, which tells us something unpleasant about the human condition. Perhaps what we are requesting is not only an objectively good year, but the ability to appreciate that goodness, similar to the way in which we regrettably now enjoy the prohibited. - Moishe Potemkin [22]Reply 1. [23]Aspaqlaria ? Blog Archive ? ?? ???? ???"? ?? ????? ???? - September 5, 2007 [...] berakhos for a Shanah tovah umsuqah, as the Bostoner Rebbe put it, a year that is we not only conceptually know to be good, but has a sweetness we can taste and [...] And your thoughts...? [24]Cancel reply IFRAME: [25]jetpack_remote_comment Follow: * * * * * [26]Next story Sweet Charoses * [27]Previous story Nine Qavim at the Buffet ____________________ Subscribe Name: ____________________ email: ____________________ * [28]Entries * [29]Comments * [30]PodCast New & Popular * [31]Recent Posts * [32]Popular Posts * [33]Recent Comments * [34]My Life as a Pendulum ? ????? ???? - September 3, 2015 * [35]Copyright ?? ??? ???? - August 13, 2015 * [36]What does Hashem ask of you? ?? ??? ???? - August 7, 2015 * [37]?? ?????? ???? ? ??? ???? - July 23, 2015 * [38]Gratitude and Thankfulness ?? ????? ???? - July 16, 2015 * [39]Emunah Peshutah vs Machashavah ?? ????? ???? - November 30, 2004 * [40]Balancing Simplicity and Authenticity ? ????? ??? - July 1, 2010 * [41]The Kuzari Proof, part I ?? ???? ???? - December 22, 2004 * [42]What is Frumkeit? ? ???? ? ???? - February 9, 2014 * [43]The Curriculum at Volozhin ? ????? ???? - May 23, 2012 * David Zalkin says: [44]Regarding giving precedence to the Aruch HaShulchan over the MB, my... * Eliezer Eisenberg says: [45]Excellent. Thanks for sharing. * Ilana Sober Elzufon says: [46]Intriguing. I really value the all-women's spaces that Orthodox Judaism provides,... * micha says: [47]You're right. A poor choice of words. Correcting.Thank you. * Dr. Yitzchok Levine says: [48]You wrote, "Shul looks like a boy's club because it was... Aspaqlaria ? 2015. All Rights Reserved. Powered by [49]WordPress. Theme by [50]Alx. * * * * IFRAME: [51]likes-master %d bloggers like this: References Visible links 1. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/feed 2. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/comments/feed 3. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov/feed 4. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 5. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/sweet-charoses 6. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ 7. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/category/mussar/middos 8. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#comments 9. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/author/admin 10. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#stbt 11. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/01/vetaheir-libeinu.shtml 12. http://www.aishdas.org/rygb 13. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus#comments 14. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus 15. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire#comments 16. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire 17. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet#comments 18. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 19. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#commentlist-container 20. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#pinglist-container 21. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov/comment-page-1#comment-72 22. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov?replytocom=72#respond 23. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/09/%d7%9b%d7%92-%d7%90%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%9c-%d7%aa%d7%a9%d7%9e%d7%90.shtml 24. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#respond 25. http://jetpack.wordpress.com/jetpack-comment/?blogid=11004584&postid=134&comment_registration=0&require_name_email=1&stc_enabled=1&stb_enabled=1&show_avatars=1&avatar_default=identicon&greeting=And+your+thoughts...%3F&greeting_reply=Leave+a+Reply+to+%25s&color_scheme=light&lang=en-US&jetpack_version=3.7&sig=04e58004b358ee700890b798c328f7cfd8e7fee6#parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aishdas.org%2Fasp%2Ftireh-betov 26. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/sweet-charoses 27. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 28. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/feed 29. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/comments/feed 30. http://feeds.feedburner.com/AspPodCast 31. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-recent 32. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-popular 33. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-comments 34. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/my-life-as-pendulum 35. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/copyright 36. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask 37. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/%d7%91%d7%9f-%d7%97%d7%9e%d7%99%d7%a9%d7%99%d7%9d-%d7%9c%d7%a2%d7%a6%d7%94 38. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gratitude-thankfulness 39. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/emunah-peshutah-vs-machashavah 40. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/balancing-simplicity-and-authenticity 41. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/kuzari-proof-part-i 42. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-is-frumkeit 43. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-curriculum-at-volozhin 44. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/textualism-mb/comment-page-1#comment-60227 45. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask/comment-page-1#comment-60184 46. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60105 47. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60102 48. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60101 49. http://wordpress.org/ 50. http://alxmedia.se/ 51. http://widgets.wp.com/likes/master.html?ver=20141028#ver=20141028 Hidden links: 53. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus 54. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire 55. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 56. http://www.facebook.com/micha.berger 57. http://www.linkedin.com/in/rmsberger 58. https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MichaBerger 59. http://www.twitter.com/aishdas 60. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/textualism-mb/comment-page-1#comment-60227 61. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask/comment-page-1#comment-60184 62. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60105 63. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60102 64. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60101 65. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov 66. http://www.facebook.com/micha.berger 67. http://www.linkedin.com/in/rmsberger 68. https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MichaBerger 69. http://www.twitter.com/aishdas From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:01:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:01:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> Message-ID: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when shmitta is d'Orayta again? On 9/11/2015 7:03 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > I have been asking this question to various people, and several have > suggested that the answer is somewhere in the range of "hefker bes din" > and "amiraso legavoah kimsiraso lahedyot". IOW, beis din doesn't need > to make a kinyan; its inherent power is sufficient to take possession > of your loans as soon as you verbally relinquish them. > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:05:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:05:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F56682.4070005@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 04:01 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when > shmitta is d'Orayta again? Why wouldn't it? Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din declares it unethical. And I don't think that will happen, because such a declaration wouldn't stop it, it would just drive it to the disreputable batei din. Now that everyone knows about it you can't make people forget it; Hillel uncorked the idea and it can't be pushed back into the bottle. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:05:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:05:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> On 9/11/2015 4:29 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:23:44PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: > : According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job > : 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and > : 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). > > : R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs... > > He argues that it's an auroachs. Calling any identification of this sort a > "demonstration" is overly confident. Agreed. > Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever > sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim > who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we > can use mythical creatures as metaphors. How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty plural to me. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:02:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:02:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you won't experience that as a good thing. On 9/11/2015 8:23 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A > good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever > Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the > year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, > but again whatever Hashem does is good.) > > Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." > > Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. > > YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 02:22:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 05:22:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:02 AM 9/13/2015, you wrote: >On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But if >you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you won't >experience that as a good thing. Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries. If your injuries are not severe, and you collect a hefty sum from the driver's insurance company, then you may indeed view it as a good thing! All things have to be considered in context. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:57:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:57:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 05:22:08AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: :> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But :> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you :> won't experience that as a good thing. : Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries... We're getting off point. I believe Lisa's reponse was similar to my repeating the distinction between "shanah tovah" and "umsuqah", without leading to the problem of the "wrong" word being used in "Leshanah tovah tekhaseivu". We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- what ra? I thought there is no ra? It would seem we often speak of tov vara in terms of how they're experienced, rather than some abstract reality in which we know (or should know) "gam zu letovah". Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:57:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:57:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 05:22:08AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: :> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But :> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you :> won't experience that as a good thing. : Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries... We're getting off point. I believe Lisa's reponse was similar to my repeating the distinction between "shanah tovah" and "umsuqah", without leading to the problem of the "wrong" word being used in "Leshanah tovah tekhaseivu". We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- what ra? I thought there is no ra? It would seem we often speak of tov vara in terms of how they're experienced, rather than some abstract reality in which we know (or should know) "gam zu letovah". Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 06:39:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:39:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. In RM's opinion, shmitta won't be d'Orayata again until the Messiah comes. Ben On 9/13/2015 10:01 AM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when > shmitta is d'Orayta again? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:46:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:46:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: <<< Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din declares it unethical. >>> Perhaps. But I would think that the impropriety of using pruzbul in a d'Oraisa time was pretty implicit (perhaps even explicit) in how Hillel promoted it, and there is no need for a future beis din to point it out. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 06:41:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 09:41:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor Message-ID: <09a801d0ee29$ef34d030$cd9e7090$@com> The sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor is avail for free download at - http://hebrewbooks.org/53838 review of sefer - http://seforim.blogspot.ca/2015/09/review-of-dovid-bashevkins-sefer.html Review of Dovid Bashevkin's Sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor By Rabbi Yitzchok Oratz Rabbi Yitzchok Oratz, a musmach of Beth Medrash Govoha, is the Rabbi and Director of the Monmouth Torah Links community in Marlboro, NJ. God knows the nature of every generation, Rabbi Dovid Bashevkin has written a Sefer uniquely appropriate for the nature of ours[1]. Take a trip to your local Jewish bookseller during this time period, and you will find numerous seforim, old[2] and new[3], on the themes of sin and repentance. Although they certainly vary in style and quality, a common denominator among many is the heavy reliance on Rambam's Hilchos Teshuva and Sha'arey Teshuva of Rabbeinu Yonah of Gerondi[4]. And this is to be expected. Timeless classics, these works of the great Rishonim are unmatched in their systematic and detailed discussion of sin and punishment, free will[5] and repentance, and are a prerequisite study for any serious discussion of Teshuva. But therein lays the dilemma. For although Rabbeinu Yonah maps out the exalted levels of Teshuva that one should certainly strive for, they seem not to be for the faint of heart. Is our generation really up to the task of embracing the sorrow, suffering, and worry, the humbling and lowering oneself[6], without allowing for the concomitant sense of despair[7] and despondence[8]? And how many of us can honestly stand before the Creator, and proclaim that we will "never return" to our negative actions, to the extent that God Himself will testify that this is the case[9]? If confession without sincere commitment to change is worthless[10], does repeating last year's failed commitments not require choosing between giving up and fooling ourselves? This is where B'Rogez Rachem Tizkor comes in. Based heavily on the thought of Izbica in general, and Reb Tzadok ha-Kohen of Lublin in particular, it discusses the value of spiritual struggle, the interplay between determinism and free will, the redemptive potential of sin, and the status of those who have not yet arisen from their fall. Overall, the sefer is a good introduction to R' Tzadok for those who are not familiar with his thought, and offers many insightful and fascinating comments even for those who are. My main critiques are that some of the discussion of the more controversial statements of Izbica required more elaboration[14], the lack thereof leads to a seeming conflating of two similar, yet far from identical, concepts, and more contrasting and supporting texts (both from within Izbica and R' Tzadok's thought and without) would have made for a stronger case and deeper understanding. My hope is to fill in these gaps in some small measure. Hopefully it will further enlighten those whose appetite was whet by this fine work. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:05:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:05:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F59EAF.30104@sero.name> See Tanya chapter 26. There is really no such thing as bad; there is merely the good that we can see and the good that we can't see. But we'd much prefer the kind that we can see, and we ask Hashem to give us that kind of good rather than the other kind. http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7905/jewish/Chapter-26.htm -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:11:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:11:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F5A021.4040809@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 08:46 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The >> only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right >> to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when >> shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din >> declares it unethical. > > Perhaps. But I would think that the impropriety of using pruzbul in a > d'Oraisa time was pretty implicit (perhaps even explicit) in how > Hillel promoted it, and there is no need for a future beis din to > point it out. How so? He didn't say anything about it being improper when shmita is de'oraisa, he merely said here is a solution we can use. The question is why nobody did it before, and the answer is because batei din considered it unethical. Now when were these batei din considering it unethical? In the time of Bayit Rishon?! No, it was in Hillel's day, which is why he needed to make his takanah. And in his day it was already derabbanan. The only relevance of it being derabanan is that had it been deoraisa in Hillel's day, he would not have felt he had the right to promote a way around it, no matter how great the need he saw. But since it was derabanan, and he saw a problem that needed fixing, he was bold and publicised this trick, and declared that nobody should feel guilty about using it. There's no indication that he mentioned shmita's drabanan status at all. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 08:52:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:52:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In Avodah V33n123, RAkivaM responded to me: >> I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. << > The lungs of a *dead* cow are easily accessible if one has a knife; no super-vision is needed there. It is only the lungs of a *living* cow where one would need super-vision (especially if I need the cow to stay alive for more milk next week). < A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the human eye without opening it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 11:55:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:55:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150913185550.GC10636@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 08:57:35AM -0400, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: ::> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But ::> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you ::> won't experience that as a good thing. ... : We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- : what ra? I thought there is no ra? Addenda in response to private email: Well, I didn't mean to get all Izhbitz... I meant the evil we experience, the tragic, and not the evil that we do, the wrong.. But I did buy into more univeralistic models of hashgachah peratis, that at least every person's fate is subject to HP (pace the Rambam or Or haChaim), and thus the tragic has a point. If not itself tovsh, it is letovah. Which still leaves us with R/Prof Levine's original question sbout blessing others with shanah tovah. ... : Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be : experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even : that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) But even the evil that we do is more like a missed opposrtunity for good than a beryah. Much the way Yeshaiah pairs evil with darkness "yotzeir or uvorei choshekh ... uvorei es hara." Althouh it's possible that Yeshiah considered darkness to be a beryah, the way Chazal talk about the thick darkness of makas choshekh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 12:00:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:00:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:52:48AM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the : human eye without opening it. The sun is also an external tool. This is wh I think we need more nuance here. It might depend on whether a hollow inside the lung is judged as a lung that is defective in a way we can't see without a knife, or the hole is a mum that we could be able to see ourselves if the ourside of the lung weren't in the way. But in either case, I still csn't articulste what seems to me to be a obvious difference. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 07:07:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 10:07:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akeidah of the Mind Message-ID: <20150913140741.CE67A180E46@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from pages 588 - 590 of Rav Schwab on Chumash. Please note the words "Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave the human being a mind to understand Him. Whatever one studies in the world, be it science, history, economics, mathematics, or anything else, it is actually the study of the revelations of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Our mind is given to us to enable us to understand as much about C-d as is humanly possible. This is borne out in many places throughout Torah and Nach ... This means that we are not merely to accept that which our forefathers have taught us about C-d but we are to attempt to know, to understand as much as we can about Hashem ... The Rav (Rav Shimon Schwab, ZT"L) was firmly convinced that since Moshe emes v'Toraso emes, the Torah and our Rabbinic mesorah are inviolable and, one day, answers would be found answers these questions. He would say that sometimes one must offer his mind as an "akeidah" to Hakadosh Baruch Hu where human reasoning has not yet found answers to apparent contradictions between the inviolable eternal truth of the Torah, the truthful writing (Daniel 10:21), and historical or scientific finds which are subject to change. In his lectures on Iyov, he offered the following comments on this subject. "... By accepting C-d's command, Avraham Avinu had sacrificed his own mind to comply with the will of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. While Avraham attempts to understand C-d, nevertheless, when C-d1s command contradicts that understanding, Avraham sacrifices his mind to the will of C-d, just as one would forfeit his life if the halachah required it, rather than violate the three cardinal sins. "Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave the human being a mind to understand Him. Whatever one studies in the world, be it science, history, economics, mathematics, or anything else, it is actually the study of the revelations of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Our mind is given to us to enable us to understand as much about C-d as is humanly possible. This is borne out in many places throughout Torah and Nach ... This means that we are not merely to accept that which our forefathers have taught us about C-d but we are to attempt to know, to understand as much as we can about Hashem ... "... This is why the mitzvah of learning Torah is so important; in fact it is our most important mitzvah. When we learn Torah, we employ our mind in the service of Hakadosh Baruch Hu by studying C-d's will as revealed to us in the Torah. And if we have questions or contradictions, we must use our mind to the best of our capacity to attempt to resolve them within the parameters of Torah study. "... So, while we are encouraged to use our mind, as much as reason allows, to serve C-d, to understand Him, and to answer questions, nevertheless, when all reason fails us, and we cannot go any further with human understanding, when our mind is staggered, we must be prepared to I/sacrifice our mind/I to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. We must throw up our hands and say that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is right whether we understand it or not. One could call this 'the akeidah of the mind.' "When science poses questions which seemingly contradict our basic truths, we must make an effort to answer these questions. But if the answers are elusive, we must sacrifice our mind and subjugate it to the revealed truths of the Torah. Fortunately, baruch Hashem, as yet, I have not found any questions of this sort- for instance, regarding the age of the universe, evolution, ancient civilizations- for which I have not found possible answers. But it could happen, and one has to be ready for it. If suddenly a scientific discovery were to arise which clearly seems to contradict the Torah, we would then have to admit that the question is excellent but nevertheless, the Torah is right because it is the revealed wisdom of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. It is "Toras Emes, 11 absolute truth, all questions notwithstanding. Answers will no doubt eventually be found to such contradictions, but in the meantime, by accepting the veracity of the Torah without reservations, we will have offered our mind as an 'akeidah' to Hakadosh Baruch Hu.'' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 11:36:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:36:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? Message-ID: <1f9d87.3cc2b5a7.43271c34@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, but again whatever Hashem does is good.) Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. YL >>>>> When others wish you well you should wish them well too, mipnei darkei shalom. A long philosophical treatise about how even illness, accidents and financial losses are actually all good things will not endear you to anyone. Another answer to your question is: we wish our friends (and ourselves) brachos from the Ribono Shel Olam that are sweet and obvious even to our limited human eyes, and not the other kind. Certainly we appreciate that the dentist's drill or the surgeon's knife is doing us a favor and repairing what needs repairing, but we prefer not to have the cavity and not to need the surgery in the first place. However if you simply cannot bring yourself to utter a blessing that seems philosophically dubious to you, I would suggest that you overcome that feeling, bentsh your fellow Jews anyway, and may Hashem in turn overcome His philosophical doubts and bless you and all of us in kind. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 07:15:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (RCK via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 17:15:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty > plural to me. >Lisa Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book *Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew * [image: Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] [image: Academia.edu] [image: Google Scholar] [image: LinkedIN] [image: Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:00:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:00:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F59DB4.6080103@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 04:05 AM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >> Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever >> sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim >> who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we >> can use mythical creatures as metaphors. > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty > plural to me. Because Yosef is a shor, not a re'em, even if each of his horns is that of a re'em. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 12:29:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:29:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 10:15 AM, RCK via Avodah wrote: > Lisa wrote: >> How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty >> plural to me. > Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=11650&pgnum=227 I don't understand the Bachur's comment. Surely the Radak explicitly addressed his objection, so why does he still raise it? (Unless these notes were not written on the Shorashim at all, and some printer decided to mash them together at random.) -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 13:59:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 16:59:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> References: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha replied: > The sun is also an external tool. < Which is why I previously differentiated between the sun _or_ a substitute light source no brighter than it and between what I call "external tools." > This is wh I think we need more nuance here. < My theory is that anything we, a 6th-Day "creation", can see with the tools provided as part of the *b'riyah* (or, again, a fair substitute) is within our Halachic field of vision. Best wishes for a *shanah tovah umsuqah* from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:52:48AM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: > : A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the > : human eye without opening it. > > The sun is also an external tool. > > This is wh I think we need more nuance here. > > It might depend on whether a hollow inside the lung is judged as a lung > that is defective in a way we can't see without a knife, or the hole is > a mum that we could be able to see ourselves if the ourside of the lung > weren't in the way. > > But in either case, I still csn't articulste what seems to me to be > a obvious difference. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea > micha at aishdas.org of instincts. > http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter > Fax: (270) 514-1507 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 15 10:01:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (RCK via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:01:11 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> References: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> Message-ID: It's a good question, in fact, the Bayis HaGadol (also known as Biur) on Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer (end of ch. 19) asks this on HaBachur. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book *Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew * [image: Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] [image: Academia.edu] [image: Google Scholar] [image: LinkedIN] [image: Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/13/2015 10:15 AM, RCK via Avodah wrote: > >> Lisa wrote: >> > > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty >>> plural to me. >>> >> > Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. >> > > http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=11650&pgnum=227 > > I don't understand the Bachur's comment. Surely the Radak explicitly > addressed his objection, so why does he still raise it? (Unless these > notes were not written on the Shorashim at all, and some printer decided > to mash them together at random.) > > -- > Zev Sero KvChT > zev at sero.name > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 15 17:45:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:45:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150916004501.GA21666@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 04:59:29PM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: :> This is wh I think we need more nuance here. : My theory is that anything we, a 6th-Day "creation", can see with the tools : provided as part of the *b'riyah* (or, again, a fair substitute) is within : our Halachic field of vision. You mean, like a sharp rock? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 01:43:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:43:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: R' MYG wrote: "I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem?s love for His people: ?If you sin, even if you?re not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here?s a ?ticket? of sorts that I?m giving you _now_ to show my love for you, that if you ?remind? me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate that you see yourselves as close to me, and I?ll give you some measure of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah.? The best Mashal I could think of for this is a PBA placard ? you buy it and put it in your car, and when the cop pulls you over for speeding, you show it to him and he goes easy on you, because he sees that you?re really a friend of the police. NOT because you demonstrated regret for speeding, necessarily. Does that make sense?" Not really, Hashem is perfect and all knowing, you can't bribe him. Why should you need to remind him of anything? Hashem knows exactly who you are and how close you are to him. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 02:35:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:35:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916093543.GA10685@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:43:35AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Not really, Hashem is perfect and all knowing, you can't bribe him. Why : should you need to remind him of anything? Hashem knows exactly who you are : and how close you are to him. That's ust an inherent limitation in the mashal. (Any mashal where the nimshal is G-d, is going to be limited for the same reason you give.) Lemaaseh, He may Remember everything, but I don't. Going through the exercises keep my own beliefs more conscious and reinforces them. Setting up a pointless reminder to remind Him has function in that it reminds me. Which is how I understood RMYG's original answer: that reciting the 13 middoes is "more of a symbol of Hashem's love for His people: 'If you sin, even if you're not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here's a 'ticket' of sorts that I'm giving you _now_ to show my love for you...'" We need to remember the closeness, to keep it real in our minds, which then deepens our belief in it. Which is why I then said that this in itself is a minimal teshuvah, and not merely reciting words. IOW, if someone said the 13 Middos and didn't even think "these are G-d's 13 Middos of lovingkindness that He gave us", would they still be guaranteed not to leave empty-handed? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 01:58:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:58:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > There's no indication that he mentioned shmita's drabanan status at all. The simple reading of the Gemara in Gittin 36a-b which is the source of pruzbul says that pruzbul only works when shemitta is d'rabbanan and in fact this is how the Rambam understands the Gemara and how he paskens. The Gemara first states that Hillel was mesaken pruzbul and then asks how could Hillel be mesaken pruzbul and say that loans are not cancelled when the Torah says that they are? Abaye answers shemitta nowadays is derabban. The Gemara then asks how could the Chachamim be mesaken shemittas kesafim medrabban (and cancel loans) and Rava answers hefker beit din hefker. The simple reading of the Gemara is that the whole takana of pruzbul only works when shemitta is derabbanan. Rashi and the Raavad however understand the Gemara that Rava's answer also answers the first question of how could Hillel be mesaken pruzbul when the Torah cancels loans based on hefker beis din hefker and that pruzbul works even when shemmita is d'oraysa. [Email #2] R"n Lisa Liel asked: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when shmitta > is d'Orayta again? and R' Zev Sero asked why wouldn't it? Actually this is an explicit machlokes the Rambam and the Raavad and Rashi and Tosafos (Gittin 36a-b). The Rambam writes in Hilchos Shemitta V'Yovel (chapter 9) v'ein haprozbul moeel ela b'shmitas kesafim shehee midvrei sofrim aval shemitta shel torah ayn haprozbul moeel bo The Raavad there argues that prozbul will work even when shemmita is d'oraysa based on his understanding of Rava's answer of hefker beis din hefker (like Rashi in Gittin). From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 02:50:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:50:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916095007.GD14423@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:00:56PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : If I am making them my shaliach to collect my loans on my behalf, then that : sounds like Rav Asher Weiss' explanation. Sure, beis din is patur from lo : yigos, but it was a big chidush to me that that's enough to exempt me from : being m'shamet a loan that I still own. (But if one wants to go with the : Collection Agency idea, then shlichus is irrelevant - beis din would need : to own the loan.) The big problem is that the difference in sevaros may make a particular pruzbul text valid or not. For example, how does hefqer BD hefqer work today, when courts do not have a central Sanhedrin organizing them? I am giving the loan to three hedyotos. Which 3? The three I named? (Are we invoking Beis Shammai's notion that one can be mafqir only to a given person or set of people? [Ymi Pei'ah 6:1 19b]) Then how is it HBDH and not a simple matanah? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 03:09:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:09:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20150916100941.GE14423@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 03:39:14PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey : wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of : Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all : those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the : number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. : : In RM's opinion, shmitta won't be d'Orayata again until the Messiah comes. Also, the machloqes Rashi and Tosafos as to whether "kol yosheveha aleha" is by sheivet. I don't know what Tosafos do with the machloqes (Sanhedring 110b) about whether the lost shevatim will ever be restored. If they hold like R' Aqiva, this would have to refer to the descendents of those refugees from Malkhus Yisrael who fled to Malkhus Yehudah. Or, is that in itself enough reestablishment of the shevatim to contradict R' Aqiva? The masqanah of the gemara appears to be Rabba bb Chana (citing R' Yochanan) refuting R' Aqiva's position in favor of R' Eliezer -- that the missing shevatim will be restored (quoting Yirmiyahu 3:!2). Maybe they just consider the question closed. The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority of Benei Yisrael. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 05:08:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:08:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: from wikipedia Thus, if one would agree that shmita does not apply when Israelites are dispersed,[6] Hillel, great as he was, would not have changed a law of the Torah in order to fit the needs of his time. He and his beth din would have enacted a rabbinic exception to a rabbinic law. As the Rambam notes in Shmita V'Yovel chapter 9, when most Jews again live in the Land of Israel and the observance of the sabbatical and jubilee years are Toraitic commandments, the prozbul will no longer be able to be used. According to this theory, Prozbul, like `eruv , is a rabbinic exception to a rabbinic enactment. Prozbul cannot be used to get around the Torah commanded shmita and yovel, just as `eruv cannot be used to get around the fact that Torah prohibited carrying in the public domain. I recently saw the opposite question: There are many ways to avoid the problem of shmitta annulling laws without resorting to prozbul. One simple example is to make the loan end immediately after RH of this year. There are many other options. So the question is why the need for prozbul The only answer I saw was that the general population was not aware of the alternatives or else they were too cumbersome [Email #2] > In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench > that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the > true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people > who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is > much higher than we believe it to be. I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even for direct maternal descendants. i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. I would assume that a descendant of annusim would be Jewish since they kept their Jewish identification through various customs -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:40:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:40:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:36:20PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were :> exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on :> Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority :> of Benei Yisrael. : How do you know? (I assume you mean the reisha about yovel and therefore shemittah de'oraisa ending when eiver hayardein was conquered, not my last sentence.) Eirachin 32b Rambam, Hil Shemitah veYovel 10:8. GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 09:36:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:36:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> On 9/13/2015 4:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey > wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of > Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all > those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the > number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. On the contrary. The number of people who identify as "Jewish" in polls who are actually non-halakhic "converts" or children of non-Jewish mothers is vast, so the number of Jews is much *lower* than we believe it to be. [Email #2] On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were > exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on > Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority > of Benei Yisrael. How do you know? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:40:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:40:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F9A97D.2080405@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 08:08 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> >In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench >> >that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the >> >true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people >> >who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is >> >much higher than we believe it to be. > I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that > once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with > yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even > for direct maternal descendants. > > i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim > through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. That is an extreme daat yachid, with a very tenuous basis. Nobody else agrees with him, so there's no reason to expect R Melamed to take this view into account, or even to be aware of it. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:49:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:49:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Moderator Vacation Message-ID: <20150916174900.GC6146@aishdas.org> While Areivim has a team of mods, Avodah is still entirely dependent on me. Which makes me feel an obligation to forewarn y'all before I go on vacation. Tomorrow I will be leaving for 3 weeks in Yerushalayim ih"q. (Barring messianic intervention, to leave again the day after chutznik Simchas Torah.) I do not know what my internet access will be like, but it's quite likely moderation approval delays will increase. Please be patient. Yerushalayim crew: Avodah/Areivim Simchas Beis haSho'eivah anyone? Discussion on Areivim...) GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 11:30:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:30:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916183023.GD6146@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 03:08:53PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that : once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with : yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even : for direct maternal descendants. This was his famous teshuvah on the Brother Daniel case. That there are limits even on maternal descent. I found a nice summary by R/Dr Judah Goldberg : i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim : through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. >From there, RAL's meqoros in shas: In Yevamot 16b, Rav Assi states that if a gentile betroths a Jewess, we cannot dismiss the validity of the marriage, for perhaps he descends from one of the ten lost tribes. When Shmuel heard this ruling, however, he responded, "They did not move from that place until they made [the descendants of the lost tribes] into absolute gentiles, as it says, 'They have betrayed God, for they have begotten alien children' (Hoshea 5:7)" (17a). Similarly, Chullin 6a tells how Rav Ami and Rav Assi discovered that the Samaritan community, which had long been suspected of engaging in pagan worship, was no longer observing Jewish law at all. In response, They did not move from that place until they made [the Samaritans] into absolute gentiles. He cites three shitos from rishonim, although the Rambam's pesaq is as explacated by R' Chaim Brisker. 1- Rashba: The Samaritan's conversion was annulled, not that one can stop being a Jew. R Pinchas Horowitz (Sefer Ha-mikna) applies parallel reasoning to the 10 shevatim -- they didn't stop being Jews, they are just an ignorable mi'ut that only a derabbanan kept us from ignoring. And that was repealed. 2- A mi'ut hold that the geir who stops believing ceases being a geir, but we have to worry about what's really going on in his head, so lechumerah we have to acknowledge his marriage. 3- The Rambam as explained by RCB (contrasting Ishus 4:15 with peirush on Niddah 7:4, where he says a dead Samaritan is not metamei tum'as ohel) that someone who gives up his self-identity as a Jew and acts on it is But in either case, the hypothetical Ephramite is a machloqes amoraim. Unless you agree with the author of the Hafla'ah that it's just an issue of mi'ut, and therefore the one who could prove he is in the mi'ut would be Jewish. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless micha at aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 13:39:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:39:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Moderator Vacation In-Reply-To: <55F9B9EA.70600@sero.name> References: <20150916174900.GC6146@aishdas.org> <55F9B9EA.70600@sero.name> Message-ID: <43db8966934f6c727f16a67e6896f9cb@aishdas.org> It is much easier when my mechutan's work address is "1 Kotel Plaza" -- Yeshivat Netiv Aryeh. Thanks for the _berakhos_. _Gemar chasimah tovah_! On 2015-09-16 2:50 pm, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/16/2015 01:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > >> Tomorrow I will be leaving for 3 weeks in Yerushalayim ih"q. > > Mazal tov. Even if Moshiach doesn't come in the next week or so, > you can still fulfil a zecher to hakhel. I was there 14 years > ago at the "hakhel" rally at the kotel, but unfortunately I was > unable to be there 7 years ago, and barring either Moshiach (and > the real hakhel) or a lottery win I will not be able to be there > this year either. > > (Actually I'm not aware of any source that Moshiach will provide > transportation, so even if he comes today it may be impossible > for everyone to get there in time for hakhel.) _Tir'u baTov_! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 11:54:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:54:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> On 9/16/2015 8:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:36:20PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: > : On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were > :> exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on > :> Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority > :> of Benei Yisrael. > > : How do you know? > > (I assume you mean the reisha about yovel and therefore shemittah de'oraisa > ending when eiver hayardein was conquered, not my last sentence.) Actually, I meant your last sentence. How do you know that the area of the 2.5 shvatim didn't include a majority of Bnei Yisrael? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:47:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:47:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 09:54:59PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : Actually, I meant your last sentence. How do you know that the area : of the 2.5 shvatim didn't include a majority of Bnei Yisrael? Because the gemara has to explain why 2-1/2 shevatim needed as many arei miqlat as the rest of BY. And the answer is because those who settled for land on that side of the Yardein built a more careless culture. (See Rashi Bamidbar 35:14 which is based on Abayei Makos 10a, and the Maharal on the Rashi to explain that Rashi [and Abayei] assume that the number who need galus will be greater whent he number of murderers does.) Notice the answer was NOT "because HQBH knew there would be at least as many people Mei'eiver haYardein before bayis rishon ended". It would also take a notable statistical anomaly for the largest population to grow out of a small initial state, and yet never get a navi telling them anything, etc... GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your micha at aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender, Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:41:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:41:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question Message-ID: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: > Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking around at books and online. I see no > discussion whatsoever on whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, e.g. books > I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an > obligation to return a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? Thanks, Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:54:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:54:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F9E518.5090701@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 05:47 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Because the gemara has to explain why 2-1/2 shevatim needed as many arei > miqlat as the rest of BY. And the answer is because those who settled > for land on that side of the Yardein built a more careless culture. Do you understand that question and answer? How do the population *or* the number of manslaughterers affect the number of arei miklat needed? Surely the only determinant is geography. A manslaughterer has to cover the same distance regardless of how sparse the population, or how careful they are. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 12:37:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:37:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: I was asked to provide a list of (me-possible) mitzvaot which were considered kiyumit. Does anyone know of such a list? GCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 15:07:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:07:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 05:41 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: > >> Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking >> around at books and online. I see no discussion whatsoever on >> whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, >> e.g. books I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that >> addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an obligation to return >> a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? > I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? Shemita applies only to halva'ah, not to she'elah. English uses the same word, but they are very different transactions. It's actually strange that English, which is usually the most precise language, does not distinguish them. A book is a she'elah; the book remains her property, and she expects the borrower to return it. Thus it is not at all affected by shemita. It is also not subject to the prohibition on ribbis; not only is there absolutely nothing wrong with charging people to borrow your stuff, the Torah explicitly endorses it as one of the four forms of shemirah. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 15:29:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:29:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Li Nir'eh Message-ID: <20150916222914.GE26081@aishdas.org> In AhS YD 39:48, RYME draws a conclusion from the fact that the Rama in Darkhei Moshe says "nir'eh li" rather than "veli nir'eh". "Veli nir'eh" implies he is choleiq with the BY? Anyone hear before of a distinction between the two idioms? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 16:20:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:20:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:06:16AM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> I intend to write a post on the meaning of the word "mesorah" as developed :> in RYBS's and RHS's thought as the start of its own thread. See http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/what-does-masorah-mean : And this is where this slide from discussing one slice of the mesorah - what : to do in Yeshiva, to a much wider slice of the mesorah becomes problematic, : because of the implication you have just made which is that what is true of : the section applies to the whole... Well, that's sort of it, isn't it? You're making a distinction between learning in a semichah shiur and learning how to pasqen. I don't think RYBS would. IOW, his whole point about needing mesorah is because he denies your premise. Leshitaso, you pasqen more from lomdus than from codes; or to put it more clearly -- you need a Rashi and a Tosafos to teach you how to fill in between the data points of a Yad or SA. For that matter, this is clearly the AhS's approach to pesaq. And the entire school which runs from Gemara to Rambam vs Rosh (at al) to Tur, BY, SA, Rama, Shach, Taz (et al)... This is how pesaq comes to be. Not from deciding between codes but from using the flow of mesorah to decide between them. Otherwise, shu"t would read like surveys; and even ROY doesn't end with his survey. : RGS comments that he and his father tried to learn meseches Nedarim just : using the meforash, in the absence of Rashi, and were not able to do so : (they were then only able to do it using the Ran, a much later commentary) - : thus demonstrating the point of the post, which is, without Rashi, most of : the Talmud Bavli would be a closed book to most people of average, and even : above average, intelligence (like the Talmud Yerushalmi). Actually, RYBS said that. : This is unquestionably true. : : The Rambam was also aware of this problem (after all he learned all of : Talmud Bavli without Rashi and everybody he knew either did so or tried to : do so). His solution to RGS's problem was to tell RGS and his father, and : people like him, not to try and learn Talmud Bavli, but to learn his, the : Rambam's, Code instead... Not really. His code is mishnah, not gemara. He tells beginners to do their shelish bemiqra in his code. And then you should be able to graduate from it, and from the whole need to divide one's time into thirds. ... : Our mesorah is like Rashi in this regard and not the Rambam (except when it : comes to smicha students). We open up the Talmud Bavli even to children : using Rashi and hundreds of thousands are sitting in yeshiva following : Rashi. Huh? Rashi didn't expect kids to start with Tanakh? Where does this come into the whole discussion? : The problem is that people (it would appear including you) then generalise : from "how we learn" to "how we posken" - which is what really is involved in : the discussion regarding Open O and feminism. And they are not the same : thing at all. Indeed, the fact that smicha students (those that are being : set up to posken) are taught in a totally different way to the more general : way of learning in yeshiva, and one that owes far more to the Rambam than to : Rashi and Tosphos should alert you to that. I do not believe the closing sentence. RYBS was giving one shiur to cover both. But that's RYBS, not my own leanings. I do see lomdus, in which the goal is to justify every opinion, and pesaq, in which the goal is to decide which opinion is most justified, to be different. But again, one doesn't pasqen from codes without the tools learned from lomdus. For that matter, if it's a halakhah pesuqah, one isn't pasqening at all. : What Rashi did was to provide a clear and simple explanation of the words on : the page. : What Tosphos did ... And the Me'iri opened the gemara in a third way. That seems to be a pretty complete taxonomy of parshanim. Then there are codes. Then there is shu"t. And most recently, encyclopedias / collections. ... : On the other hand, RET is correct: :> Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against :> the concept. :> Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own :> interpretation and not rely or be bound by any text. : Although I would modify that statement not to say "and not be bound by any : text", as most at that point agreed that they should be bound by the gemora : (and the Tanach as understood by the mishna/gemora), just not beyond that. The Maharal's actual objection: To decide halakhic questions from the codes without knowing the logic of the ruling was not the intent of these authors [Rambam, Tur, SA, et al]. Had they known that their works would lead to the abandonment of Talmud, they would not have written them. It is better for one to decide on thebasis of the Talmud even though he might err, for a scholar must depend solely on his understanding. As such, he is beloved of God, and preferable tothe one who rules from a code but does not know thereason for the ruling; such a one walks like a blind person. See Nesivos Olam, Nesiv haTorah ch 15. (I invoked the above thought about shelish bemishnah only being for beginners [from Hil TT] and the MT only being a replacement for the hoi palloi to justify the Maharal's statement WRT the Rambam. See RMRabi's and my months-long discussion.) Actually, what I think won the day for the SA was that the SA stopped being a code when they started publishing everyone on the sides. That's what it seems from the Maharal. Presumably his brother, the Yam shel Shelomo, would agree. ... : And RMB replied: :> Actualy, it's only those who have an eye on common practice. After all, we :> discuss machloqesin between Rashi and the Rambam in halakhah lemasseh :> contexts all the time. And if Ashkenazim accepted Rashi's ruling, or one :> found in Tosafos, the Rama has no problem limiting his pesaq to that rather :> than that of the Rif, Rambam or Tur. And had there not been a Rama, then :> some shu"t or parshan could as well. : : But neither Rashi nor Tosphos gave us any method of limiting where psak : went, and indeed the Ri can hold one thing and Rabbanu Tam another within : the same Tosphos. The Codes are far less open... But they only cover specific cases. They don't teach how to extent beyond those cases. So in general, the codes are more open than Rashi, the Ri or Rabbeinu Tam who help you by providing a why that tells you how far to take the point. A code is way open except for the cases they covered. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 16:38:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:38:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: References: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150916233829.GA3601@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 08:01:11PM +0300, RCK via Avodah wrote: : It's a good question, in fact, the Bayis HaGadol (also known as Biur) on : Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer (end of ch. 19) asks this on HaBachur. Since you clearly saw it, and some of us are kind of busy (and about to take leave of my library), could you please summarize the discussion there? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 18:31:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:31:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55FA17E2.6020200@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 07:20 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > That's > what it seems from the Maharal. Presumably his brother, the Yam shel > Shelomo, would agree. The Maharshal was not a brother of the Maharal! AFAIK they were not related. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 19:19:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:19:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel quoted Wikipedia: > ...According to this theory, Prozbul, like > `eruv , is a rabbinic exception > to a rabbinic enactment. Prozbul cannot be used to get around the > Torah commanded shmita and yovel, just as `eruv cannot be used to get > around the fact that Torah prohibited carrying in the public domain. As few days ago, I was thinking about comparisons between Prozbul and Eruv, and it seems clear to me that while Eruv *is* an exception to an enactment, Prozbul is a whole 'nother thing. I think it makes no sense for Prozbul to be "an exception to an enactment", because "why bother?" If the agricultural Shemitta stops being d'Oraisa, then Chazal can certainly enact it on a d'rabanan level. But to do that for Shemitas Kesafim means to legislate the following three things simultaneously: 1) Enact a law requiring cancellation of loans 2) Loans are exempt from cancellation if Prozbul is done 3) For the benefit of both poor and wealthy, everyone should do a Prozbul Why enact such a set of laws? Wouldn't it be far simpler to just let Shmitas Kesafim lapse, and NOT be enacted on a d'rabanan level? Regardless of whether one holds Prozbul to work on a d'Oraisa level, I think everyone can agree that Prozbul was enacted specifically because (as the Torah feared) too many people refrained from lending money as Shmitta got near. Therefore, it seems clear to me that IF Shmitas Kesafim was enacted as a d'rabanan, THEN Prozbul was enacted LATER, and not at the same time. In sharp contrast, I understand that Eruvin was a real "exception to an enactment": Simultaneously to the new law which prohibited carrying in a karmelis, an exception was included exempting certain areas under certain condiitons, allowing the carrying there. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 20:25:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:25:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55FA328E.1080708@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 10:19 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > In sharp contrast, I understand that Eruvin was a real "exception to > an enactment": Simultaneously to the new law which prohibited > carrying in a karmelis, an exception was included exempting certain > areas under certain condiitons, allowing the carrying there. An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. I don't know who prohibited carrying in a karmelis, but there's no reason to suppose it was Shlomo. Shlomo prohibited carrying in a *reshus hayachid with multiple owners*, and instituted eruv as a way around that prohibition. (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 05:01:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:01:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and > thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. My language was not precise. I apologize. What I meant was that prior to the establishment of these d'rabanans, one was allowed to carry from an unwalled non-thoroughfare to either a walled area or to a major thoroughfare. But it was easy to get confused between the general outdoors and a main road, so the general outdoors was made into a Reshus Harabim D'rabanan, with the following exception: Whereas a Reshus Harabim d'Oraisa requires actual walls to allow carrying, for a Reshus Harabim d'Rabanan it is sufficient to surround an area with doorways (tzuras hapesach). > I don't know who prohibited carrying in a karmelis, > but there's no reason to suppose it was Shlomo. Shlomo > prohibited carrying in a *reshus hayachid with multiple > owners*, and instituted eruv as a way around that > prohibition. I'm fuzzy on the history too. The law as I described it above may or may not have been part of the same legislation that RZS described here. What we have here are two distinct - but easily and often confused - d'rabanans within the melacha of hotzaa. It doesn't really matter which came first, or if they came together. My point was that they are excellent examples of an exception being built into the law from the very beginning, as opposed to Prozbul, which (if shmitas kesafim is d'rabanan) was a separate enactment from shmitas kesafim (because if they were done at the same time, the goal of Prozbul could have been acheived even more easily by simply not enacting shmitas kesafim). > (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an > eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple > owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) I'm not sure if there is a rigorous definition of "loophole". (The wikipedia article is a great place to start.) I tend to think that it is a general pejorative to describe any leniency that one has an emotional objection to. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 05:17:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150917121734.GA8567@aishdas.org> Li nir'eh the difference is that by eruv, it was all done in one sitting of beis din -- when they assered a karmeelis, they also promulgated the idea of eruv. IOW, explicitly they only assured a karmelis that didn't have an eruv. (A conscious exemption more than a loophole, as I would use the terms.) Pruzbul was a loophole in an earlier taqanah and that was and promulgated by a later beis di GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 09:58:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:58:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55FAF148.5080904@sero.name> On 09/17/2015 08:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and >> thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. > My language was not precise. I apologize. > > What I meant was that prior to the establishment of these d'rabanans, > one was allowed to carry from an unwalled non-thoroughfare to either > a walled area or to a major thoroughfare. But it was easy to get > confused between the general outdoors and a main road, so the general > outdoors was made into a Reshus Harabim D'rabanan, with the following > exception: Whereas a Reshus Harabim d'Oraisa requires actual walls to > allow carrying, for a Reshus Harabim d'Rabanan it is sufficient to > surround an area with doorways (tzuras hapesach). Mid'oraisa a set of four tzuros hapesach works in reshus harabim too. It was the rabanan who said "ein me'arvim reshus harabim bekach", and only allowed it in a karmelis. Whether they did this at the same time that they forbade carrying in a karmelis, I don't know. My impression is that it was later, because the first we hear of it is in a braisa, and it's subject to machlokes, whereas the concept of karmelis is taken for granted by all. > My point was that they are excellent examples of an exception being > built into the law from the very beginning, as opposed to Prozbul, > which (if shmitas kesafim is d'rabanan) was a separate enactment from > shmitas kesafim Yes, this is clear. > (because if they were done at the same time, the goal of Prozbul > could have been acheived even more easily by simply not enacting > shmitas kesafim). You don't need to go there. It's obvious that shmitas kesafim midrabanan preceded Hillel, because if it hadn't then how could he have observed the problem that resulted? Clearly it long predated him, presumably all the way back to the end of shmita d'oraisa, or at least to the return from Bavel. But the *efficacy* of pruzbul is not Hillel's takana at all. It's de'oraisa (Sifri, quoted by Tosfos Gittin 36a dh Mi Ika Midi) >> (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an >> eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple >> owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) > I'm not sure if there is a rigorous definition of "loophole". > (The wikipedia article is a great place to start.) I tend to > think that it is a general pejorative to describe any leniency > that one has an emotional objection to. The WP article is seriously defective (WP:OR for one thing) and needs to extensive a rewrite for me to bother with. A loophole is built into a wall; it's *meant* to be there. There's nothing pejorative about it. An exception to a law is a case where the law doesn't apply; a loophole is where the law *does* apply, and this is how it applies. It's not that an eruv permits one to carry in a RHY with multiple owners, it's that an eruv turns it (for this purpose) into a RHY with a single owner. Similarly eruv techumin doesn't allow you to walk more than 2000 amos from your residence, it merely moves your residence. That's not an exception, it's a loophole. If you want an example of an exception, look to eruv tavshilin. The chachamim, whether because of kevod shabbos or kevod yomtov, forbade the ha'arama of cooking for guests whom you aren't really expecting, *unless* you make an eruv. The eruv is an exception built into the original takana. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 03:33:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 13:33:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "I think it makes no sense for Prozbul to be "an exception to an enactment", because "why bother?" If the agricultural Shemitta stops being d'Oraisa, then Chazal can certainly enact it on a d'rabanan level. But to do that for Shemitas Kesafim means to legislate the following three things simultaneously: 1) Enact a law requiring cancellation of loans 2) Loans are exempt from cancellation if Prozbul is done 3) For the benefit of both poor and wealthy, everyone should do a Prozbul Why enact such a set of laws? Wouldn't it be far simpler to just let Shmitas Kesafim lapse, and NOT be enacted on a d'rabanan level?" If you look at the sugya of pruzbul (Gittin 36a-b) these points are all addressed: The Gemara starts out with the fact that Hillel was mesaken pruzbul. Then the Gemara asks how could he do that if the Torah (shemitas kesafim) cancels the loan? Abaye answers that Hillel only made his takana of pruzbul when shemittas kesafim was derabbanon. The Gemara then asks how could the Chachamim be mesaken shemmitas kesafim derabbanon if min hatorah the lender has to pay back the loan? Rava answers hefker beis din hefker. We see clearly from the Gemara that the historical progression was 1. Shemmita ceased being min hatorah 2. Chachamim were mesaken shemitta miderabbonon including shemittas kesafim 3. After shemitta derabbonon was already established Hillel saw that people were not lending money and therefore was mesaken pruzbul In other words these things did not happen simultaneously, pruzbul was enacted after shemmitas kesafim was already established. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 06:03:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 09:03:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] An Important Clarification Regarding Some Relevant Halachos for Yom Kippur Message-ID: <20150921130412.485F3183A12@nexus.stevens.edu> [] Some Relevant Halachos for Yom Kippur: A Clarification The following is an excerpt from the article on selected halachos relative to Yom Kippur: "At the conclusion of Yom Kippur, one may not do melachah (labor prohibited on Shabbos/ Yom Kippur) until one recites (or hears) Havdalah over wine (or the equivalent) or recites A ttah Chonantanu in Ma'ariv, or says Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol. Although reciting any of these allows one to do melachah, one may not eat until after reciting (or hearing) Havdalah over wine (or the equivalent). Accordingly, married men should hurry home after Ma'ariv on Motza'ei Yom Kippur to recite Havdalah so that their wives will be able to eat." Clarification : Following the conclusion of Yom Kippur, after one recites Attah Chonantanu in Ma'ariv or says Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol, one may drink water even before reciting (or hearing) Havdalah. Thus (for example), a woman whose husband is delayed in coming home after Ma'ariv on Motza'ei Yom Kippur may recite Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol after nightfall and drink water before hearing Havdalah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 15:18:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 23:18:00 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> Message-ID: A summary of Pruzbul I have in front of me (written by Rabbi D Tugendhaft, London) says: "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" On 16 September 2015 at 23:07, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 09/16/2015 05:41 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > >> A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: >> >> Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking >>> around at books and online. I see no discussion whatsoever on >>> whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, >>> e.g. books I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that >>> addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an obligation to return >>> a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? >>> >> > I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? >> > > > Shemita applies only to halva'ah, not to she'elah. English uses the > same word, but they are very different transactions. It's actually > strange that English, which is usually the most precise language, does > not distinguish them. > > A book is a she'elah; the book remains her property, and she expects > the borrower to return it. Thus it is not at all affected by shemita. > It is also not subject to the prohibition on ribbis; not only is there > absolutely nothing wrong with charging people to borrow your stuff, > the Torah explicitly endorses it as one of the four forms of shemirah. > > -- > Zev Sero GChT > zev at sero.name > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 06:53:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:53:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Haqeil Message-ID: <55FC174B.6090900@zahav.net.il> Anyone here understand sound? Assuming best case scenarios (loud voices, no background noise, good hearing), how many people could possibly hear the king read at Haqeil? It would seem that there is no way the king could project his voice so that most could hear him (????). If few actually came to the tekes, OK, but if most people came how could it possibly work? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 07:57:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:57:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] From Medieval Ashkenaz Techinah Supplication to Iconic Segulah: The Chasidic Transformation of G-d of Abraham Message-ID: <20150918145828.8F30C183A9B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/pwg839c From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 10:20:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 20:20:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] vort on teshuvah Message-ID: 1) Rambam in hlichot teshuva (7:6) discusses the effect of teshuva yesterday (emesh) i was far from G-d hated ... and now I am beloved RYBS asks why the Rambam here uses such poetic language in particular using "emesh" instead of "etmol" . He asnwers that "etmol" indicates a 24 hour period while "emesh" can be a fraction of second between being hated by G-d and being loved by G-d 2) Someone who marries on a woman on condition that he is a Tzaddik the marriage is valid even if it is known that he is a rasha perhaps (shema) he did teshuva. Someone in the shiur noted that "shema" read backwards is "emesh" . Meaning that rasha who proposed marriage did teshuva a fraction of a second before the proposal -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 10:15:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 13:15:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reciting 100 Brochos Daily Message-ID: <20150918171648.24C57181A25@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/njmnbgn From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 15:12:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shmuel Weidberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:12:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? Message-ID: Hello everybody. I haven't been active on this list in a long time. I just had a look around the internet to see if there was anything new with the Kosher Switch, and I remembered an issue with it that I haven't seen discussed anywhere. The makers say that there is a certain amount of randomization involved in whether the light flashes into the detector and whether the detector detects the light. There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create random numbers. They create pseudo-random numbers which means they take a seed number and perform a complex calculation on it to get the next number, which looks like it bears no relation to the first number, but which in fact is completely determined by the first number. Computer can get real random numbers, by generating the seed by looking at actions that take place that the computer cannot predict such as when somebody presses a key on a keyboard, or when some other sensor is activated. Alternatively, they can get random numbers from a special piece of hardware that is designed to physically make random numbers. However, I believe such pieces of hardware are quite specialized and if there actually was one in the switch it would be advertised. In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. Regards, Shmuel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 10:59:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:59:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> Message-ID: <56004574.4040004@sero.name> On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour > because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in > its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to she'elah. Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 11:29:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:29:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. ------------------------------- Yes, much as a complete understanding of the physics involved would determine the roll of the dice as it left one?s hand. Yet we call this ?random? (and iirc statisticians can?t prove any set of numbers was truly random, only that they appear likely so. Gct 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 22:35:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 01:35:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <063901d0f4f8$8c2cd700$a4868500$@gmail.com> R? Shmuel Weidberg: The makers say that there is a certain amount of randomization involved in whether the light flashes into the detector and whether the detector detects the light. There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create random numbers. They create pseudo-random numbers which means they take a seed number and perform a complex calculation on it to get the next number, which looks like it bears no relation to the first number, but which in fact is completely determined by the first number. In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. --------------------------- Isn?t the lomdus of their approach that you, the person flicking the switch, doesn?t DO anything because you?re only covering a light pulse without knowing when it will come next? So it doesn?t really matter if it?s random, it matters that you don?t know when it will next illuminate. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 07:04:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:04:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56004574.4040004@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> Message-ID: <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. On 9/21/2015 8:59 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > >> "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour >> because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in >> its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" > > Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to > she'elah. > Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 11:00:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:00:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> Message-ID: <56019748.5060907@sero.name> On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 9/21/2015 8:59 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: >>> "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour >>> because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in >>> its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" >> Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to she'elah. >> Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. > But a book, you return the same one. Usually. Not usually, always. There are two utterly different kinds of transaction for which the English language uses the same words: loan, borrow, lend. This is surprising, since usually English is a more precise language than most, but it is so. She'elah: I give you my property, with permission to use it. It remains my property, and you must return it on the agreed-upon date, or when I ask for it, in reasonable shape given the time you had it and the use to which you put it. In other words, in slightly worse shape than when I gave it to you. I may do this as a favour, but there is no mitzvah for me to do so. I am entitled to charge you for it, in which case the transaction is called "sechirus", or in English, "rental". Shemitah does not apply to this transaction. Common examples: a book, a car, a tool, a pen. Halva'ah: I give you my property, and it becomes yours. I do not expect it back, ever. On the agreed-upon date, or when I ask, you must give me something exactly like what I gave you. Since you are a Jew, I have a mitzvah to do this as a favour for you, and am forbidden from charging you anything for it, and you are forbidden from paying me anything for it, in any form. Shemitah applies. Common examples: $100, a cup of sugar, a rubber band. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 12:48:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 22:48:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56019748.5060907@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> <56019748.5060907@sero.name> Message-ID: <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > >> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. > > Not usually, always. Several years ago, we borrowed a book from my brother-in-law. A while later, we wanted to return it, but we couldn't find it. So we bought another identical copy and returned that in its place. So I'm going to stick with "usually." Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 19:11:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 22:11:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> <56019748.5060907@sero.name> <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> Message-ID: <56035BCF.7000400@sero.name> On 09/23/2015 03:48 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> >>> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. >> >> Not usually, always. > > Several years ago, we borrowed a book from my brother-in-law. A while > later, we wanted to return it, but we couldn't find it. So we bought > another identical copy and returned that in its place. So I'm going > to stick with "usually." Your obligation was to return the exact same book. Once that became impossible, you became liable as a shomer; a shomer sachar and a socher are liable for geneiva va'aveida, so at that point you became liable to pay the value of the lost book, and that sum became a milveh, and thus subject to shemitah and ribbis. -- Zev Sero Gut Yomtov zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 12:09:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:09:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a > random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the > time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it > simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. Do you know whether the Star-K-certified "Sabbath mode" ovens use pseudo-random numbers or true random numbers? (Thermal noise would do fine; and many processors, even some embedded ones, have such a random number source.) --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 12:03:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 15:03:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150924190308.GA28981@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 06:12:07PM -0400, Shmuel Weidberg via Avodah wrote: : I just had a look around the internet to see if there was anything new with : the Kosher Switch... : There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't : computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create : random numbers... I don't think this particular distinction makes a halachic difference. The question is whether the person doing the action has a reasonable chance of predicting the outcome. Actual mathematical randomness might not be at issue. As long as I can't know what my flipping the switch would do, I would think it should all be the same. (Think of it as a first cousin to ignoring water bears and other zooplankton that can only be seen with a magnifying glass when drinking water.) ... : Computer can get real random numbers, by generating the seed by looking at : actions that take place that the computer cannot predict such as when : somebody presses a key on a keyboard, or when some other sensor is : activated... Actually, that's not really random, just less predictable because the seed generation is outside the machine. A specially designed can get truly random numbers by using quantum effects. Such as picking up on the brownian motion of molecules due to heat. But really, I don't think we have to worry about the difference between "random" and "not humanly predictable". Also a side note: I might point out that there are numerous hashkafos in which every event, or at least every event that impacts a human being, is subject to hashgachah peratis. And thus, nothing we ever experience is actually random. Or alternatively, that the word "random" needs a different translation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 14:20:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:20:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shemittah beyond Shemittah Message-ID: <20150924212050.B6B10182CED@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://cor.ca/view/720/shemittah_beyond_shemittah.html From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 14:37:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:37:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shemitta Sheilos: Using Arbah Minim of Sheviis - Parts I and II Message-ID: <20150924213723.28661183A0D@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://ohr.edu/6522 and http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6527 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 25 00:32:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:32:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Buying minim from a child Message-ID: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> When I was in yeshiva, we were told to refrain from buying any of the four minim from a child. If the product was stolen, a child can't take possession via shinu reshut or ma'aseh. Therefore the theft falls on the buyer and his minim are pasul. Thinking about during my jog, I had a few questions: 1) Is this a real chashash or simply are we trying to cover all halachik corners? Meaning, if I do buy from a child do I really have anything to worry about? And if it isn't a real concern, then why am I not being oveir on "chosheid b'kesheirim"? 2) If it is a real chashash (the presence of stolen minim in the market) than why buy from an adult? Buying stolen goods is also a sin. At the very least, one can only buy from a place with a heksher. 3) Or can one? Can we assume that the kashrut agencies really check were their minim come from? 4) Who determines if there is a significant presence of stolen goods in the market every year? I assume that the amount of stolen goods has to be above a certain minimum for there to be a real issue? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 21:44:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 00:44:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur Message-ID: In the case where an ill person is eating on Yom Kippur, the Magen Avraham 618:10 brings varying views on whether he needs Lechem Mishne, whether he includes Yaaleh V'yavo in bentching, and whether he must make Kiddush. Kaf Hachaim 618:60 repeats much of that, with some changes and additions, and in 618:61 he points out that the same would apply to children and women who have recently given birth. Similar things appear in the other nosei keilim on that se'if. I got the impression that the pros and cons on these questions were based mostly on practical and halachic concerns, such as whether or not these halachos were ever enacted for Yom Kippur. I'd like to know if the *historical* side is discussed anywhere. I'm focusing now specifically on Lechem Mishne, and I'm now ignoring Kiddush and Birkas Hamazon. Here are my questions of historical fact: During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the children eat? There are several possible answers I can think of: Perhaps mon fell on Yom Kippur, but only at the homes where where children or yoldos live. Perhaps mon did not fall on Yom Kippur, but those homes got a double portion on Erev Yom Kippur. Perhaps neither of the above happened, and the children and yoldos had to make do with whatever other food might have been available. (This possibility seems odd to me, as it throws a curve ball into the whole "40 years of miracles" idea: Exactly once each year, the children had no choice but to eat non-miraculous food, and the day for this chinuch was Yom Kippur.) I suppose I should also include another possibility, which is that everyone received their normal supply of mon on Yom Kippur just like on every other day, but that seems like quite a waste. Perhaps they ate it on Motzaei Yom Kippur. In which case I'd wonder if only a half-portion might have fallen that morning. I also question whether Hashem would have placed such a michshol at the doorways, leaving their mon in the reshus harabim. Does anyone know of any Midrashim or other sources that might talk about this? Akiva Miller (PS: I only asked about children and yoldos in the midbar, and I did not ask about other cholim. That's because I think that in the miraculous Midbar, no one was ever sick, and no one died except on the night of Tisha B'Av. If anyone wants to discuss this, please begin a new thread.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 20:33:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ken Bloom via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 23:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? Message-ID: Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in depth than Sefer HaToda'ah. Does anyone know of something analgous to how the Maharal's Gevurot Hashem explains Pesach, or have other recommendations about the holiday? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 22:19:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 01:19:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: : Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better : understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully : understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in : depth than Sefer HaToda'ah. Does anyone know of something analgous to how : the Maharal's Gevurot Hashem explains Pesach, or have other recommendations : about the holiday? RYHutner's Pachad Yitzchaq. (Although the volumes are arranged around Shabbos & YT, and thus would seem particular to those topics, I would consider it one of the canonical Jewish philoosphy works of the 20th cent. Not to be skipped by anyone serious about learning hashkafah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 30 12:53:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:53:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Whole Hallel on Sukkos Message-ID: <20150930195335.GA18194@aishdas.org> I just noticed something that is likely to be meaningful. We say whole Hallel every day of Sukkos because the qorban mussaf differs each day. The mussaf differs by the number of cows, which total 70 across the YT. The 70 cows are keneged the 70 nations. Among the things we would have otherwise skipped was "Lamah yomeru hagoyim..." So... Because we bring qorbanos on behalf of the 70 nations over the course of Sukkos, we pray for their abandonment of AZ on each day of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 30 13:03:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:03:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Buying minim from a child In-Reply-To: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> References: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <560C400E.6080206@sero.name> On 09/25/2015 03:32 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > When I was in yeshiva, we were told to refrain from buying any of the > four minim from a child. If the product was stolen, a child can't > take possession via shinu reshut or ma'aseh. Therefore the theft > falls on the buyer and his minim are pasul. > > Thinking about during my jog, I had a few questions: > > 1) Is this a real chashash or simply are we trying to cover all > halachik corners? Meaning, if I do buy from a child do I really have > anything to worry about? And if it isn't a real concern, then why am > I not being oveir on "chosheid b'kesheirim"? > > 2) If it is a real chashash (the presence of stolen minim in the > market) than why buy from an adult? Buying stolen goods is also a > sin. At the very least, one can only buy from a place with a heksher. > > 3) Or can one? Can we assume that the kashrut agencies really check > were their minim come from? > > 4) Who determines if there is a significant presence of stolen goods > in the market every year? I assume that the amount of stolen goods > has to be above a certain minimum for there to be a real issue? The chashash is not for actually stolen goods, but that the land on which the minim were grown was stolen hundreds or thousands of years ago, and since karka eina nigzeles it still belongs to the rightful heirs of the original owner. Thus the person who harvests the minim is technically the gazlan, ye'ush happened a long time ago, so we need a shinuy reshus, which happens when you buy from the "gazlan", but not if he's a katan. If he bought it from someone else then this problem doesn't exist, but there's another problem: it won't be shelachem, which it needs to be for the first day. This is also why one should not use minim one cut oneself, but rather sell those and buy ones that someone else cut. All of this only applies in countries where land title is uncertain; where it can be traced directly back to a valid kibush milchama, there is no problem. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 07:15:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 10:15:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <5593124A.2040905@sero.name> References: <20150630.152626.19374.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> <5593124A.2040905@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150701141526.GB24797@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 06:03:54PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/30/2015 03:26 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : >>From what I've seen, it is NOT said even if a minyan says Birkas Hamazon, : : Why would it? When a minyan says Birkhas haMazon, the zimun changes, it creates a minyan one may not break (by benching on their own or with a normal zimun), but no Qaddish. When a minyan says Pesuqei deZimra, nothing changes, there is no specific issur on leaving in the middle, and yet it is closed with Qaddish (even if you lose the minyan during PdZ). I think RAM's question why is quite fair. It would be nice to think the minhag follows some well-defined rule. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 05:35:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:35:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bio of RSRH Message-ID: <20150701123548.93E2D182CC3@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/p5h866u From this URL. When Rav Yisroel Salanter read a copy of The Nineteen Letters in 1873, he said that it should be translated into Russian and Hebrew. He also remarked, "Is there a Gan Eden big enough for Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch?" See the above URL for more. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 14:33:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:33:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakarat Hatov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 03:56:25PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Does Hakarat Hatov engender a measurable "liability" (e.g. require a : marginally greater action) between the recipient and the provider of the : "Tov", or is saying "Thank you, I appreciate it" the only requirement? Moshe isn't the trigger for the first makkos because he "owed" the Ye'or and the sand for saving him in the past. As Chazal put it (BQ 92b) WRT "velo sesaeiv Mitzri ki ger hayisa ve'artzo", it justified the common saying "bira deshasis mineih, lo tashdi beih kala" (into a well from which you once drank, don't throw clods of dirt). That said, I don't think reducing gratitude to *nothing more than* a favor-economics is healthy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness, micha at aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom. http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 14:37:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:37:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakarat Hatov In-Reply-To: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> References: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150701213753.GA24874@aishdas.org> PS: I started with the aggadic story and didn't say why I opened with a medrash rather than a gemara. The Nile and the sand wasn't actors. Moshe didn't really owe them anything. It's like "not embarassing" the challah by covering it. Apparently the notion of repaying a favor is so important, HQBH expects us to practice it for a middah exercise even when the other side isn't a real 2nd party. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 12:08:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 15:08:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish with mixed seating Message-ID: Following up upon my earlier post about the permissibility of saying the *kaddish *of a *siyyum* at a dinner with mixed seating. I spoke to RIETS RY last week and he said that we only require *mechitzah* in a *Shul*, based upon the *Gemara* in *Succos*, which requires separate seating at a *shul*. This is clear from the original textual source of mechitzah, the Gemara in the fifth perek of Succos, that the basis of *mechitzah* is the *Bais ha-Mikdash*. As our Synagogues are modeled after the Bais ha-Mikdash, we apply the principals underlying the *Gemara* in Succos to our Shuls. (Similarly, *Tosfos* justifies the practice of bringing children to Shul using the model of *Hakhel*.) As the Kaddish for a Siyyum has nothing do to with a Shul there is no need for separate seating. I also spoke to one of the Dayanim in our community he did not even think that saying *kaddish* with mixed seating was an issue as he thought that mixed seating was only an issue in a *Shul*. Others told me the same (i.e. that only a *shul* requires separation) in the name of Rav Schachter *shlit?a* . However, I saw Rav Herschel Schachter *shlit?a* at shacharis this week so I asked him my question. He responded that it would be better if they would have the *siyyum* before the dinner. I asked why and he responded ?*Davar She?bekedushah*?. I asked him so why do people recite *Kedushah* after a *siyyum* with mixed seating. And he responded, ?Nu, Nu?. (Which is a common response from Rav Schachter to questions of that sort.) Interestingly enough the Gemara in Succos brings a ?proof? for separation of men and women from a non-?*Davar She?bekedushah*? the funeral in *Zecharyah*. Of course we are not discussing whether a particular practice is good or bad or even ?best practices?, but rather whether it is required or not. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 08:32:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 11:32:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] From Succot to Moshiach Message-ID: Ma tovu ohalecha: ?Tents? are temporary and refer to olam hazeh ?.mishk?nosecha: ?Dwelling places? refers to olam haba. In other words, we are first in the antechamber, the temporary abode, which tents symbolize; then, once we leave our temporary homes, we hopefully ascend to our permanent ?dwelling place.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 14:44:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 17:44:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Historical Bil'am Message-ID: <20150703214448.GA32213@aishdas.org> H/T RYGB, see http://www.livius.org/source-content/deir-alla-inscription He asks on his blog: Why isn't this more widely known? The full article includes an image of the instription and a complete translation. This is just the opening. :-)BBii! -Micha Livius.org Articles on ancient history Deir 'Alla Inscription Deir 'Alla Inscription: inscription, found in the Iron Age town of Deir 'Alla, mentioning the Biblical prophet Balaam. Deir 'Alla is situated in western Jordan, about eight kilometers east of the river Jordan, and about a kilometer north of the Jabbok. The excavators found a very large Bronze Age sanctuary that had suffered in the period of wide-spread destruction in the thirteenth/twelfth centuries. Unlike other settlements, which were abandoned, Deir 'Alla remained in use well into the fifth century BCE. That is remarkable. Even more remarkable, however, was the discovery of a painted text that contained a prophecy by Balaam... (The site of Deir 'Alla is, technically, on the [11]Ammonite side of the river Jabbok.) The text refers to divine visions and signs of future destruction, in a language that is close to that of the Bible. For example, we read about the "Shaddai gods", an expression that is close to the Biblical El Shaddai, "God Almighty". On the other hand, the setting is not monotheistic: we read, for instance, about a gathering of a group of gods. The word elohim, which in the Bible (although plural) refers to one God, refers to more than one god in the Deir 'Alla text. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 15:16:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 18:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> In a recent blog post, R' Aryeh Klapper (Cc-ed) writes http://moderntoraleadership.wordpress.com/2015/07/03/chok-mishpat-and-obergefell Imagine pre-snake Adam and Eve walking into the Jewish camp. They would not praise the Jews for their modesty, and they would have no idea why the tents' openings did not face each other. For Bilaam to praise the Jews' virtue, even in the context of his deep and unremitting hatred, he had to be capable of understanding that modesty was a relevant evaluative category. What would it take for Bilaam to have this capacity? Unlike the prelapsarian original couple, he would have to be conscious of his own sexuality, and experientially aware that sexuality could be associated with shame. He might nonetheless choose exhibitionism for himself, and for his culture. He might decide that sexual shame is the root of neurosis and dedicate himself to its cultural eradication. But he would understand what he was eradicating. Perhaps there would even be moments when he regretted his victory. My tentative suggestion is that the Torah teaches us here that there is a value in making our moral premises intelligible even to our enemies; this is part of our mission to be the light of the nations. I want to be clear that this value is not pragmatic, and that we are not safer, or less likely to be hated, if we are understood. Like Bilaam, the world may use its understanding of our virtue to learn how best to undermine us. It is simply part of our job to enable as much as we can of humanity to make informed moral choices. I suggest further that perhaps we can understand the Seven Noachide Commandments as intended not to provide a formal code of behavior, but rather to identify a set of moral premises. Perhaps our mission is particularly to make those premises universally intelligible. Making premises intelligible is not accomplished through rational argumentation. Rational arguments depend on mutually intelligible premises. ... One core premise: let us identify it with the Noachide commandment against forbidden sexual relationships, or arayot -- that is no longer intelligible to many Americans is that sexuality can be evaluated in nonutilitarian terms, that a sexual act can be wrong even if no one gets hurt. We have replaced sexual morality with sexual ethics. Conversations on topics such as chastity, masturbation, and adultery are wholly changed from what they were even two decades ago, and tracts from back then can seem less contemporary than prehistoric cave art. There are many reasons that traditional rationales in the area of sexuality have moved rapidly from self-evident to unintelligible. Here are two: (1) Effective birth control and in vitro fertilization have broken the connection between intercourse and procreation. It is no longer self-evident to speak of intercourse as potential recreation, or as inevitably associated with the risk of pregnancy. (2) Many human beings with homosexual orientations have told compelling personal stories of pain and alienation. In the secular world, the natural reaction to a premise's social unintelligibility is the repeal of any laws that depend on it. In the Orthodox world, where immediate repeal is rarely a viable option, one reasonable reaction is what I call "chokification," or the declaration that laws that once depended on the now-unintelligible premise should be regarded as either beyond human comprehension or else as arbitrary rules intended to train us to obedience. Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. I utilized the following "Lonely Man of Faith" based idea to open "The Talk" with my sons.I wanted them to understand the sanctity of sex, so before getting into the mechanics of it, I tried to open by setting a religious context. As far as I can tell, the Torah gives two purposes for marriage: 1- In Genesis 1, the goal is to procreate and raise children. This is Adam I's drive "to fill the earth and conqure it", his place at the end of a sequence of creation -- above the animals, but more quatitatively than qualitatively. 2- In Genesis 2, the goal is to reunite the two halves, Adam and Eve, who were originally created as a single unit. Adam II seeks redemption through community. In this case, romantic love. Sex in its role of making a bond between people. And therefore a problem of premarital sex is that one thereby learns to minimize the bond thereby created. It weakens that function of sex, so it won't be as effective once you are married. Either alone -- procreation or the romantic reunification of the two halves of the original Adam (which again, I mean psychologically, not mystically) would be sufficient reason to justify sexual intimacy. But without either, it's the pursuit of our mamalian drives for insufficient reason. The objectification (or at least animalization) of the self. In order to buy into #2, one needs to believe that gender (as opposed to biological sex) is an innate set of existential and psychological differences, and not just a role imposed by convention. And therefore Adam and Eve are distinct and different halves of a whole. That this is an existential and deep-psychological truth, which will hold no matter how much society attempts to change those roles and bury gender differences. Notice that despite the social trends that brought the Supreme Court to conclude last week that traditional sexual morality (in contrast to sexual ethics) is irrational and thus prejudicial bias, the above implies that the Torah's ban on homosexuality can be explained in mishpat terms. On a different note, the shift from morality to ethics is typical for postmodernism. When all narratives are equally valid there is no way to insist there is an absolute moral code. Never mind determine what it contains. Therefore, one encourages a freedom to act as an end itself, rather than as a means to greatness. (Which is a logical progression from the American legal system, the concept of rights-based law taken to its extreme. It's notable that a society that values a "maavir al midosav" would not laud taking rights as far as all that. As a legal philosphy, though, it is the best we've come up with to avoid "ish es rei'eihu chaim bal'o", which is the central role of a secular gov't, no?) However, the lack of establishment of a common moral code is itself damaging to society. No one private violation of moral code, whatever the society holds it to be, will necessarily harm others. But living in a society that doesn't promote morality, that doesn't work toward aiming that autonomy toward some higher end, is harmful. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 15:20:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:20:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> References: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is the purpose to make things even worse? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 16:28:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 19:28:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> References: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150705232816.GA29598@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:20:08PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. : Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a : moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is : the purpose to make things even worse? As I quoted from RAK, because they classically were not considered chuqim. Until our contemporaries took the issue from sexual morality to sexual ethics, these truths were considered self-evident. It's the choqification of dinei arayos that's inauthentic. In any case, since one doesn't pasqen from taamei hamitzvos, the din is the same either way. Nothhing in such exploration can "make things even worse". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 15:57:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:57:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon Message-ID: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> In Pirkei Avot, Hillel HaZaken says: "Be among the talmidim of Aharon, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them close to the Torah." I don't get it. I honestly don't. If we see a bunch of Jews who don't know anything about Judaism, shouldn't we try and get them to keep the mitzvot? If you know that they're more likely to violate the mitzvot if they don't know, it's it our responsibility to teach them what God wants of them? The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this subject. I look at gay people and I see them overwhelmingly part of the nihilism of the left, but I don't think being gay automatically makes people like that. But what else are Jews supposed to do when they're being pushed away from the Torah? Jews have neshamas that were at Sinai. A Jew who was raised without Torah has an empty space inside that's just *begging* to be filled with Torah. But because of the wrongheaded idea that gay people have to either pretend they aren't gay, or they must be ostracized from the Torah community, they wind up filling that empty space with the even emptier slogans of the left. Because of the belief held by so many frum Jews that gay people who acknowledge themselves to be gay are simply *incapable* or unwilling to keep mitzvot, we, as a community *deliberately* withhold the Torah from them. It makes no sense to me. I mean, worst case, you tell someone gay, "There are things you aren't allowed to do according to Jewish law. Are you willing to abide by that?" But we aren't even doing that. We're assuming that the answer is going to be no, and by so assuming, we're *making that happen*. At 120, when you're standing before the Kisei HaKavod and you're asked why you pushed so many Jews away from His Torah, I wonder what you'll answer. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 17:34:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 20:34:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon In-Reply-To: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> References: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150706003423.GB14365@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:57:04PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: : In Pirkei Avot, Hillel HaZaken says: "Be among the talmidim of Aharon, : loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them close : to the Torah." : : I don't get it. I honestly don't. If we see a bunch of Jews who don't : know anything about Judaism, shouldn't we try and get them to keep the : mitzvot?... First, a minor correction. Hillel says "berios", or as in the tradition "loving people and bringing them..." IOW, not only kiruv, but bringing non-Jews to NNoachidism. : The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since : the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of : the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't : get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so : many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this : subject. I'm not so sure. The SCOTUS ruled in favor of a right that is based on the idea that believing the Torah's position about homosexuality is bigotry. But in any case, it's like any other rule of tochachah... You need to tell them what they're doing is wrong n a way that gets constructive change. The usual rule for when you should shut up is "mutav sheyihyu shogegim", but here nearly everyone involved know what we pasqen it's assur. So, you're not turning anyone into meizidim. : It makes no sense to me. I mean, worst case, you tell someone gay, : "There are things you aren't allowed to do according to Jewish law. : Are you willing to abide by that?" But we aren't even doing that. : We're assuming that the answer is going to be no, and by so assuming, : we're *making that happen*. But the US law in question is itself to permit something you aren't allowed to do in Jewish law, and in the Minchas Chinukh's opinion -- nor in Noachide law. The general problem of people hating the sinner rather than the sin isn't limited to this one. Perhaps here things are more extreme because the accusers do not attempt to separate an instinctive loathing from actual halachic concerns. Either we should be getting similar bile when discussing business cheats, or we should be getting quiet on both fronts. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 18:46:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 01:46:19 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Alternate texts for the Prayer for the Government Message-ID: <20150705.214619.1506.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> R' Mordechai Harris wrote: > Here's the one I shard last time from the De Sola Pool Siddur. > www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/deSolaPoolPrayerForGovernment.pdf R' Simon Montagu asked: > Can you also share the publication details and/or title page of > this siddur? What I know as the De Sola Pool Siddur is not the > same as in this link. I have ... RMH's link was for "The Traditional Prayer Book for Sabbath and Festivals", the official siddur of the RCA, published in 1960. A very different, longer version appears in many other siddurim, with rather minor differences: The Hirsch Siddur, published by Feldheim The Authorized Daily Prayer Book by Chief Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz The Daily Prayer Book by Philip Birnbaum The Koren Siddur by Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks and in the new Nehalel beShabbat by Michael Haruni (website and free sample at nehalel.com) I was going to remark that I have found this prayer only in siddurim that have an English translation, but is not correct. First, it would seem to appear in whichever siddur the Hirsch was adapted from. But moreover, this same tefila also appears in my copy of "Siddur Eishei Yisrael al pi daas Maran HaGra." (I know there are many siddurim with similar names; all I can tell about this is that the title page lists no publisher, only "Yerushalayim 5735".) The Nehalel siddur is worth noting for this thread. I have not seen this siddur to be too widespread or popular (yet - it's only from 2013), but I'd like to point out that it has TWO versions of this prayer. The version which is very similar to the others is on a page marked "In the United States of America:". But the following page is marked "In the United Kingdom and Commonwealth:", and is markedly different -- but not nearly as different as the De Sola Pool version. This makes me stop, and wonder, and consider the fact that although my Hertz siddur and my Sacks siddur are both of British authorship, they both used American publishers (Bloch and OU Press respectively), and were possibly designed for an American audience. Which leads me to ask those of the chevra who currently reside in the Commonwealth: What version (if any) is said in your shuls? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5599de50e59b55e504270st04vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 06:29:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:29:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VBM-SICHOT75 - 41: The Philosophical Principles of Inheritance Message-ID: <20150706132902.GB31051@aishdas.org> Just because taamei hamitzvos is supposed to be one of the core topics of this email group's host organization.... BTW, my grandfather a"h was named Pinechas after this week's sedra, his bar mitzvah parashah. When it was time to name my oldest, I checked with my uncle how his name appeared on their kesuvah, as their mesader qiddushin was a key rav in my grandfather's life. (R/Dr Mirsky zt"l met two teenage boys coming off the boat and took them under his wing. My grandfather and great-uncle then earned enough to bribe the rest of the family's way out of Litta before the Nazis came to power.) Anyway, it seems R/Dr Mirsky held my grandfather's name was Pinechas, pei-yud-nun-ches-samekh, as it is spelled in the chumash (ignoring the size of the yud as usually written in the beginning of the parashah). And thus the sheva is na, Pinechas - not Pinchas. If you want to make a derashah out of a Mitzri name, it's Pi Nachas, not Pen Chas. Reason for this tangent... I would have expected "Gushies" to get the sheva in the parashah name right. After all, they have the patach under the reish in Parashat. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov VBM-SICHOT75 - 41: Parashat Pinchas Sicha of HaRav Mosheh Lichtenstein Adapted by Motti Guttman Translated by David Strauss Yeshivat Har Etzion "In Place of Your Fathers Shall Be Your Children": The Philosophical Principles of Inheritance The concept of inheritance arises in a number of contexts in the Torah, most prominently in Parashat Pinchas. It is also the central topic of the eighth chapter of Massekhet Bava Batra, Yesh Nochalin. Naturally, the discussion of the laws of inheritance focuses largely on the financial matters at issue among the heirs, leading to the discussion and clarification of a number of fundamental questions regarding monetary law. For that reason, chapter Yesh Nochalin has an important place in the world of Choshen Mishpat. However, the issue of inheritance is not merely monetary. The yerusha (inheritance) is not simply money that we have to decide what to do with. Of course, it is preferable to award the estate of the deceased to his surviving relatives, and not to the state or the income tax authorities; the gemara itself notes, "Should the town collector be the heir?" (Bava Batra 110b). This, however, is not the essence of the laws of inheritance. Inheritance -- Breaching the Boundaries of the Present At the heart of the concept of inheritance lies a significant principle: that of permanence and continuity. When Avraham Avinu entered the Land, he was forced to pitch his tent in different places and live the life of a wanderer. In contrast, the idea of inheritance establishes that a person should not live a life of impermanence. Moshe expresses the desire for a state of permanence in his words to Israel at the plains of Moav: "For you are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance" (Devarim 12:9). This verse was also expounded as referring to the Temple. The idea of inheritance, in this context, creates existential permanence, which is reflected in Halakha. From the time that Jerusalem was selected, it became the permanent site of the Temple, and from that point on, offering sacrifices on bamot was forbidden due to the damage that this would cause to the idea of the Temple as the chosen inheritance. Inheritance constitutes permanence and it creates continuity because it allows the individual to breach the boundaries of the present. From the time of creation, reality dictates that "One generation passes away and another generation comes, but the earth abides forever" (Kohelet 1:4). Man's days are numbered, and sooner or later he will disappear from the world. By his very definition, he is temporary -- like the flower that fades, the shadow that passes, the dust that floats, and the dream that flies away. He is here today and in the grave tomorrow. In contrast, his inheritance remains and affords him continuity. From parent to child and from child to grandchild and great-grandchild, the chain continues and death does not sever it. To a certain extent, this allows one to overcome death and oblivion. Ownership of property and land in itself does not preventing transience or create continuity; it is the identification of inheritance with the family and its heritage in the past and the present that creates the permanence and continuity. A central concept in Jewish law is the concept of the "house," which denotes a family that constitutes a unit of common heritage -- "After their families, by the house of their fathers." We are familiar with this concept from various realms of Halakha. For example, a man whose brother died without children marries the widow through yibum, levirate marriage, in order to continue the family, and he is thereby able to perpetuate the name of the deceased, since they belong to a common "house." Because of the great importance that the Torah attributes to perpetuating the name of the deceased and continuing his legacy, it established the mechanism of levirate marriage despite the personal, familial and halakhic difficulties entailed in marriage to one's brother's wife. Indeed, the mitzva of yibum takes precedence over the mitzva of chalitza because of the mission of perpetuating the brother's name.[1] The language of the text itself creates a connection between yibum and inheritance, as the purpose of the mitzva is defined as "to perpetuate the name of the deceased on his inheritance." The principle of continuity and its importance in a person's life is further reflected in the statement of Chazal (Nedarim 64b) that includes one who does not have any children among those who are considered as if they were dead. While continuity expresses itself on the concrete level through the transmission of property, much more important, of course, is ensuring continuity on the level of values, goals, and existential aspirations, which constitute the true heritage that a person leaves behind. The prophet Yeshaya emphasized how a person's eternal heritage endures: For thus says the Lord to the eunuchs who keep My Sabbath, and choose the things that please Me, and take hold of My covenant. And to them will I give in My house and within My walls a memorial better that sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. (Yeshaya 56:4-5) Indeed, there is more than one plane on which a person achieves inheritance and continuity. Inheritance is part of the system that turns the transition between generations into something permanent and stable, allowing family identity to be transmitted across the generations. In this light, we can understand Chazal's critique of a person who leaves no inheritance. As we read in a mishna in Yesh Nochalin (Bava Batra 133b): If a person gives his estate in writing to strangers and leaves out his children, his arrangements are legally valid, but the spirit of the Sages finds no delight in him. The reference here is not to a person who did not leave an inheritance due to poverty or distress, but rather to a person who decided to give away his estate for other purposes, as positive as they may be,[2] or based on the perception that his children should fend for themselves. The idea behind this mishna is the need to leave a legacy for future generations. The principle of passing down to the next generation is of central importance. Know From Whence You Come! This perception of inheritance is rooted in a general and comprehensive idea that pervades all of Jewish life -- namely, that we do not live only in the present. Judaism rejects a horizontal perspective on man, according to which man is connected only to his current environment. Our relationship is not only with this generation. Rather, our sights are at all times directed at "the one who stands here with us this day before the Lord our God, and also with the one who is not here with us this day" (Devarim 29:14). The hope is to establish a relationship of shared destiny with the past, on both the national and the personal level. This is why we mourn to this day various historical events that happened to our ancestors. We do not say, "What happened, happened." The sense of pain and tragedy that Jewish law demands of a person indicates that it expects one to experience these things in unmediated fashion, as if they occurred to people he knows, and not only that he relate to them as events of the distant past for the purpose of learning a lesson from history. "In every generation one must see himself as if he went out from Egypt." Just as a Jew is expected to feel the pain of his Jewish brothers injured in terrorist attacks in Argentina, Turkey, Paris, or Afula, regardless of the geographical distance between them, because all of Israel are responsible for and close to one another, he is similarly expected to feel pain over events that took place a long time ago. The ability to draw from our heritage and know what happened to our ancestors is important in itself. The actions of our forefathers interest us, regardless of the spiritual insights that can be derived from them, because of the feeling of existential partnership between us and our ancestors. Avraham and Sara, Yitzchak and Rivka, Yaakov, Rachel and Leah, are not only the nation's patriarchs and matriarchs, but also our forefathers. They are not only lofty figures, but also Grandpa and Grandma -- and for this reason the Torah shared their lives with us. Just as a grandson is interested in hearing from his grandfather or his grandmother about life in Eastern Europe or North Africa a century ago, we want to know what happened in Mesopotamia during the time of Avraham and Sara. A person's life in the present is intertwined with the history of his forefathers in the past. One is intricately connected to his past; one does not grow up in a vacuum. Models of Inheritance The first mishna in Yesh Nochalin presents us with a number of possible models for those who inherit and those who transmit inheritance: Some [relatives] inherit [from] and transmit [to each other]; some inherit but do not transmit; some transmit but do not inherit; some neither inherit nor transmit. Clearly, the ideal is that a person should inherit and transmit inheritance, that he should be numbered among those who are "nochalin u-manchilin." As stated above, the inheritance is not simply property for the heir, but rather constitutes a familial plot filled with existential significance. He inherits -- deciding to connect himself to his past and to his heritage. And he is interested in transmitting inheritance -- adding his contribution to the heritage, the personal layer that he adds to the inheritance and passes down to the next generation. In contrast, there are those who inherit but do not transmit, "nochalin ve-lo manchilin" -- who draw from the past and connect to it, but are not capable of passing their heritage on. Perhaps this is because they do not consider this stage important, or perhaps they lack the capacity to give their heritage over to others and to connect to the next generation. Such a person does not know how to take from the past and interpret it for his children in the future. He is familiar with the world of the past, but he lacks the tools to apply the past and its heritage to the challenges of the present and the future. The reverse case also exists -- "yesh manchilin ve-einam nochalin," there are those who transmit but who do not inherit. They wish to pass on their personal legacy, but they are cut off from the past, or so they imagine. In their eyes, everything began in their generation. Previous generations erred or were weak; there is no need to receive their inheritance, laden with the outdated baggage of Diaspora life. This heir is not prepared to connect to the past or to recognize that he is dependent upon it. Blinded by his present achievements, he is alienated from the past and the weight of tradition. The most tragic group neither inherits nor transmits inheritance, "lo nochalin ve-lo manchilin." They are cut off from every bit of the past. They live only in the present and are utterly devoid of worry about the future -- "After me, the deluge." The concept of inheritance serves as a bridge between the past and the future. In this context, the individual is merely another link in a chain. If we consider the chain of tradition recorded by the Rambam in his introduction to the Mishneh Torah, more important than any particular Sage is the very chain of tradition itself. The value of each link lies in the fact that it allows the chain to continue. This is the connection and bridge between all the generations, from Avraham Avinu until the Mashiach. Spiritual Heritage through Physical Means As noted above, the transmission takes place through tangible means as well. It is obvious to us that it is values and ideas, Torah and mitzvot, that constitute the heritage that passes from one generation to the next. It is easy to understand the statement: "Moshe commanded us the Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov" (Devarim 33:4). It is more difficult to grasp that the Torah also attaches great importance to tangible inheritance, to the transmission of physical property. Chazal teach us that "monuments are not built for the righteous; their words are their memorials" (Bereishit Rabba 82). We do not set up statues or tombstones for the righteous, for it is their spiritual legacy that serves as their memorial. Nevertheless, the ability to touch the past by way of some object bestows additional meaning on that heritage. Touching the physical possession of a deceased relative gives a person the sense of an unmediated encounter with the past. One generation passes away and another generation comes, but an object that remains provides a connection to the earlier period. Man is a physical creature, and contact with material objects is meaningful to him as a reminder of and bridge to the past. Not only is it meaningful to transmit the life story of the deceased to future generations and to talk about his values, but it is also important to be able to connect with him on the most basic level. When a person comes across an object that belonged to his relative, it is important to him even if it lacks monetary value or is in no way unique. The tangible item turns the past into something immediate on a level that cannot be achieved by any other means. A number of years ago, a Torah scroll that belonged to the Ran and a seal that was reportedly that of the Ramban were displayed in an exhibition devoted to Spanish Jewry before the expulsion. It is difficult to describe the thrill that I felt when I understood that this seal was once held by the Ramban himself and that the Ran had once used this Torah scroll. I also remember the feeling of immediacy that I felt when someone showed me an etrog box that had once belonged to R. Akiva Eiger. We are physical beings who come from the dust, and physical things therefore speak to us. Paradoxically, it is precisely material objects, which are essentially transient, that maintain their permanence for centuries, creating a bridge between the past and the future. The need for connection through objects, which is natural and self-evident given that we are humans of flesh and blood, also underlies the Torah and the practical mitzvot. Judaism is not built exclusively on vague and abstract values. In response to the human need for concreteness, a system of practical commandments was created in order to express a system of ideas. The performance of mitzvot creates a channel for religious experience and opens the way for a connection between man and God. The experience associated with taking a lulav or eating matza reflects how much an object plays a role in the human religious experience. In a person's private life, intimate family connections are not based exclusively on profound conversations about noble values, but are rather manifest in shared day-to-day experiences, including the trivial problems that engage an ordinary family in everyday conduct, such as who will wash the dishes or fold the laundry. Similarly, this component of activity that is ongoing but not uplifting plays a role in our observance of the mitzvot. Just as a family lives closely together and creates connections even through banal activities, the mitzvot create a common religious experience with God among all those observing them. Thus, objects can provide existential meaning, but this depends upon the eye of the beholder. A person who relates to an inheritance merely as a set of objects and not as a means to continue the past will not see any unique significance in those objects. The Uniqueness of the Firstborn Thus far, we have discussed the idea of heirs and inheritance in general, the concept of personal and national heritage in the sense of "You are the children of the Lord your God" (Devarim 14:1). We have not discussed any unique status of any of the heirs. This indeed follows the model of the first half of Yesh Nochalin. At this point, we must move on to the second half of the chapter and to the concept of the birthright, the special privileges bestowed upon a firstborn. In addition to the passage dealing with inheritance in Sefer Bamidbar, a passage in Sefer Devarim assigns special status to a firstborn son. The concept of the bechora, primogeniture, is not merely factual but rather value-laden. This is reflected in the gemara's emphasis on the idea of "recognizing" the firstborn (based on the word "yakir" in the verse). The birthright expresses an interpersonal relationship unique to the parent and firstborn; it assumes a certain connection between them. Therefore, a firstborn only inherits a double portion if he was alive during his father's lifetime (Bava Batra 142b) and the father recognizes him as his firstborn son (127a).[3] For this reason, we also maintain that "the Torah calls it [the firstborn's double portion] a gift." In Halakha, a gift is not merely a certain type of acquisition, but rather an expression of intimacy. The firstborn inherits as one who receives a gift, directly from the father and not through the house or family. All of a person's strengths are reflected first and foremost in his firstborn. A father is supposed to feel a partnership with his sons, and the firstborn is the first child with whom this closeness is created. The Concept of Birthright in the Bible The birthright is referred to prominently in three contexts in the Bible: the struggle over the birthright between Yaakov and Esav; the story of Yaakov's two firstborn sons, Reuven and Yosef; and the description of Israel as "My son, My firstborn" (Shemot 4:22). These models point to the importance attached to the firstborn, as well as to the dangers that this status creates. Concerning the opportunity and the danger posed by the birthright, it is appropriate to cite two midrashim from Avot De-Rabbi Natan: Israel were called "sons," as it is stated: "You are the sons of the Lord your God" (Devarim 14:1), and the ministering angels are called "sons," as it is stated: "The sons of God came" (Iyov 1:6), and you do not know which are more loved. When it says: "Israel is My son, My firstborn," [it makes clear that] you are more precious to me than the ministering angels. (44a) The firstborn is perceived here as a clear expression of endearment and special closeness. Another midrash in Avot De-Rabbi Natan speaks in a different tone, recognizing that not every firstborn is dearly loved: Israel is precious, for in His time of anger they are called "sons." In His time of anger they are called sons, and even at a time when the verse says: "Not His is the corruption, but the blemish of His sons" (Devarim 32:5) -- sons in whom I have no trust, corrupt sons. Therefore, the Sages taught that they are called sons of God... But not every firstborn is precious and dear. There is a firstborn who is precious and dear, and there is also a firstborn who is not precious and dear. (8a) This midrash points to the problematic nature of the firstborn. It is simple to speak of the beauty and loftiness of the idea of Israel being "My son, My firstborn." But this does not necessarily reflect reality, as we find in the stories dealing with the birthright in the book of Bereishit. Yaakov vs. Esav -- Values vs. Money Esav views inheritance as a way to acquire property: "Behold, I am at the point of death, and what profit shall this birthright be to me?" (Bereishit 25:32). Ostensibly, the opposite is actually true! It is precisely at the point of death that the birthright acquires greater importance, for through it Esav could be counted as part of the line of the house of Avraham and as a link that transmits the heritage of the past to the coming generations. In this way, his memory would be preserved for generations, even after he dies. But Esav understands that he will derive no monetary gain from the inheritance, as he is about to die, and he is therefore prepared to sell his birthright for a pot of lentils. The commentators discuss the manner in which Yaakov took the birthright from Esav, and the Rishonim deal with the legal question of how Yaakov could acquire the birthright even though it was something that had not yet come into existence ("davar she-lo ba le-olam"). Many explanations have been offered, but it is possible to suggest one very simple answer. Esav did not sell the birthright to Yaakov; he lost it because his actions proved that he was not worthy of it. His very readiness to sell his birthright for a pot of lentils attested to his attitude toward the birthright and to his alienation from the world of Yitzchak. Anyone who scorns the birthright demonstrates that he does not understand its significance, and thus forfeits it. Sometimes, a child relates to his parents as an infinite source of rights. He wishes only to receive benefits and service from his parents; he is not prepared to accept the burden of transferring the legacy of previous generations. It is not for naught that the midrash (Bereishit Rabba 67:8; 75:9) describes Esav as ready to arrange for the murder of Yaakov and Yishmael in order to inherit the entire inheritance of Avraham. When the birthright is perceived not as a responsibility and sacred mission, but as an opportunity to profit at the expense of others, when the attitude toward inheritance is like that toward any monetary matter, it is not surprising to find that a violent man would be prepared to kill the other heirs and to employ a variety of schemes in order to inherit more assets. Yaakov, in contrast, views the birthright not only as a right, but as a mission. He wants to perpetuate Avraham's blessing in the world, and he sees the birthright as a destiny that will confer that mission upon him. It is not by chance that Chazal saw the pot of lentils as a dish denoting mourning over Avraham's passing, for it is around this event that the debate focuses. The test is whether to view this as an opportunity for profit -- on the tangible level, through the eating of the beans, and on the symbolic level, through benefit from the property of the deceased -- or as a call to assume responsibility and accept the authority of the firstborn. Reuven vs. Yosef -- Competition vs. Continuity Another pair of brothers who compete over the birthright presents us with a different model that is problematic for a different reason. On the one hand, "Reuven, you are my firstborn, my might and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity and the excellency of power" (Bereishit 49:3). It is upon Reuven that Yaakov pins his entire future and all of his hopes. On the other hand, "Unstable as water, you shall not excel; because you went up to your father's bed; then you did defile it: he went up to my couch" (ibid. 49:4), and in Divrei Ha-Yamim: "Now the sons of Reuven the firstborn of Israel -- for he was the firstborn, but since he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Yosef the son of Yisrael" (I Divrei Ha-Yamim 5:1). Because he defiled his father's bed, the birthright was taken away from Reuven. Esav was indifferent to the birthright and to the past; he sought in his inheritance only monetary gain. Reuven suffers from the opposite problem -- he sees himself as competing with his father and contending against him. No matter how we understand the specifics of Reuven's sin when he defiled his father's bed, the implication is the same -- it was an attempt to push his father aside and take his place during his lifetime. Reuven challenged his father's standing as head of the family. He rejected Yaakov's authority, and by doing so he impaired his own standing. The way of the world is that at some stage in a person's life, there is a reversal of roles. The strong parent, the firm rock, turns into a frail old man, at which point the sons must help the parent. Sometimes, they are even compelled to make decisions for the parent. Indeed, at the end of Yaakov's life, when he arrived in Egypt a broken and ill man, Yosef made various decisions for him. All this is possible and appropriate when the father is old and weak, when there is no other way, but not when the father is at the height of his strength and is fit to stand on his own two feet. The firstborn is meant to be the continuation of his father, but not his replacement who is in competition with him. The father bestows the birthright -- "The Torah calls it a gift." A son may not take the birthright by force. The similarity between Reuven and Yaakov could have prepared Reuven to be his father's successor. However, when that similarity is interpreted as competition, the firstborn's reward is cancelled out by his loss. Yosef was also similar to Yaakov, but he knew how to actualize that similarity at the proper time and not to replace him while he was still alive. The birthright was thus taken from Reuven, as from Esav, because he was unsuited for it. The transfer of property from an unfit son is the subject of a dispute between the Sages and R. Shimon ben Gamliel (133b), and we rule that property should not be transferred even from a wicked son to a good son. But in such a case, we are not dealing with an impairment in the firstborn's functioning as a firstborn, but rather with a general problem, and we therefore do not want to cancel the birthright. However, when the son sets himself in competition with his father, when he defiles his father's bed, the birthright is removed from him. The Actions of the Fathers are a Sign for the Sons The relationship between God and Israel should be examined in a similar manner. As stated to Moshe, Israel is "My son, My firstborn" (Shemot 22:4). What this means is that on a certain level, all the nations are God's children; the birthright does not negate the standing of the other brothers, but rather bestows a certain advantage on the firstborn while recognizing the others as sons.[4] But how are we to understand our relationship to God as His firstborn? Are we more precious to God than the ministering angels, as is stated in the first midrash cited above? Or are we perhaps like the firstborn who is not cherished and dear, as he appears in the second midrash? Will we be alienated from God? Will we be like a firstborn who is first among his brothers, but aware of his place? Or perhaps, God forbid, we will view ourselves in competition with God? Of course, the desired model is a permanent and meaningful relationship in which the individual feels the presence of the Shekhina, one in which he does not view the relationship between man and God as an interesting idea but nothing more. A child feels the presence of his parent and maintains a strong relationship with him, despite the differences in standing between them; this is also true of the relationship between Israel and their Father in Heaven. This is the challenge with which we are faced. A person who feels the responsibility of being a fitting firstborn to God justifies his birthright, but also assumes responsibility. The greater and deeper the responsibility and purpose, the greater the spiritual achievement. However, the spiritual danger is also greater. The same things that create obstacles in the relationship between a son and his parents are liable to ruin the relationship between man and his Maker. One can encounter a problem in the form of what we saw regarding Esav; a person recognizes the existence of God, but views the connection between him and his Father in Heaven as a means of satisfying his own pleasures and fulfilling his needs. In such a case, his heritage interests him only for the purpose of generating profits, and nothing more. He does not see his heritage as an obligation or mission, but rather as "a spade for digging," a source of personal gain. Alternatively, there is the situation of Reuven, which is reflected in the feeling that God is "strangling" him, leaving him with insufficient leeway due to the Shekhina's presence in the world. Just like a child rebels when he feels constrained by a parent or when he senses that the parent with his power and status overshadows him and his capabilities, a person's feelings about God may be similar. The proper situation, both with respect to the parent-child relationship and with respect to the relationship between man and God, is that man should find his place within a framework of existing laws and recognize that there are factors above him. Within these boundaries, he will be able to find his uniqueness and express his personal development. A firstborn like Reuven, who feels that he cannot exercise his strengths together with the strengths of God, is a firstborn who lacks the appropriate "recognition." Let us move from the People of Israel to the Land of Israel. The Land was also given to us as an inheritance and a heritage. Here, too, the aim is to see it as God's inheritance and to reach the realization of "You shall bring them in and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance" (Shemot 15:17), with the physical land serving as an expression of the spiritual connection and relationship between God and His people. Here, too, however, there is the danger of being caught up in the perspective of profitability and materialism, which views the Land exclusively as a place of leisure and profits. As opposed to "the mountain of Your inheritance," Datan and Aviram view the Land as "an inheritance of fields and vineyards" (Bamidbar 16:14), and nothing more. The children of Reuven and Gad preferred to receive their inheritance on the east bank of the Jordan, as that was advantageous for their animals and business. They did not ask themselves about the effect that their step would have on their inheritance as a sacred place or as the land of their forefathers. In opposition to "an inheritance of fields and vineyards" stands "the mountain of Your inheritance." Furthermore, since the inheritance is not land but rather a heritage, it exists, under certain condition, even without land. Not only is there the mountain of Your inheritance, but God is also the inheritance of the priests and Levites, substituting for the inheritance of land. We not only have God's intention "to give it to you for a heritage" (Shemot 6:8), but also "Moshe commanded us the Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov" (Devarim 33:4). Needless to say, the fitting situation for the ordinary person is the realization of the two inheritances, both of the Land and of the Torah. At times, however, it is one heritage that sustains us, while the other is missing. This was the case throughout the long years of exile, when the heritage of the Torah allowed Israel to survive in the lands of their dispersion. Similarly, in recent generations, the secular Zionist movement adopted for itself the heritage of the Land without a Torah heritage. Indeed, the core challenge facing secular Zionism and the State of Israel in this regard is viewing the country's heritage as an ancestral heritage and an expression of Jewish identity that is connected to the people of Israel throughout the generations, and not only as an inheritance of fields and vineyards. "A Ladder Set upon the Earth, and the Top of it Reached to Heaven" The chapter of Yesh Nochalin presents a sublime model of a system of inheritance that depends on the values that we have discussed. Very often, however, reality slaps us in the face. Inheritance disputes are a common and painful phenomenon. Unfortunately, these struggles are widespread and they destroy families. Values and ideals of great importance are shattered against the rocks of family disputes; instead of attaining achievements, they engage in conflict. Instead of the past serving as an inspiration and guide for the future, a person can destroy his future and fill it with conflicts from the past. Instead of the "house" inheriting the deceased and passing the family heritage down to the other members of the house, the house is split and destroyed in the storms of dispute. One should not make the mistake of thinking that such disputes are driven solely by profits. Often, the conflicts are grounded in what appears to be holiness. Struggles arise around the question of who will be a better successor, who will more faithfully represent the heritage and values of the deceased. Each side is convinced that he alone can express the family truth, while the other side will betray it. He therefore enters into battle against his brothers and sisters, without realizing that he is thereby destroying the family and defying the wishes of the deceased. These "holy fights" create the antithesis of the concept of inheritance. The challenge of inheritance and creating a heritage is indeed great, and it therefore often leads to tension. Nevertheless, Yesh Nochalin presents us with a meaningful model on the existential level, both with respect to the family and the past and with respect to our lives with God. May we merit to meet these challenges. (This sicha was delivered in summer 5767 [2007]. The original Hebrew adaptation was reviewed by Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein.) -- [1] This is true on the fundamental level, as is stated in the mishna in Bekhorot. In this context, we will not consider the dispute between Abba Shaul and the Sages. [2] Most authorities are uncomfortable even with one who donates all of his property to charity. [3] As a result, someone whose status is in doubt is excluded from the law of the birthright: "A son and not a tumtum [a person of undetermined gender]; a firstborn, and not a doubtful firstborn." This is also the basis for the law of "recognition," which according to many authorities is not based on credibility, but on the creation of a connection between father and son, credibility being the byproduct. [4] See the commentators ad loc., especially Ibn Ezra and Seforno. Rashi apparently understood differently and deliberately chose to deviate from the plain meaning of the birthright. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 13:31:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:31:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Defining Tzeis Message-ID: <20150706203135.GA12889@aishdas.org> I wrote the following to FB. If anyone can add or make corrections before the thread there dies, I would appreciate it. I think I summed up the highlights of the sugya as I understood it from previous conversations here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha [Someone asked what the sources in question were, so I replied:] Shabbos 34b-35a, 35b; Pesachim 94a. As Tosafos on Pesachim note, in Shabbos (34b) R' Yehudah is quoted as saying bein hashemashot (sunset to the stars coming out) is 3/4 mil (or 2/3 mil, depending on which amora's version of R' Yehudah you're using, but we hold 3/4), but in Pesachim he says a person can walk 4 mil after sunset before the stars emerge. Rabbeinu Tam notes a slight difference in language. It takes 4 mil "misheqi'as hachamah," in Pesachim, but 3/4 mil from "mishetishqeh hachamah." RT therefore resolves the two gemaros by saying sunset takes 3-1/4 mil. So, 4 mil from the beginning of sunset will take you to 3/4 mil after sunset, which is R' Yehudah's tzeis. The Vilna Gaon's resolution of the confliciting gemaros (OC 235 and 261) is not to split sunset into a beginning an end, but to split tzeis. The halachic tzeis is 3/4 mil after sunset. The gemara in Pesachim is using the term colloquially, not halachically, and simply refers to "all the stars" rather the standard 3. The Re'eim (R' Eliezer of Metz, Seifer Yerei'im, written in the 1170s) splits both -- the two gemaras are discussing different sunsets AND different tzeis. To him, the gemara in Shabbos is saying sheqi'ah (which we usually translate "sunset") is 3/4 mil BEFORE the sun hits the horizon, and tzeis is when the sun is at the horizon. Whereas the gemara in Pesachim then measures how much after the sun is below the horizon that the sky is fully dark. Note that both the Vilna Gaon and the Re'eim assume the gemara in Pesachim is using at least one of the idioms differently than the gemara in Shabbos, and therefore it has no bearing on halakhah. ... [Material in response to what someone else wrote, ellided.] BUT... The Vilna Gaon understands the defining feature to be the emergence of stars, not the fixed time R' Yehudah gives. And therefore inflates the 3/4 mil to adjust from Usha (R' Yehudah's home town) to Vilna. Which brings us to the third topic, on the other side of the page on Shabbos (35b). Again it's R' Yehudah, quoting Shemu'el's prescription of which stars to watch for: [If you see] 1 star, it is day; 2 -- bein hashemashos; 3 -- night. Rabbi Yosi said, "Not large stars that are visible in the day, nor small stars that are only visible at night, but medium stars..." 35b cannot describe 3/4 mil after sunset. Even in Usha or Nehardaa (Shemuel's home town, today's Anbar, central Iraq, on the Euphrates), you will not see 3 middle sized stars 18 min after sunset. R Michl Tukaczinsky and R' Dovid Spitzer did the observations in Jerusalem, and found it takes 31-43 min or 28-40 min, respectively. (Use the smaller end of the range for rabbinic fasts, like the OP, and the larger for Torah laws like Shabbos. Jerusalem is closer to the equator than either city, not that I think it's by enough to matter much.) Rav Moshe Feinstein similarly gave 50 min for Shabbos, 31 for rabbinic fasts -- but then, NY's days vary more in length, so a "never later than" will be more minutes after sunset. With a computer, we could translate all these numbers into degrees below the horizon, as that would tell us how dark it would be outside, and therefore how many stars could be seen, if we weren't bathed in artificial lighting. And even then you get into questions about which stars. The western horizon (the side with the glow of sunset) will show stars well after the east. Three stars seen at once (near each-other) or total when scanning the whole sky? Etc... Rather than decide whether we follow Shabbos 34a or 35a, even those who do not use Pesachim to shed light on 34a pad the 3/4 mil to plausibly allow for people to see three medium sized stars. Given the fact that it's this measure which actually gives the landmark on our clock its name, assuming it is less definitional than a fixed time delay is difficult. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 13:39:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:39:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dan leKaf Zekhus Message-ID: <20150706203931.GB12889@aishdas.org> When I got on the subway this morning, there was a pregnant woman already standing holding on to the poll nearest the door I just came in through. So, feeling all heroic, I asked her quite loudly and pointedly, "Do you need me to embarass someone into getting up for you?" She replied, "No, thank you. A number of people offered when I just got on, but I was more comfortable standing than on the train's benches." I blushed, and sheepishly muttered apologies to those around us. As I said: Dan lekaf zekhus. Not just the law, a good idea. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 14:45:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 17:45:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah and Poverty In-Reply-To: <20150706202632.A741518370D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150706202632.A741518370D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150706214552.GE12889@aishdas.org> On 7/3/2015 3:16 AM, RnTK wrote to Areivim: : But our mishna does describe this as the "way of the Torah." : True Torah scholars will live contentedly under conditions of : denial and poverty. The beraisa (Avos "6":4) says that darkah shel Torah is not to quit learning even if you have to live off bread, salt and water you have to ration, sleep on the ground and otherwise suffer. Not that this is their normal condition, or even one they should desire. There is still the take on the chatas of someone ending nezirus (Rabbeinu Bachya, in contrast to the Ramban) that it's for forgoing permissable pleasure while a nazir. And the Y-mi (Qiddushin 4:12, vilna 48b, the end of the mesechta) in which Rav is quoted as saying "A person will have to give a din vecheshbon on anything his eye saw but he didn't eat. R' Leizer [Elazar? Eliezer?] was chosheish for this, and would use Shabbos to enjoy one such pleasure. This is on the mishnah where R' Nera'i promises to only teach his son Torah, to the exclusion of a profession. But the Y-mi understands this to mean that keeping the Torah (not learning in particular) will provide wealth. Whereas a profession leaves you stuck in your old age, or if one otherwise become unable to work. But it's "vekhein atah motzei be'avinu Avraham *sheshimer* es haTorah" and was wealthy. However, the Bavli famously reports that this was tried experimentally and it generally doesn't work. Okay for a R' Shimon bar Yochai, but not R' Yishmael and the like. (Which could be a difference in kind or quantitative.) No one today would qualify as either a Rashbi or a R' Yishmael, so I don't think the Y-mi's promise should be counted on. And neither gemara lauds poverty. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 17:12:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 20:12:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon Message-ID: From: Lisa Liel via Avodah The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this subject. Lisa >>>> I have seen none of that "vitriol" or "viciousness," either in the past few days or in the last few years, or ever. On the contrary, all I see is an almost desperate attempt to be conciliatory, a desperate if hopeless wish not to be the *victims* of liberal, anti-religious vitriol. See for example "A Letter by Reb Ahron Feldman to a Gay Baal Teshuva" https://guardyoureyes.com/resources/ssa/item/a-letter-by-reb-ahron-feldman-to-a-gay-baal-teshuva Also see Agudath Israel's statement on the recent Supreme Court gay-marriage decision http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2015/06/28/agudath-israel-statement-o n-supreme-court-marriage-ruling/ It reads, in part, "we are deeply concerned that, as a result of today?s ruling, and as the dissenting Justices have pointed out, members and institutions of traditional communities like the Orthodox Jewish community we represent may incur moral opprobrium and risk tangible negative consequence if they refuse to transgress their beliefs, and even if they simply teach and express their religious views publicly." I might add that Lisa's post, being an emotional cri de coeur, really belongs on Areivim. However, since she has posted it to Avodah, I will add my own comments previously posted on Cross-Currents: Here, for the record, is what our ancient Torah heritage has to say about homosexual marriage: The nations are allowed to continue in existence only because they keep a minimum of three mitzvos. These are: not writing marriage documents for the union of two males, not selling human flesh in the market place, and giving honor to the Torah?which in practice means, not persecuting the people of the Torah, the Jewish people. In one of his prophetic visions, the Navi (prophet) Zechariah took thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the Temple treasury in Jerusalem (Zechariah 11:13). The Rabbis of the Talmud had varying interpretations of what this vision symbolized. According to Rabbi Ulla (Talmud Chullin 92B), the thirty pieces of silver symbolized the thirty mitzvos that the Bnei Noach accepted upon themselves. These thirty mitzvos include not worshipping idols, not consulting witchcraft and sorcery, refraining from illicit sexual relationships, and so on. (Bnei Noach are the Sons of Noah, also called Noahides? i.e., the nations of the world.) Rabbi Ulla says that the world continues to exist because the nations accepted these thirty mitzvos. However, he adds, the nations do not keep all the mitzvos they accepted. They keep only three, and one of the three is: ? They do not write a marriage contract for males.? Rashi comments that the nations do engage in forbidden homosexual relations, but they at least acknowledge that such relations are illicit by not formalizing those relations in legal documents. The other two commandments that they keep are that they do not sell human flesh in the market place, and that they give honor to the Torah (Talmud Chullin 92B). Elsewhere the Rabbis of old stated that the final decree of destruction, the Great Flood, was sealed against the generation of Noach because they wrote marriage documents for males. ?Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Yosef, ?The generation of the Flood was not wiped out until they wrote marriage documents for the union of a man to a male or to an animal ? ? (Genesis Rabbah 26:5; Leviticus Rabbah 23:9). Implicit is the assumption that if the nations do not abide by at least the aforementioned three mitzvos, they may forfeit the very right to exist. Hence, these three?not writing marriage documents for males, not selling human flesh in the marketplace, and honoring the Torah?may be considered the Three Conditions for the continued existence of mankind. So you see, the idea of gay marriage is not new, not a fresh idea that represents the ultimate development, enlightenment and evolution of mankind. No, the formal marriage of two men is a very ancient idea that represents the degradation of mankind. http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2011/07/28/4524/ I will add a further point to what I wrote in 2011: The reason the gay pride movement adopted rainbow colors as their symbol is that the rainbow is the sign of Hashem?s promise not to wipe out the entire world again in one big flood. They wave the rainbow flag in defiance of Him, as if to say, ?Ha ha, You can?t touch us!? The message of the rainbow flag is, ?We are major sinners, like the generation of the Flood.? But they are whistling in the dark if they think there won?t be consequences. May Hashem protect His people, those who are chassidei umos ha?olam as well as us, Klal Yisrael. Read more: http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2015/06/29/scotus-on-same-gender-what-it-means-what-it-doesnt/#ixzz3f9x0mazM --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 18:14:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 01:14:59 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> I noted about Kaddish Yasom > From what I've seen, it is NOT said even if a minyan says Birkas > Hamazon, R' Zev Sero asked: > Why would it? Well, I guess my original post should have had a longer introduction. I know that Kaddish Tiskabel has a very clear rule, namely that it follows every Amidah, and the only exception is that it also follows Selichos. Kaddish D'rabanan always follows group learning (though I've never figured out exactly what learning counts and what doesn't). And now I'm trying to figure out the rule for Kaddish Yasom. It SEEMS to be a sort of "congregational prayer", where "prayer" is something *other* than the Amidah, but I can't define it any more precisely than that. For a long time I thought it was connected to Tehillim, but when I noticed it after the megilos on Yom Tov, someone suggested that it's not specifically Sefer Tehillim, but *any* part of Kesuvim, not that we had any idea why Kesuvim would get this distinction over Neviim or Torah. I wrote: > but it IS said when a minyan says Kiddush Levana. RZS suggested: > Probably because people are used to saying it after Alenu. Maybe, and maybe not. I have a suspicion that Alenu was added *because of* the Kaddish, and not the other way around. Here are some data points: The Hirsch siddur has Tehillim 67 as the last paragraph of Kiddush Levana, with nothing at all after it. My Minchas Yerushalayim, and Birnbaum too, end with Tehillim 67 which is then followed by Kaddish Yasom, without Alenu. Is it possible that Alenu is a recent addition to the Kiddush Levana? I wrote: > It is NOT said when a minyan says Tehillim even as an organized > group, RZS asked: > Where have you seen it not being said then? I'm surprised that > this is your experience. In my current community, and also from my memories of yeshiva. When there was some sort of tzara that we said Tehillim for -- whether for a choleh, or some military or political problem -- we would say the Tehillim deemed appropriate by the leaders, and this would be followed by tefillos such as Acheinu and/or Mi Sheberach(s). I don't recall Kaddish ever being part of this. I have to admit that a big part of my asking this question is a pet peeve that I've been nursing, regarding Kiddush Levana in particular. It seems to me that Kiddush Levana -- the way it is done in just about every situation I've ever seen -- cannot be called a Tefilas Tzibur in any sense. It is a group of yechidim who happen to be saying the same thing, but in a totally disorganized fashion. The first one out of shul begins as soon as he finds a good location, and the last one out of shul also begins when he finds a good location. No attempt whatsoever is made to get this group to be on the same page, let alone in the same paragraph. There is no leader (like we have in Hallel and Pesukei Dzimra and everywhere else) who lets everyone know what the group is up to, so that they might end in unison. Rather, one person ends Alenu out loud, and that's when the yesomim say kaddish, regardless of whether they are only halfway though, or already finished before. So that's one of the reasons why I'm wondering why Kiddush Levana gets a kaddish. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/559b2834173228336fdfst03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 23:16:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 02:16:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kiddush levana In-Reply-To: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <559B6EB4.3010400@sero.name> On 07/06/2015 09:14 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: > So that's one of the reasons why I'm wondering why Kiddush Levana gets a kaddish. Well, I found what may be the source for this kaddish. The Shelah says "There is a nice minhag in the kingdom of EY and its surroundings, to say various pesukim and maamarim after kiddush levana, and then say kaddish derabanan [...] and the meaning of this kaddish is that [the Name] should be magnified and sanctified, a Great Name, a full Name, and then the moon's light will be as the sun's light". http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=45685&pgnum=287 > I have a suspicion that Alenu was added > *because of* the Kaddish, and not the other way around. Here are > some data points: The Hirsch siddur has Tehillim 67 as the last > paragraph of Kiddush Levana, with nothing at all after it. My Minchas > Yerushalayim, and Birnbaum too, end with Tehillim 67 which is then > followed by Kaddish Yasom, without Alenu. Is it possible that Alenu > is a recent addition to the Kiddush Levana? Taamei Haminhagim gives a reason for saying Alenu, because it was written by Yehoshua, whose face is compared to the moon (Bava Basra 75a). According to this reason there would seem to be no reason to say it after birkas hachama. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=216 But the footnote to Kuntres Acharon on the next page gives a different reason: Because kiddush levana looks like a pagan ritual, we say Alenu to declare that we worship only Hashem, and this is the same reason that after Hoshanos, which also seems a bit pagan, we declare "Lema'an daas kol amei ha'aretz ki Hashem hu haElokim, ein od". This reason applies equally to birkas hachama. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=217 I remember hearing that the same reason is why we say Alenu after a bris, but I can't find a source for this. Taamei Haminhagim cites Yaavetz that the reason is to include the baby among the "us" who are declaring our loyalty to Hashem. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=404 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 03:41:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 13:41:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Pinechas vs Pinchas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> R' Micha points out that his grandfather's name was Pinechas. He proves it first by the yud after the pei which, by the rules of dikduk, makes the following sheva a na'. In addition, the name is an Egyptian one, Pi-nechas, pi being a common prefix in Egyptian names. In case you haven't been convinced yet, there is a meteg in the pei which, by the rules, makes the chirik malei and the sheva na' There is, however, one small point that makes me wonder. R' Aharon ben Asher who, for the last thousand years, has been called the accepted decision maker on correct spelling in Tana"kh seems to disagree. In perek 11 of his book Dikdukei Hat'amim he describes the sh'vaim before the otyot g'roniot inside a word, when they are na' and when nach. Included in his list of words where they are nach are laqkhu, barchu, Pinchas, zar'u, etc. IIRC, not all manuscripts have all the words and Pinchas might be omitted in some. It is possible that copiers of the words lists added or omitted. On the Mesorah sub-list it is known that I am anti-dikduk because it opens the way to change the fine points on Torah pronunciation to match its rules. Among these "improvements" was the changing of many internal sh'vaim in words from nach to na'. What enabled this to happen was the brilliant invention by R' Yosef Kimchi of the ten vowel, five pairs of malei and chaseir. This led to the rule that after malei the sh'va is na' and after chaseir it is nach. Ben Asher, in perek 10 notes that there are seven vowels in Hebrew. All of the masoretes also state this. If there aren't pairs of malei and chaseir, we've just lost the rule about the following sh'vaim. All this is not something new. Heidenheim in his comments on the Ein Hakorei of RYHB"Y (Shemini, just before sh'lishi) states that in the times of the kadmonim many sh'vaim that are now na'im were then nachim. He quotes (from Ibn Ezra?) that kol sh'va b'ot rafah shekadam lo echad mishiv'at ham'lakhim hu nach ki halashon ha-ivrit kasha la r'difat shalosh t'nu'ot...except for double letters and some words with groniot. So how should I lein on Shabbos? Oh, no problem, I'm not the bal-koire. bivrakha, David From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 05:21:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:21:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kesher Message-ID: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little farfetched 1) knot 2) connection 3) conspiracy -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 06:18:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 09:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> In various places in dovening, kaddish etc we find the loshon - ..v'imru amen. Simply understood this is something only said by a sh'ztibur, as an announcement by the sh'ztibur that the congregation sh answer amen. In some cases, a yachid says it (ie Kiddush hachodesh, etc) probably bc we are saying something that originally was said by the sh'ztibur. What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? Who are we saying v'imru amen to? And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). Because the silent SE is not a carbon copy of the sh'ztibur version (for instance - no elokai netzor, SE of fast days are diff, etc) Mordechai Cohen mcohen at touchlogic.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:09:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 10:09:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper : connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little : farfetched : 1) knot : 2) connection : 3) conspiracy Interestingly, the noun doesn't show in chumash. As an adjective, we have hamuqsharos/im, to describe which of the tzon Yaaqov received (30:41-42). Rashi quotes the Targum, "habechiros" and cites two pesuqim in Shemuel II pereq 15. To round out the list: About Yaaqov (again) and Yoseif, "venafsho qesurah benafsho." Also the string tied on Zarach's hand, and tefillin (x2). Those are all the occurances of the shoresh. BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. Conspiracy comes up in #2, "league together, conspire". It would seem they conjecture the word comes from the collaboration, and less so what they're connecting to eachother to plan against something. They also cite "vatiqasheir kol-hachimah" in Nechemiah 3:35, where one would not readily picture "tying together" parts as a metaphor. I understand why Rashi thought the translation in Bereishis 30 is unique enough to require comment, but not how it fits altogether. (Rashi says it does, not how.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:08:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 14:08:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Pinechas vs Pinchas In-Reply-To: <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> References: , <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1436278092269.69769@ou.org> It should be noted that how Pinechas was read according to the Masorah is not really relevant to the way it was pronounced as a name. Pinchas is a Yiddish name (to be sure, with its roots in Hebrew), and is pronounced without a het and without a sh'wa. Its pronunciation in Hebrew is no more relevant than is the proper pronunciation of the word gannav (theif) in the T'NaKh to the pronunciation of the Yiddish word ganef. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union 11 Broadway, New York, NY 10004 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:22:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 17:22:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> References: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper >: connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little >: farfetched >: 1) knot >: 2) connection >: 3) conspiracy ... > BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary > meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. and what is the connection to a knot (the origin of the question was a dvar torah on the knots of tsizit) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 09:03:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:03:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: References: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150707160302.GA10745@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 05:22:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :>: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings... : ... :> BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary :> meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. : and what is the connection to a knot : (the origin of the question was a dvar torah on the knots of tsizit) Well, tzitzis knots less so, but knots generally bind two strings or two ends of a string together, no? Tzitzis knots are somewhat more like the example from Nechemiah. If qesher includes "batiqashar kol-hachomah", perhaps it also it includes binding pesilim into a gedil. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 14:44:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 17:44:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam, Moreh Nevuchim (2:29), A Strange Passage about Miracles Message-ID: <559C4830.9030705@gmail.com> In Moreh Nevuchim, 2:29, the Rambam seems to disparage a talmudical position about miracles that he had endorsed in his prior works (Commentary on Avos 5:6 and Shmoneh Perakim chapter 8). This, despite the fact that in the Moreh, he refers the reader to these former works to understand his position about miracles. And to further confuse matters, in the Moreh itself, within just a few sentences, he goes on to laud the proponent of that very positionfor maintaining it! The position is that already during the Creation week, G-d instilled, in objects and forces of nature, the potential for the aberrant behaviors that He would unleash when appropriate. (I.e. the aberrant behaviors were not changes G-d first decided upon, created and imposed upon things at the time the miracles were witnessed.) The Moreh Nevuchim introduces the concept with the words: "Our Sages said things zarrim m'od as regards miracles." "zarrim m'od" is Ibn Tibbon's Hebrew translation. Narboni and Schwartz use the similar "muzarrim, and likewise, Friedlander and Pines, in their English translations, translate, "very strange." KPCH translates, "temuhim" (astonishing). They all seem to indicate that the Rambam shunned the idea. Yet, as I noted, just a few sentences later, the Rambam lauds the Tanna who expressed the thought: [T]his text...demonstrates the [high] level of the speaker, and its being very difficult in his eyes that Nature could change after Creation, or that G-d's Will would change after it had been established. He therefore reasons, for example, that G-d instilled, in the nature of Water, the [property of] sticking together and always flowing in a downward direction, except for that time in which the Egyptians would drown in them; those specific waters would split. I have already enlightened you as to the main idea of the [talmudic] statement [KPCH in a footnote sees this as a reference to the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah and Shemoneh Perakim], and that it is all meant to flee from [the idea that, after Creation, G-d would bring about] the new creation of anything. It says there: R. Yonathan said, G-d placed stipulations on the sea, that it should divide before the Israelites. Thus it says, "And the sea returned, when the morning appeared, l'ay-sa-no [to its strength, or to its stipulated nature]"(Sh'mos 14:27). R. Yiremiyah ben Elazar said: Not only with the sea did the Holy One, blessed be He, place stipulations, but with all that has been created in the six days of Creation. "My hands stretched out the heavens, and all their hosts I commanded" (Yishayahu 45:12): I commanded the sea that it will divide, the fire that it should not harm Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, and the lions that they should not harm Daniel, and the fish that it should spit out Jonah." The same is to be applied to all the other miracles. The surprising solution to this problem is really quite simple. I noticed that in Moreh 1:70 (p. 106 in the classic version, line 2), Pines translates a certain phrase as "strange but true."But both Ibn Tibbon and Schwartz translate it, "ha-inyanim ha-mufla-os ha-n'chonos, ("matters wondrous but true/correct"). Hmmm. One Arabic scholar translates a word as "strange," while others translate it as "wondrous." I began to sense how the same word could be used both ways, and I suspected it might also be the same word as in our passage in 2:29. Without mentioning my problem about the Rambam's self-contradiction (to keep the issue unbiased), I asked R. Yakov Wincelberg, translator of Avraham ben HaRambam's Sefer HaMaspik from Arabic to English, what the actual Arabic word there is, and if it's the same word in our passage in 2:29. Here is his reply: In both cases, the word griva is used. It doesn't mean specifically "weird," but something that stands out. It could be: extraordinary, wondrous, amazing, rare, peculiar, uncommon, obscure, etc. It even is used for emigrating from one's country, as one is separating from the people. In other words, the word means "outstanding." So, true, one tends to understand the translation "zar" or "strange" to be meant in the sense of "weird," or "foreign," indicating that in the Moreh the Rambam considered the "front-loaded" miracle an idea to be shunned--contra the Gemora, his Avos commentary, and his Shemoneh Perakim. But the simpler truth is that the Rambam consistently endorsed this view, and considered it to be an outstanding one. One need only realize that Ibn Tibbon titles his dictionary of unfamiliar philosophical terms,appended to his Moreh Nevuchim translation, "Payrush Me'Hamillot Zarot," The word Zar indicates something unfamiliar, but not necessarily "strange" in the sense of "weird." And it can also mean something that is wondrous and true. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 17:01:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 20:01:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher Message-ID: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little farfetched 1) knot 2) connection 3) conspiracy -- Eli Turkel >>>> The deeper connection is -- connection! All the words formed from this shoresh are words that have "connecting" as their basic meaning. In Edward Horowitz's fascinating and entertaining book, "How the Hebrew Language Grew," he has a chapter on how sounds made in the same part of the mouth sometimes interchange to form words with similar or closely related meanings. One example he gives is the word kesher, and the related word gesher -- a bridge, which connects two places, two sides of a river, two sides of a road and so on. Keshes, a rainbow, is something like a bridge connecting two parts of the sky. Another example of these interconnected words (this one I've also seen in the Hirsch commentary on Chumash) is the word "tsachak" to laugh, to which a number of other words are related in a phonetic way: Change the ches to an ayin and you get "tsa'ak." Both tsachak and tsa'ak involve emitting loud sounds -- sounds of mirth or of alarm or distress. (Ches and ayin are both formed in the back of the throat.) Change the tsadi to a sin and instead of "tsachak" to laugh you get "sachak" to be happy, to rejoice. (Tsadi and sin are both sibilants.) Going back to the word tsa'ak, if you now change the tsadi to a zayin you again get a closely related word, "za'ak." And if you take the word "tsa'ir" (young) and change the tsadi to a zayin you get "za'ir" small. Change the sin of saraf to a tsadi and instead of burning (saraf) you get refining (tsaraf) gold or silver -- which is done through heat. Change the zayin of "zahav" to a tsadi and instead of gold you get "tzahov," the color yellow. Horowitz points out that these kinds of phonetic relationships can also be found in English, Latin and other languages, but nevertheless I find it especially fascinating to trace these connections in Lashon Hakodesh. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 02:42:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 09:42:27 GMT Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen Message-ID: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. > Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? > Who are we saying v'imru amen to? > > And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the > same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end of Birkas Hamazon. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett???s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren???t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/559cf0b42988970b45addst03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 02:09:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 02:09:57 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:18 AM, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: > In various places in dovening, kaddish etc we find the loshon - ..v'imru > amen. .. > What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. > Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? > Who are we saying v'imru amen to? I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish. SE took on the whole paragraph "Oseh Shalom ... ve'imru amen" from the end of Kaddish, and Kaddish took on the three steps backwards from the end of SE (which makes sense for the STz's Kaddish Titkabbal at the end of the repetition, but not so much in all other kaddishim) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 06:30:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 09:30:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <559D2610.8060803@sero.name> On 07/08/2015 05:42 AM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > >> What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. >> Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? >> Who are we saying v'imru amen to? >> >> And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the >> same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). > > The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end of Birkas Hamazon. Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even when there's a zimun. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 08:04:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:04:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> References: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150708150424.GA8908@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 08:01:24PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : In Edward Horowitz's fascinating and entertaining book, "How the Hebrew : Language Grew," he has a chapter on how sounds made in the same part of the : mouth sometimes interchange to form words with similar or closely related : meanings... Also in RSRH's fascinating and entertaining commentary on the Pentateuch and a couple of places in CW and elsewhere. : Another example of these interconnected words (this one I've also seen in : the Hirsch commentary on Chumash)... See https://books.google.com/books?id=eVAAfn6Itb4C (The real one; the google preview skips all of your examples.) Etymological Dictionary of Biblcal Hebrew: Based on the Commentaries of Samson Raphael Hirsch by Matityahu Clark This is a central part of RSRH's exegesis. I once went through much of Bereishis and Shemos documenting which letters RSRH considers related enough to qualify as likely to be part of the same phonetic meta-root. I ended up with the following chart (readable only in fixed-width-font, eg Courier): geroniot velar dental dento-lingual labial h,ch q | s,sh tes | alef k | tz tav | b ayin g | z d | p n ------------- m r --------------------------------- l y ------------------------------------- v Letters in the same column are phonetically related (eg hei and aleg) Vertical lines separate into pairs (eg zayin and dalet, but not dalet and pei nor tzadi and dalet [paired coumns, different rows]). The pairs are lingual/velar (use tongue) vs not. Horizontal lines connect the nasals (mem and nun), the approximants (lamd and reish) and the semivowels (yud and vav). The unvoiced letters are all in the top two rows. Notice how hei-ches and shin/sin-samech fall into parallel positions, and bege"d kefe"t into the same two rows. I stopped my analysis when I had gone dozens of peraqim without needing to change the chart any. Lost interest. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 08:12:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:12:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> Message-ID: <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:09:57AM -0700, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, : but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence : between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish... You might have seen it on-list in Apr or Dec 2006, offered by RPMinden. RSBA offered a different explanation: > Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, Likutei Maharich, RS Schwab, Boruch She'omar all > say that we are whispering to the Malochim - that accompany a person all > the time. [Maybe 'oseh sholom BIMEROMOV' indicates this?] The earliest > source seems to be Mateh Moshe - which some cite. > The OH also brings a nusach - IIRC - Machzor [or Siddur] Roma - that > indeed does not include the 'Ve'imru Omein' at the end of SE. RPM believes it was a post-facto explanation, giving meaning to a pratice that really originated in error. See the subject line at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=T#TO%20WHOM%20ARE%20WE%20WHISPERING%20 and the 3 starting with http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=V#VIMRU%20AMEN in the archive index. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 11:33:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 14:33:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: In Avodah V33n96, RAM referred repeatedly to "Kaddish Yasom" -- I think at least some of his questions might be answered once we understand that (a) what he called "Kaddish Yasom" is actually the Qaddish (Shaleim, but without the "tisqaba[i]l" phrase) said by the SHaTZ at the end of davening, at some point in our history given over to children (eventually/or to *y'somim*) who could not be SHaTZ (see http://www.beureihatefila.com/files/Introduction_to_Mourners_Kaddish.pdf); and that (b) Qaddish is said after the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim or other K'suvim. As for Kiddush L'vana (KL), indeed Minhag Ashk'naz did not include "Aleinu" -- as was noted, the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim at the end of KL (similar to doing so after Shacharis and after [Mincha/]Ma'ariv, and similar to when a *seifer* from K'suvim was read) was followed by Qaddish (in the Roedelheim, those chapters are 121, 150, and 67, not just 67) -- and KL not being a *t'filas tzibbur* does not impact upon the saying of Qaddish (although obviously, a *minyan* is required for any *davar shebiq'dusha*). HTH :). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 02:40:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 02:40:50 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:09:57AM -0700, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > : I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, > : but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence > : between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish... > > You might have seen it on-list in Apr or Dec 2006, offered by RPMinden. > My memory was correct as to the attribution, though I garbled the content a bit. It's on page 48 of the Birnbaum siddur, in the notes to the Kaddish deRabbanan after Korbanot: "/Oseh Shalom/, which repeats in Hebrew the thought expressed in the preceding Aramaic paragraph, seems to have been added from the meditation recited at the end of the /Shemoneh Esreh/. The same sentence is also added at the end of the grace recited after meals. The three steps backwards, which formed the respectful manner of retiring from a superior, were likewise transferred from the concluding sentence of the /Shemoneh Esreh/. On the other hand, the phrase "and say Amen", added at the end of the silent meditation after the /Shemoneh Esreh/, must have been borrowed from the Kaddish which is always recited in the hearing of no fewer than ten men." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 08:53:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:53:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reciting a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time Message-ID: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> http://tinyurl.com/o6rxcdf according to those that say you do NOT recite a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time (ie bar mitzvah), why is it different than all the places where we DO recite a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah not done in a long time? (ie lulav, shofar, megila, etc) Thanks, mc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 13:27:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 20:27:55 GMT Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen Message-ID: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> I wrote: > The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end > of Birkas Hamazon. R' Zev Sero responded: > Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, > with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively > recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even > when there's a zimun. But we've *always* benched as individuals when there *isn't* a zimun. But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that originally, Oseh Shalom was part of benching only when a zimun was present, and then for some reason came to be said even by individuals. If that is indeed what happened, I can't help but speculate that there was an even earlier time, when benching with a zimun would include Oseh Shalom at that point, but benching with a *minyan* would include Kaddish at that point! Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55a02add2581a2add0f3dst01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 16:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <55A05668.1080404@sero.name> On 07/10/2015 04:27 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: >> >Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, >> >with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively >> >recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even >> >when there's a zimun. > But we've*always* benched as individuals when there*isn't* a zimun. Benching is designed for a zimun. It's normal to eat in a group. But even when there were only two eating, or when a family ate together, I think the usual thing was for one person to bench and the other person (or the wife and children) to listen and say amen. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 08:42:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush L'vana (was "Kaddish Yasom") Message-ID: In Avodah v33n97, I wrote: > As for Kiddush L'vana (KL), indeed Minhag Ashk'naz did not include "Aleinu" -- as was noted, the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim at the end of KL...was followed by Qaddish...-- and KL not being a *t'filas tzibbur* does not impact upon the saying of Qaddish.... < Just wanted to add that (a) For the record, I don't recall Qaddish being said at the end of KL at KAJ/"Breuer's" (and the MMA Siddur Tefilas Yeshurun instructs not to say either "Aleinu" or Qaddish at the end of Bircas haL'vana), even when there was evidently more than a quorum of men (gathered to be *m'qabeil p'nei haShchina b'rov-am*) on the front steps or sidewalk of the Shul -- whether or not Qaddish should be said (and what the precise parameters are) in that circumstance (not a *t'filas tzibbur*; not in a *maqom t'fila*) was not central to the overall points I was trying to make; and (b) for consistency, it's QL, not KL :). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 11:30:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:30:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pinchas Message-ID: > > > BTW, my grandfather a"h was named Pinechas after this week's sedra, > his bar mitzvah parashah. When it was time to name my oldest, I checked > with my uncle how his name appeared on their kesuvah, as their mesader > qiddushin was a key rav in my grandfather's life. (R/Dr Mirsky zt"l met > two teenage boys coming off the boat and took them under his wing. My > grandfather and great-uncle then earned enough to bribe the rest of the > family's way out of Litta before the Nazis came to power.) > > Anyway, it seems R/Dr Mirsky held my grandfather's name was Pinechas, > pei-yud-nun-ches-samekh, as it is spelled in the chumash (ignoring the > size of the yud as usually written in the beginning of the parashah). > And thus the sheva is na, Pinechas - not Pinchas. > > If you want to make a derashah out of a Mitzri name, it's Pi Nachas, > not Pen Chas. > > Reason for this tangent... I would have expected "Gushies" to get the > sheva in the parashah name right. After all, they have the patach under > the reish in Parashat. > > Way behind in reading. However, Aharon Ben Asher, in Dikduke Hate'amim, specifically lists the sheva in Pinchas (with a yud) as being a sheva nach, so the "Gushies" have on whom to rely.. Meir Shinnar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 11:39:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:39:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: > On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:20:08PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: > : On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. > > : Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a > : moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is > : the purpose to make things even worse? > > As I quoted from RAK, because they classically were not considered > chuqim. Until our contemporaries took the issue from sexual morality > to sexual ethics, these truths were considered self-evident. It's the > choqification of dinei arayos that's inauthentic. > > In any case, since one doesn't pasqen from taamei hamitzvos, the din > is the same either way. Nothhing in such exploration can "make things > even worse". > > In Shmona prakim, the rambam seems to take the opposite view - trying to reconcile the view that having a desire to sin is a sign of moral failing, and that the overcoming of desire is a sign o f greatness - he argues that to desire to sin is problematic in hamefursamot - but NOT in those forbidden only for religious reasons - and he specifically applies that to arayot - and needs to apply it to arayot, because the sugyot that deal with kol hagadol mechavero yitzro gadol mimenu - specifically apply to arayot. One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT self evident or even mefursamot Meir Shinnar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 11:10:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 20:10:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out Message-ID: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> In SA OH 272:1 the Mechabeir writes that one shouldn't use wine left out for kiddush (or any type of mitzvah adds the Aruch HaShulchan). The problem isn't gi'loi'im but the pasuk in Malachi 1:8 which teaches us not to use Grade B products for mitzvot. The assumption is that wine left out goes bad (or gets worse) and therefore it can't be used for qiddush. My question is what does one do if you thinking allowing wine to breath for hours improves the taste? That's been my experience for years. If I open a bottle Friday evening, the wine definitely tastes better Saturday morning. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 12:14:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 15:14:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> On 07/13/2015 02:10 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > In SA OH 272:1 the Mechabeir writes that one shouldn't use wine left out for kiddush (or any type of mitzvah adds the Aruch HaShulchan). The problem isn't gi'loi'im but the pasuk in Malachi 1:8 which teaches us not to use Grade B products for mitzvot. The assumption is that wine left out goes bad (or gets worse) and therefore it can't be used for qiddush. > > My question is what does one do if you thinking allowing wine to breath for hours improves the taste? That's been my experience for years. If I open a bottle Friday evening, the wine definitely tastes better Saturday morning. It depends what kind of wine. Some wines definitely improve with a few hours' breathing. The criterion is "hakriveihu no lefechasecho"; *would* you serve this to an honoured guest who is used to drinking quality wine? If it's a wine that needs the time to aerate then you certainly would, and in fact you wouldn't think of serving it to him *without* that time. OTOH this would preclude making kiddush at all on Manishewitz, no matter how "fresh" it is. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 20:18:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 05:18:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> Message-ID: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? Did they not know that allowing wine to breath improves the taste, at least for a decent red wine (which is the type of wine they think we should be drinking)? Ben On 7/13/2015 9:14 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > It depends what kind of wine. Some wines definitely improve with a > few hours' breathing. The criterion is "hakriveihu no lefechasecho"; > *would* you serve this to an honoured guest who is used to drinking > quality wine? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 19:34:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 22:34:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20150714023419.GA18963@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 05:18:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and : others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? Because Shapiro's wine is "So thick you could cut it with a knife" as that billboard we'd pass driving to Boro Park used to advertise. Whereas you're talkng about a finer wine as vitners and frenchmen measure. Different products with totally different definitions of what is "good". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 21:48:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:48:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55A4949B.8090308@sero.name> On 07/13/2015 11:18 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and > others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? > Did they not know that allowing wine to breath improves the taste, at > least for a decent red wine (which is the type of wine they think we > should be drinking)? First of all, most good wines shouldn't breathe for very long. Second, their wine was generally pretty awful by our standards; bad enough that it needed watering to make it palatable. They used wild yeast, they had no pasteurization, and it was all they could do to stop it all turning into vinegar. I wonder how much damage could exposure possibly do to wine that bad, but I seriously doubt it could improve it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 14:11:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 17:11:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Timely Notes for the Summer Message-ID: <20150714211025.9203118356A@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from an article by Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer, ZT"L, that appeared in the Mitteilungen, Vol. 2, June 1941 Timely Notes for the Summer Can the heat of summer be termed ?oppressive?? That is surely something that is individual. If we think of the terribly oppressive times a large number of our brethren are going through, we will gladly tolerate the discomforts of summer and rather bless our good fortune to be spared such pain. Many of our newly immigrated brothers and sisters are struggling with heavy economic burdens, and only the few can afford the much desired relaxing rest. We are pleased for those who can afford a vacation and expect that they will carefully select, as far as the trustworthiness of its kashrus, the place where they plan to spend their vacation. Obviously, they will not want to take a vacation from the ?yoke of the Law.? They want to return home, hale and hearty, and not with a feeling of unease for having risked their moral values in exchange for physical wellbeing. The heat of summer calls for changes in clothing and appearance. The conscientious Jew will carefully keep to certain limits, which he will not overstep. Our Divine Law cautions us to have a sense of shame, and that applies to summer as well. The Jewish custom ?according to the Talmud ?requires men and boys to cover their heads outdoors. God gave the first garment to man when he forfeited his special standing by disregarding the Will of God.Modest covering of his body is to be a steady reminder of the higher calling of man. Jewish men were given the adornment of tzitzis to admonish them to wear their clothes as proper Jews. Even in the summer heat, our requirements for covering can easily be heeded with lighter clothing. Comfort will not cause us to shirk our duty. A soldier?s helmet is uncomfortably heavy, but he wears it because it is required; God?s requirement should not be heeded? As for the Jewish woman, Jewish law requires her to cover her hair. The true Jewish woman will proudly do so, for it is a sign of her willingness to adhere to God?s Will as the guide in her life. A woman unworthy of this sign will have it removed forcibly by the priest (Bemidbar 5:18). Covering one?s hair is merely a sign if a woman does not conduct herself otherwise in the properly Jewish manner. Similarly, there are Jewish men who bear the Milah-sign on their bodies but sully their bodies in other ways. Not covering one?s hair is probably ? we are sorry to say ? a matter of ignorance, and perhaps such a Jewish woman was not brought up to understand the importance of covering her hair. Many women may carefully observe their Jewish duties in other areas, and we would so much like to adorn them with this special crown also. For the fact remains: covering of the hair for the Jewish woman is a must. The proud Jewish woman will conduct herself Jewishly in her clothing and in covering her hair. The word Tznius is a Jewish concept that is hard to translate exactly. It does not only denote a ?quietly humble way of living? (Michah 6:8), but everything else that our people has so valued and esteemed in their Jewish women at all times. ?quietly humble way of living? (Michah 6:8), but everything else that our people has so valued and esteemed in their Jewish women at all times. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 02:01:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 05:01:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Star-K on the Heter Mechira Message-ID: <20150715090047.2F7EB1824C9@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-shmitta-5775.htm Who Owns The Land? There is a difference of opinion among the poskim as to whether produce grown on land owned by a non-Jew living in the Land of Israel is considered produce of sheviis. The custom in Yerushalayim is not to consider it produce of sheviis, while the custom in Bnei Brak is to consider it produce of sheviis. Selling The Land: The Heter Mechira was formulated and instituted by many very prominent rabbanim (including the Gadol Hador, Harav Yitzchok Elchanan Spector) in the year 1887. There was a great deal of controversy among other prominent rabbanim surrounding the heter, the foremost of whom was the Netziv (Harav Naftoli Zvi Yehuda Berlin) of Volozin. Most of the controversy centered around the problem regarding the Torah prohibition of selling any part of the Land of Israel to non-Jews. Those who proposed the heter claimed that the situation in the Land of Israel was so precarious that not working the land for an entire year would put the entire Jewish settlement in danger, thus warranting this drastic measure. Others claimed that the prohibition of selling the land was worse than the prohibition of working the land. Since then, every Shmitta there have been rabbanim who have sold the land. Harav Avraham Yitzchok Kook institutionalized the sale (although he, too, agreed it was to be done only under grave duress). Since it's inception, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel has sold the land every Shmitta. However, there are presently many rabbanim who question whether the current situation in Israel warrants this type of sale. Furthermore, there is another more serious problem the consumer faces. The produce that is sold in the regular stores during the year of Shmitta predominantly comes from non-religious kibbutzim and moshavim, who would never agree to sell their land. This is compounded by the fact that the non-religious kibbutzim do not observe those prohibitions which Harav Kook instituted, and Harav Kook never permitted their current practices. Certainly, a tourist who is not knowledgeable concerning the dinim of Shmitta should buy produce only from stores that do not rely upon the heter mechira. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 03:18:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 06:18:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. Whether MZ is well known or not aside, even "kemaaseh Eretz Mitzrayim" (at least the male half of it) is described in the gemara as pretty well known -- it's on Ulla's list of 3 dinim of the 30 mitzvos Benei Noach (which rishonim map to subcategories of the usual 7) that Benei Noach generally observe -- "she'in kosevin kesuvah lezekharim". In any case, I will leave the Rambam as a tzarikh iyun that only affects the lives of those who agree with him that understanding theology and/or metaphysics is the perfection we strive for in life, above perfection of virtue. (Moreh, conclusion, worthy of its own thread.) For that matter, most of us also diagree with the Rambam on whether a person is judged by the level reached or by the distance covered. Without agreeing on either of those two points, it's likely one wouldn't agree with the Rambam's pesaq here. His view of the role of of bringing one's desire in line with a mitzvah will necessarily come from a different place. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 03:32:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 06:32:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Herzl In-Reply-To: <17e71f.7a1031b7.42d6e65d@aol.com> References: <17e71f.7a1031b7.42d6e65d@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150715103208.GD4654@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 06:25:33PM -0400, RnTK wrote on Areivim: : My comment was facetious -- a little dig at those MO who apparently do : believe that Herzl, Golda Meir and Ben Gurion were gedolim. R' AE Kaplan wrote very highly of Theodore Herzl. RAEK predeceased the accompilshments of the other two. To quote RYGB's translation (from BeIqvos haYir'ah pg 85): He [Herzl] did not teach us Torah... because he was never taught Torah... He taught us, rather, to say two words [four words in English] on occasions that until he came we had neither dared nor been able to utter: "I am a Jew [Ivri]!" We were always able to recite these words in the Beis Medrash next to our shtenders, we were even capable of reading and writing them... We could declare ourselves a nation in any place we wanted, except in that one place where the nations of the world were... to be found - in the international political arena. There we were seen as wandering sheep, like one Telzer (Yehuda Leib Gordon [22]) once put it: "Not a nation, not a congregation, rather a flock." Not like sheep that are petted and fed, but like those that are shorn or slaughtered. When a European ruler asked a Jew: "Who are you?" Would he respond simply: "I am a Jew" - without any qualifications or explanations? He would answer: I am a Jew - but also German, also French, also English, etc. Along came Herzl, the first from among us to reach that international political arena that serves as a world court, and responded, openly, freely, effortlessly and guilelessly: "I am a Jew." Moreover: "I was stolen from the land of the Jews [Eretz HaIvrim], and here I have done nothing, for they placed me in the pit" [Bereishis 40:15]. The Jewish nation is a nation unto itself, like all other nations, indeed, it is special, and it possesses a unique life force that sustains it... Do you not sense the hidden workings of divine providence? I know that just as the rejuvenation of Jewish national spirit had to come, so will finally come, in the unseen future, the rejuvenation of our Torah spirit... We do not see the paths, we do not see the footsteps, but I know... that I must strive toward this. And G-d who returns to Tziyon [Zion] will return us also to Torah MiTziyon... [23] [22] The most prominent Hebrew poet of the nineteenth century and a notorious Maskil, Gordon was generally known by his acronym, YaLaG, that, in a play on words, would be pronounced by Orthodox Jews as "yil'ag," the Hebrew word for "scoffer." [23] Besides his essays on Hashkafa, Reb Avraham Elya also left many "Reshimos," short notes on topics in Mussar, Machashava, and Avodas Hashem, some of which are beautiful vignettes of life lived in a Torah true and Mussar suffused way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 02:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 05:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Secular Studies: Are They for Everyone? Message-ID: <20150715092755.A05BB1824E7@nexus.stevens.edu> From the article by Rabbi Mordechai Willig at http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/%2FTU1_Willig.pdf Are secular studies permissible for everyone when they are necessary to provide for a livelihood? The answer is: for almost everyone. To summarize, then, for purpose of parnasah, secular studies are allowed for almost everyone. If it is not for parnasah, it is permissible, and sometimes even a mitzvah to learn various disciplines, providing that such study is considered of secondary importance, both in terms of time and value for, above all, Torah must always be the Ekir. Please see the above URL for the entire article. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 07:56:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:56:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Confronting sexual abuse in the Jewish community Message-ID: <> Can you give a place in shas or SA where the punishment of a crime accounts for the pain to the family If someone deserves the death penalty (there is no jail in halacha) as far as I know the bet din does not take into account that the family who are innocent will also be punished. If someone is sent to "ir miklat" the yeshiva goes with him, we don't remove the punishment because it affects the whole community -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:33:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian Message-ID: During a recent discussion with a friend the following two questions came up and I am curious what the fellows of Avodah think. 1) Can one count someone who denies the historicity of *matan torah* and *yetzias mitzrayim* but is other completely *shomer torah u-mitzvos* for a *minyan*? There is an halakhic category of *mumar l?hachis* who cannot count for a *minyan* according to many *poskim*. But that is on the assumption that they are violating *halakhah*. If they are not violating halakhah, can they be counted in a *minyan*? 2) Does one fulfill their shofer blowing from hearing the shofar be blown by someone denies the historicity of *matan torah* and *yetzias mitzrayim*? We assume that *mitzvos tzerichos kavvanah*. So this individual intends to fulfill the mitzvah of blowing the shofar on Rosh ha-Shanah. However, his conception of the nature of *mitzvos* and commandedness is extremely untraditional. Personally, I am inclined to include this individual in a minyan and assume that one fulfills the mitzvah of shofar with his blowing. But my conception of halakha flows from R. Dr. Walter Wurzburger?s *zy?a* belief that halakhah is a floor and not a ceiling. In other words, we do not make the bar for basic fulfillment of halakhah obligations higher if one could avoid it. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:32:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:32:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> References: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 6:18 AM Micha Berger wrote: > Lo zakhisi lehavin: > It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss > aren't mefursamot. > > Whether MZ is well known or not aside, even "kemaaseh Eretz Mitzrayim"... > In any case, I will leave the Rambam as a tzarikh iyun that only affects > the lives of those who agree with him that understanding theology and/or > metaphysics is the perfection we strive for in life, above perfection > of virtue. (Moreh, conclusion, worthy of its own thread.) ... You are assuming the shmona prakim see relevant only to those who fully accept Rambam's philosophy -- and that is a very unique position. I think shmona prakim is studied by those who would never open the moreh Rambam argues that a lust to steal or murder is a character flaw -- the should be overcome -- but a lust for hazir or arayot is not a character flaw -- although it too should be overcome. Why that is dependent on his notions of the ultimate good, effort versus achievement, or mitzvot bne noach I don't see -- nor do I think most others me that connection.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:55:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:55:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150715155517.GC31352@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 03:32:08PM +0000, Meir Shinnar wrote: : You are assuming the shmona prakim see relevant only to those who fully : accept Rambam's philosophy -- and that is a very unique position... Nah, I'm just surmising that the two may be linked. If your notion of redemption revolves around ideas and the thirst for knowledge, then developing something like like-vs-dislike is a different topic than if your notion of personal redemption is "sheyehei adir cheftzeinu leheitiv im zulaseinu... bedemus haBorei, keveyakhol." (Bonus points for the first person to identify the reference. ) So not that 8 Peraqim are only relevent to followers of the Rambam's point, just that this particular point, and perhaps a couple to a few others, may be of limited utility to the rest of us. (8 Peraqim, BTW, is one of my more heavily used resources when teaching for The Mussar Institute.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 12:49:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:49:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55A6B95E.6090302@starways.net> On 7/15/2015 10:33 AM, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: > 1)Can one count someone who denies the historicity of /matan > torah/ and /yetzias mitzrayim/ but is other completely /shomer > torah u-mitzvos/ for a /minyan/? I think there's a difference between someone who denies Matan Torah and someone who expresses doubts. The former, I'd treat no differently than someone who denies God, because for the purposes of Judaism, they're not separable. We asked our mesader kiddushin (years ago) what we should do about those family members who didn't believe in God. He said that if they'd openly denied God's existence, we could not give them sheva brachot, because we couldn't be yotzei on a bracha by someone who doesn't believe in God. He didn't say anything at all about observance. A lot of people focus on Rambam's ikkarim, and whether or not we're bound by them, but the concept of being kofer ba-ikkar predates Rambam by centuries. The existence of God and the historical fact of Matan Torah are, by any reasonable assessment, the most basic ikkarim of Judaism. Absent either of these, what's left isn't Judaism. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 19:47:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:47:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150716024705.GE13610@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:33:13AM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : 1) Can one count someone who denies the historicity of *matan torah* : and *yetzias mitzrayim* but is other completely *shomer torah u-mitzvos* : for a *minyan*? : : There is an halakhic category of *mumar l'hachis* who cannot count for a : *minyan* according to many *poskim*. But that is on the assumption that : they are violating *halakhah*. If they are not violating halakhah, can they : be counted in a *minyan*? I don't know if we hold like the Rambam, but Hil' Teshuvah ch. 3 is the only discussion of the categories of heresy I know of. A min is an atheist or polytheist, a trinitarian, etc... (3:7) An apiqoreis, the category in the title, is defined with a list of theological errors. It's someone who, like Epicurus, denies that Hashem runs the world. A Deist, someone who denies prophecy, or that He doesn't know man's actions. (3:8) Leshitaso, someone who doesn't believe in the historicity of Torah miSinai would be a kofer baTorah. (ibid) A mumar is a consistent sinner (ledavar achas, lekhol haTorah kulah), not a heretic. {3.9) Then the machti'ei rabbim (10), poreish midarkei hatzibur (11), moserim (12), and one who terrorizes the community -- not lehsim shamayim (13). That list -- 3 kinds of heretic and 5 kinds of sinners -- lose their olam haba, if they die without teshuvah (3:14). And then he says there are also smaller ones that still carry a similar price. Anyway, R' Aharon Soloveitchik held that "nebich an apiqoreis" (not using the term in the Rambam's technical sense) can be counted for a minyan. As long as his beliefs include those ideas that make tefillah meaningful. So a min couldn't, nor an apiqoreis who believes G-d doesn't know every little thing going on down here. (This was a common idea among Artistotilian, although obviosuly not among ours. Since facts change with time, and the Creator does not, how could the Creator know such facts? Would that mean His knowledge changes?) But a tinoq shenishba (by which RAL intentionally includes Jews not raised O) who doesn't believe in Sinai, but does believe that there is One G-d Who Listens to prayer and is Mashgiach, should be countable. Not because their heresy makes them heretics and thus michutz lamachaneh. But because they are incapable of prayer. RAS didn't discuss the person who isn't a tinoq shenishba, but also not a rebal. Someone who grew up in a Torah setting, but in his studies reached the wrong conclusion. The Tashbetz and the Radbaz (eearly 16th cent CE, not the Ridbaz who wrote on the Y-mi) famously hold that such people are not heetics even if they believe heresy. (As least on the list list it's famous, anyeay.) I just can't assume RAS agrees without proof. RAL also doesn't discuss a Deist who believes G-d Hears prayers, but won't act any differently. Can he make a brikhas hoda'ah, but not a baqashah? Since prayer is not al menas leqabel peras, do we even make baqashos for the sake of gettin a "yes", or just to have a moment with Him talking about what is bothering you? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 16 07:01:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:01:37 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Confronting sexual abuse in the Jewish community Message-ID: <20150716.100137.31633.0@webmail13.vgs.untd.com> I wrote on Areivim: > Of course it is important to protect future victims, but that is > not the only consideration here. What about the fallout to the > family of the victim, to the family of the perpetrator, and to > the community as a whole? (For those who have not been following on Areivim: Personally, I am all in favor of protecting the victims, but I know that my opinions might be heavily influenced by the society in which I live. My suggestion is that our chachamim are the only ones qualified to decide on any particular case, whether it might be better to whitewash an incident, so that the family and/or community are not hurt by the publicity.) R' Eli Turkel responded here on Avodah: > Can you give a place in shas or SA where the punishment of a > crime accounts for the pain to the family > If someone deserves the death penalty (there is no jail in > halacha) as far as I know the bet din does not take into > account that the family who are innocent will also be > punished. > If someone is sent to "ir miklat" the yeshiva goes with him, > we don't remove the punishment because it affects the whole > community These are excellent points. But then I must ask: Haven't there been times and situations when legitimate gedolim have paskened to hush things up because of other considerations? Would someone say that all such cases come from gedolim whose outlook is NOT Torah-based? I wish I could cite specific examples for discussion. Unfortunately, my knowledge of such things is far too limited. But surely this attitude must have come from somewhere, and did not materialize from nothingness. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett???s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren???t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55a7b984d1f883984538est04vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 18 13:49:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 22:49:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on Exercise Message-ID: <55AABBF3.2070100@zahav.net.il> Rav Kook's opinion about exercise and sport had been brought up here before. I quoted him as saying that physical activity helps the tzaddikim in their avodah. In the class I go to on Orot, we discussed the following piece by R Kook, which goes way further than that. Keep in mind that this was written before there was an IDF, so he isn't talking about any sort of physical protection. Orot, Orot Hatechiya, 34: Exercise, (which young Israel is getting involved in, in Eretz Yisrael, to strengthen their bodies in order to be vigorous for the nation), improves the spiritual strength of the greatest tzaddikim, those who involve themselves in "the unification of God's names" (my translation of a phrase which I admit I don't get), and increases the transmission of God's light in the world, because there is no revelation at all of light without all components being present. Turns out that (according to Rav Kook) not only does Talmud Torah increase the merits to the army/state/people, but just having people trying to be healthy, active, in shape, improves Talmud Torah, as long as both sides are doing this for the nation. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 18 17:09:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 03:09:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tefach Thick Soft Spongy Matza Message-ID: Many mistakenly think that we now have an accepted Halachic tradition, recorded in the Shulchan Aruch [460:5] to no longer bake Tefach thick Matza [10 - 12 cm] as in Talmudic times. This is untrue. The ShAruch records that Tefach thick Matza must not be Pesach. There is no problem whatsoever to produce such Matza Pesach and eat them during Pesach. The reason for this is quite simple; if one makes Chamets during Pesach, no matter that it was unintentional, one has transgressed the very serious violation of having Chamets - Bal YeRaEh and Bal YeMaTzeh. When making Tefach thick Matza the risk of inadvertently making Chamets because some dough in the Matza will remain unbaked, is [became] intolerable. However, baking the same thickness Matza before Pesach poses no concern. If it is Chamets, as can be discerned by tearing the Matza and checking for doughy stringy threads, then either eat it before Pesach or get rid of it. Whatever is fully baked however, is fine for Pesach. Compare the Mechabers expression, Seif 4 and 5, not to make images on the Matza; and not to make thick Matza - it is not done - ??? ?????; to his expression Seif 6, not to make dough filled with meat and veg - one ought not be lenient - ??? ????. One ought not be lenient - ??? ???? sounds more strict, as is supported by the MBerurah [18] suggesting that it is prohibited even after the fact, - whereas it is not done - ??? ????? implies it should not be done but after the fact, if it not Chamets it is Kosher and may be eaten during Pesach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 17 07:19:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 10:19:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Guten Chodesh (Though sad, still hope...) Message-ID: <0F8B8D71-82A7-4DB7-AFF4-740FDDA46D37@cox.net> The gematria for ?Rosh Chodesh" is 813. (reish:200, aleph:1, shin:300; ches:8, dalet:4, shin:300 ? Total=813) In the whole of tanach there is only one verse with the gematria of 813 which occurs in B?reishis, Chapter 1, verse 3: ?Vayomer Elohim ohr; vay?hi ohr? ?And God said: Let there be light and there was light.? May our mourning be turned into dancing (Ps.30:12) and may we live to see the light. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 00:55:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 10:55:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: heter mechira In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <> There are many inaccuracies in their statement and much is outdated. "The produce that is sold in the regular stores during the year of Shmitta predominantly comes from non-religious kibbutzim and moshavim, who would never agree to sell their land. " I have no idea what this statement means. They in fact do sell their land. The current situation in Israel is that the chief rabbinate sends people to each of these kibbutzim etc to explain to them what the heter mechira means and what are the other options. No one is forced to participate. "However, there are presently many rabbanim who question whether the current situation in Israel warrants this type of sale" The figures I have heard is that 85% of Israeli produce is exported (mainly to Europe). Without the heter mechira one would have to close down almost the entire agricultural development in Israel. In addition one is forbidden to sell produce with kedushat sheviit to nonJews. That would mean having guards at supermarkets checking that only Jews buy the produce "This is compounded by the fact that the non-religious kibbutzim do not observe those prohibitions which Harav Kook instituted, and Harav Kook never permitted their current practices." The current chief rabbinate tries to enforce whatever Rav Kook instituted. In fact most agricultural workers in Israel regardless of shemita are Arabs. -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 18:33:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:33:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish with mixed seating In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720013343.GC4548@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 03:08:58PM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : Interestingly enough the Gemara in Succos brings a "proof" for separation : of men and women from a non-"Davar She'bekedushah" the funeral in : Zecharyah. The other example is Simchas Beis haSho'eivah. Notice that one is extreme joy, and the other extreme sadness. Neither was tefillah betzibbur. Should the fact that chazal thought it was natural to apply these precedents to tefillah be taken to mean that -- "thanks to my knees for bowing at modim" aside -- Chazal found such extremes of emotion common during davening? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 18:57:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:57:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150720015718.GD4548@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 01:14:59AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : Well, I guess my original post should have had a longer introduction. I : know that Kaddish Tiskabel has a very clear rule, namely that it : follows every Amidah, and the only exception is that it also follows : Selichos. Kaddish D'rabanan always follows group learning (though I've : never figured out exactly what learning counts and what doesn't). Qaddish Tisqabel is said after zelosehon (the Amidah) uVa'us-hon (tachanun or selichos. That the request that they be accepted. : And now I'm trying to figure out the rule for Kaddish Yasom. It SEEMS : to be a sort of "congregational prayer", where "prayer" is something : *other* than the Amidah, but I can't define it any more precisely than : that. For a long time I thought it was connected to Tehillim, but when : I noticed it after the megilos on Yom Tov, someone suggested that it's : not specifically Sefer Tehillim, but *any* part of Kesuvim, not that we : had any idea why Kesuvim would get this distinction over Neviim or Torah. Accordng to R' de Sola Pool's monograph "Kaddish", Qaddish originated as being post-derashah -- the role Qaddish deRabbanan still serves. So perhaps non-concidentally, the format for sermons through the geonic era was to start with a pasuq from one of the sidrei EMa"S (Iyov, Mishlei, Tefillim) and wrap up by applying the resulting an idea to a pasuq from he sedra. ... : I have to admit that a big part of my asking this question is a pet : peeve that I've been nursing, regarding Kiddush Levana in particular. It : seems to me that Kiddush Levana -- the way it is done in just about : every situation I've ever seen -- cannot be called a Tefilas Tzibur in : any sense. It is a group of yechidim who happen to be saying the same : thing, but in a totally disorganized fashion... Perhaps that's it exactly. Like "Shalom Aleikhem", we make a cpoint of socially unifying those yechidim as part of qiddush levanah. Perhaps not in the sense of tefillah betzibbur or tefillas hatzibur, but then, neither is a shiur. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 09:45:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:45:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reciting a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time In-Reply-To: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> References: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> Message-ID: <20150720164528.GA10632@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:53:34AM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : http://tinyurl.com/o6rxcdf : according to those that say you do NOT recite a shehechiyanu when performing : a mitzvah for the first time (ie bar mitzvah), Who are they? All I know of is the Chasam Sofer (OC 55) -- well I guess I also know of the Peri To'ar, his maqor -- who says that the berakhah when putting on tefillin on one's bar mitzvah is supposed to be made with all the rest of the mitzvos in mind. The Radvaz says a ger says shehechiyanu when they emerge from the miqvah. I am less clear when a girl becoming a bas mitzvah would make her shechiyanu. The Ben Ish Chai says the girl should have in mind ol mitzvos when making shehechiyanu on her celebratory dress. Paralleling what we do by eating a new fruit on the 2nd evening of RH. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 09:51:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefach Thick Soft Spongy Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720165119.GB10632@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 03:09:13AM +0300, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Many mistakenly think that we now have an accepted Halachic tradition, : recorded in the Shulchan Aruch [460:5] to no longer bake Tefach thick Matza : [10 - 12 cm] as in Talmudic times. This is untrue... Unless we are holding like the "veyeish la'asos" in the Rama se'if 4. Neither the se'if nor the explanation "ki ein hareqiqin memaharin lehachmitz" make a distinction about when the matzah was made. -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:19:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on Exercise In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720211930.2A235182421@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:53 PM 7/20/2015, R. Ben Waxman wrote: >Orot, Orot Hatechiya, 34: > >Exercise, (which young Israel is getting involved in, in Eretz Yisrael, >to strengthen their bodies in order to be vigorous for the nation), >improves the spiritual strength of the greatest tzaddikim, those who >involve themselves in "the unification of God's names" (my translation >of a phrase which I admit I don't get), and increases the transmission >of God's light in the world, because there is no revelation at all of >light without all components being present. > >Turns out that (according to Rav Kook) not only does Talmud Torah >increase the merits to the army/state/people, but just having people >trying to be healthy, active, in shape, improves Talmud Torah, as long >as both sides are doing this for the nation. See "Exercise, Torah Learning and the Chofetz Chaim" http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/exercise_torah_cc_v2.pdf Reb Yaakov Kamenetsky was an avid swimmer all of his life. I recall when he came to Monroe to spend a Shabbos with his son Avraham. He was in his 80s I believe. Well, he put on his bathing suit, a robe and went to the pool. He then proceeded to jump into the pool and swim laps. This spread like wildfire in the 3 colonies in Monroe. People could not stop talking about it. It eventually got back to Reb Yaakov who quipped, "I wish they are as excited about my learning as they are about my swimming!" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 15:03:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> Re: Micha's questioning kadish yasom(KY) after kidush levana, the Vilna Gaon has a shortened version(doesn't he always?) that starts with the bracha and ends with siman tov. There is no Aleinu, hence no KY. He also holds that "sh'ain l'harbos b'k'dashim shelo l'tzorech, hence,there is only once KY per tefila. After the Yom by shachris and after Aleinu by mincha & maariv. Minhag Ashkenaz is not to say kadish d'rabonan during/after tefila but only after limud agada. The chasidim adopted the custom of saying it from the Seforadim and that's how it entered their ritual. I remember davening once at the Boro Park nusach HaGra k'vosikin minyan way back and was struck by the number of KYs that were said. The gabbai's answer was that it was too difficult to stop the "kadish zogers" from having their way. B"H, at our Flatbush Nusach HaGra k'vosikin minyan (Young Israel of Ave K, East 29th and K) under Rav Aryeh Ralbag guidance, we are have not had to compromise the Nusach HaGra way of davening. Shachris is 45 minutes before HaNetz every shabos and YT. -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com http://www.schnurassociates.com/joels-corner/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 15:46:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:46:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> References: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> Message-ID: <20150720224608.GB21161@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 06:03:46PM -0400, Joel Schnur via Avodah wrote: : I remember davening once at the Boro Park nusach HaGra k'vosikin : minyan way back and was struck by the number of KYs that were said. : The gabbai's answer was that it was too difficult to stop the : "kadish zogers" from having their way... REMT said something that makes me wonder... He suggested that our (non-Yekke) current practice of every avel saying qaddish is to make it condusive for aveilim to feel they're discharging their duty. Many men first started attending minyan regularly during aveileus and kept on doing so for the rest of their lives. Do you really want to discourage that with "Ah, why bother, I probably wouldn't get a turn this time anyway!"? A similar argument would change the priorities the Gra assumes about making extraneous opportunities for Qaddish. The AhS OC 55:4 gives this explanation for the creation of a 2nd opportunity for Qaddish Yasom at the end of Shacharis. He also writes that the Qadmonim only said 7 qaddeisim a day: Shacharis, after each of Yishtabach, Tachanun and UVa leTzion Minchah, after Ashrei and Tachanuun, and Arvis -- before and after Shemoneh Esrei. He quotes the Roqeiach invoking the pasuq "sheva bayom haleltikha" to explain that 7 was an intentional, significant, number. The AhS continues that three more were added when Aleinu was appended to the end of each tefillah. For the sake of yesomim who didn't get the amud. And significance was found for that, by reading Tzadi"q as an acronym, and each letter a gematria. Each day a tzadiq would say 90 times amein, (tzadi) 4 qedushos, (dalet) 10 qadeihim, and (yud) 100 berakhos (quf). (Citing the NMA.) Then he discusses leining adding one. "Veyoseir ein maqom laqadeishim", and still we added after Shir shel Yom because there were more yesomim, but more than that -- the AhS does not permit. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot RMB responded: Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. ============= My two cents: Adultery (eishis ish) is technically taking from another man that which belongs exclusively to him. So that itself puts it within the category of issurim that are mefursamos. The Rambam (MN 2:49) describes all sexuality as something that even when natural, should be limited. Homosexuality and bestiality, however, he describes as obvious deviations from the natural order that should be abhorred. I think that would place these two activities, as well, in the mefursamos category. The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely forbidden. Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: MN 3:49 As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure alone be eschewed. All illicit unions with females have one thing in common: namely, that in the majority of cases these females are constantly in the company of the male in his house, and that they are easy of access for him, and can be easily controlled by him - there being no difficulty in making them come into his presence; and no judge could blame the male I for their being with him. Consequently if the status of the women with whom union is illicit were that of any unmarried woman, I mean to say that if it were possible to marry them and that the prohibition with regard to them were only due to their not being the man's wives, most people would have constantly succumbed and fornicated with them. However, as it is absolutely forbidden to have intercourse with them, the strongest deterrents making us avoid this - I mean by this a sentence of death by order of a court of law and the threat of being cut off--so that there is no way to have intercourse with these women, men are safe from seeking to approach them and their thoughts are turned away from them. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot RMB responded: > Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate > family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. My two cents: Adultery (eishis ish) should be categorized under issurim mefursomos simply on the basis that it involves taking lves taking liberties with another man's wife, an intimacy that belongs to the husband. A form of theft! So that itself puts it within the category of issurim that are mefursamos. The Rambam (MN 2:49) describes all sexuality as something that even when natural, should be limited. Homosexuality and bestiality, however, he describes as obvious deviations from the natural order that should be abhorred. I think that would place these two activities, as well, in the mefursamos category. The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely forbidden. Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: MN 3:49 As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure alone be eschewed. All illicit unions with females have one thing in common: namely, that in the majority of cases these females are constantly in the company of the male in his house, and that they are easy of access for him, and can be easily controlled by him - there being no difficulty in making them come into his presence; and no judge could blame the male I for their being with him. Consequently if the status of the women with whom union is illicit were that of any unmarried woman, I mean to say that if it were possible to marry them and that the prohibition with regard to them were only due to their not being the man's wives, most people would have constantly succumbed and fornicated with them. However, as it is absolutely forbidden to have intercourse with them, the strongest deterrents making us avoid this - I mean by this a sentence of death by order of a court of law and the threat of being cut off--so that there is no way to have intercourse with these women, men are safe from seeking to approach them and their thoughts are turned away from them. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 16:02:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:02:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: (Sorry for approving both versions of that post! It was a quick typo in what was until-then going so smoothly! -micha) On 2015-07-20 5:34 pm, RZ Lampel wrote: > RMB responded: "Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest > within > the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot." > Adultery (eishis ish) is technically taking from another man that > which > belongs exclusively to him. So that itself puts it within the > category of > issurim that are mefursamos. > The Rambam (MN 2:49) ... Yes. But our problem is with Shemoneh Peraqim, where the Rambam distinguishes between mitzvos mefusamot, for which a person should develop a desire that is in line with the mitzvah (or a distaste in line with the issur), and other mitzvos where one should simply refrain out of submission to ol mitzvos. And among his mitzvos which are NOT mefursamos are arayos. R/Dr Meir Shinnar writes: > he specifically applies that > to > arayot - and needs to apply it to arayot, because the sugyot that > deal with > kol hagadol mechavero yitzro gadol mimenu - specifically apply to > arayot. > One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all > dine > arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not > sure > on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are > NOT > self evident or even mefursamot So regardless of how he categorizes them in the Moreh, the chiluq the Rambam makes in 8P requires our considering these issurim to not be self-evident. (Which I still don't get.) -micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 20:09:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 23:09:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah REMT said something that makes me wonder... He suggested that our (non-Yekke) current practice of every avel saying qaddish is to make it condusive for aveilim to feel they're discharging their duty. Micha Berger >>>> You are mainly talking about adults saying kaddish, but I remember one tragic year when there were seven yesomim under bar mitzva age saying kaddish, from three different families. Two families had lost their mothers, one family their father. Who was going to tell these children, who came to shul faithfully every day, sometimes getting to school late or skipping outings with their friends, "You can't say kaddish for your Ima or your Abba today, someone else has kadima"? Correct me if I am mistaken but my impression is that kaddish yasom is really mainly for genuine yesomim, i.e., those who lose their parents while they are still children. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 23:56:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:56:00 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Dr Shapiro's book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I found the most disturbing part of Dr Shapiro's book the last chapter. This is a halachid discussion of lying. My conclusion from this is that lying is perfectly permissible if there is a good reason. Basically the ends justifies the means. We are not talking about white lies as praising the bride for her beauty. In particular it is permissible to quote a psak from a gadol even though he never said it as long as you are sure that it is correct and he probably would have said it. There is no problem with making up stories about a gadol as long as the intention is to either glorify the gadol or else show why some idea is important. He claims that there are groups that actively make up stories about CI. The Chatam Sofer says that in order to prevent sins one can make the problem appear to be more serious than it really is such as turning a rabbinic prohibition into a biblical one. The problem with false attribution (besides the seemingly moral one) is that the result one cannot believe anything that is not written by the gadol himself. One never knows if the citation of the gadol was deliberately changed, However as seen in the rest of the book even the written words of the author are not always authoritative as in many cases they are tampered with to protect some "higher interest". Even the SA has been tampered with for this purpose. One can lie in order to avoid embarrassment to oneself. R Papa seems to have issued an incorrect halacha to avoid shame. A poor man can make believe he is blind or crippled in order to get more charity. One can claim that the monet is going for a poor bride when in fact it will be used for some other charity. Finally there is the heter of mental reservation or reinterpreting ones words made famous by the story of Yaakov "lying" To Isaac that he is Esav. Shapiro gives the example of Clinton making all sorts of "false" statements about Lewinsky and later justified it by saying that his words had another meaning than what people thought. Note this is sometimes permitted even in monetary cases. As stated about one can lie for educational purposes "Noble Lie" of Plato. Rav Dessler defines "truth" as the value that gives a positive result and is independent of observation and evidence. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 19:10:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 21:10:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: > Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: > MN 3:49 > As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are > directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling > disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The > reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against > intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is > natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more > should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure > alone be eschewed. So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 21:55:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:55:23 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9105E0A4-E59B-4E23-ADAA-7FCACD74F424@gmail.com> This is tangentially related only, but may be of interest in the context. I asked Rav Hershel Schachter, Shlita, what to do if someone who acts as a functionary at a Shira Chadasha (partnership) style service wants to do likewise in a mainstream Orthodox Congregation. His answer was, that such a person can be counted towards a Minyan, but no Kibbudim should be afforded to them. We have one here in Melbourne, which isn't like the one in Israel, but the strong word is that one of Rabbi Avi Weiss's Maharatos (Rabba/Rabbis) will be hired to lead that congregation. She was recently interviewed and claimed she was non denominational because she wanted to break down boundaries. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 03:08:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:08:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] thick matza Message-ID: For those interested a thorough discussion on thick matazot see the article of Ari Zivotofsky in Hakirah www.hakirah.org/Vol17Zivotofsky.pdf -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 06:54:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 06:54:49 -- 0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> Message-ID: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> On 7/20/2015 7:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > ... our problem is with Shemoneh Peraqim, where the Rambam distinguishes > between mitzvos mefusamot, for which a person should develop a desire > that is in line with the mitzvah (or a distaste in line with the issur), > and other mitzvos where one should simply refrain out of submission to > ol mitzvos. > And among his mitzvos which are NOT mefursamos are arayos....the chiluq > the Rambam makes in 8P requires our considering these issurim to not > be self-evident. And that's precisely what I addressed in my 3rd paragraph. After citing the Moreh Nevuchim's description of homosexuality and bestiality as obviously deviant practices (i.e. mefursamos), I cited its description of arayos (outside of eishis ish) as being not mefursomos, but issurim Hashem instituted as a preventative, a gedder, against unrestrained licentiousness in a situation (viz. family) where the temptation for it would otherwise be too hard to control. To repeat what I wrote: >> The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and >> commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because >> allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than >> his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would >> lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest >> intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, >> it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound >> to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely >> forbidden." Perhaps the mention of "commanded that it, too, be considered >> abhorrent" causes confusion. This would seem to put incest back into >> the category of mefursomos, along with murder and stealing, etc., about >> which a normal person is expected to harbor revulsion. So Rambam would be >> self-contradicting. But the elephant in the room is that the Torah itself >> commands us to treat eating non-kosher creatures with disgust. So how >> can Chazal tell us the right attitude is "efshi"? Evidently, Chazal and, >> naturally, Rambam, do not consider "efshi" to be at odds with "shekketz >> yih'yu lachem/teshak'tsu."My surmise is that they understand the Torah's >> command to treat with disgust the eating of non-kosher creatures and >> other acts that are not intrinsically objectionable (such as, per Rambam, >> incest, vs. murder, stealing, homosexuality and bestiality), as an imposed >> artificial behavior/attitude for these non-mefusamos issurim. Regarding >> your definition of issurim mefursamim, the Shemoneh Perakim does not >> say a tsaddik should /develop/ a revulsion, but that such revulsion is >> natural in born in all people. The tsaddik retains these feelings and >> does not allow them to be tainted. [Email #2.] On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: >> MN 3:49 >> As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are >> directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling >> disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom... On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and > should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of > Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what > possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 07:36:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:36:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Dr Shapiro's book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AE5907.7010503@optimum.net> RET: << A poor man can make believe he is blind or crippled in order to get more charity. >> How does this fit with Peah 8:9? Which book are we talking about? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 17:48:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 20:48:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> Message-ID: <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> I think one has to be careful, as I find it difficult to reconcile the position of the MN and that of the SP, and think they represent two distinct aspects (?stages) in the rambam Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions I) in hazal -- that continued desire for some forbidden actions is compatible with a high spiritual state -- issue is control of the desire -- NOT its presence II) Aristotelian ethics -- a high spiritual state does not desire for forbidden -- the desire is a sign of a flaw. SP resolves by differentiating between mefursamot -- whose desire is problematic and a flaw -- and religious law -- where desire is not a flaw -- and applies this specifically to arayot -- as examples in Talmud of Rabbanit with desire are of arayot, It is difficult for me to reconcile this position with the MN -- if our proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is " to instil disgust" -- how can desire still remaining not be a flaw???? In the MN, there is a conceptual framework to distinguish homosexuality and bestiality from regular sexuality -- but they are ALL viewed as things that should repulse us -- just some more than others. It is by no means clear that this framework and distinction can be read into the SP, and would think that One would need good evidence .hat it does not include ALL arayot... Meir Shinnar > It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah > attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress > during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan > Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a > marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. > Zvi Lampel > On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and >> should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of >> Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what >> possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? >> On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: >>> Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: >>> MN 3:49 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 08:06:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:06:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Message-ID: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why ? What changed in the afternoon? (especially since some pple fast both the 9th and 10th( Mordechai cohen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 06:18:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:18:26 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150722.091826.10442.1@webmail10.vgs.untd.com> The Moreh Nevuchim was quoted: > As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are > directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling > disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. R"n Lisa Liel wrote what I had wanted to write: > So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty > and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something > out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, > but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? R' Zvi Lampel answered: > It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah > attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt > duress during the marital process (you can find this in the > Kitzur Shulchan Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the > Rambam when it comes to a marital setting. I was taught we hold > like the Ramban. My guess is that you're referring to R' Eliezer from Nedarim 20b, referenced at the end of Kitzur 150:1. But from what I have seen, not for nothing is it called "Kitzur Shulchan Aruch", because this seems to be the attitude of all the standard poskim. The Kitzur is not a standalone machmir here; from what I can tell, he's merely quoting the Mechaber in Orach Chayim 240:8. Mishneh Brurah 240:35 (who refers us to Magen Avraham 240:21), Aruch Hashulchan 240:14, and Kaf Hachaim 240:59 all seem to advocate a strong reluctance towards intercourse, which is not quite as extreme as the Rambam's "disgust", but that might merely reflect their choice of words. For purposes of Talmud Torah, where is this Ramban who "strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting"? And for purposes of Halacha, which Acharonim hold like the Ramban, over the Mechaber, KSA, MB, and KH? (I recall hearing that the Siddur HaYaavetz might be the answer here, but there seem to be several different versions. If anyone can post a link to a specific version on SeforimOnline or HebrewBooks.org, and a page citation, I'd appreciate that very much.) Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett?s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren?t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55af9846b9a261846362est02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 07:13:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:13:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel asked: "The idea that sex is something dirty and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude?" See the Gemara in Nedarim (20a) about kafuhu shed. Also see RAL's article OF MARRIAGE: RELATIONSHIP AND RELATIONS ( http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf ) where he discusses this question and brings many of the sources. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:25:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:25:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 06:54:49AM +0000, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: :> So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and :> should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of :> Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what :> possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? : It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah : attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress : during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan : Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to : a marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. But the most famous Ramban does speak of perushim tihyu and how perishus is the key to holiness. (R' Shimon Shkop explains the Ramban as saying it is a primary means to hoiness, because "qedoshim tihyu qi Qadosh Ani" would be absurd if referring to Hashem practicing perishus. What temptations would He need to avoid?) And his first example is yema'eit bemishgal, like (Berakhos 22) "that TC not be found by their wives like roosters" and that tashmish should be limited to "kefi hatzeikh beqiyum hamitzvah mimenu". I presume, in an unXian sense, the Rambam refers to onah, not "only" piryah verivyah. Perishus and neqi'us come up a lot in lower-case-m mussar literature, even among anti-Maimonidians like Rabbeinu Yonah. To quote Mesilas Yesharim ch 13 (tr. from http://www.shechem.org/torah/mesyesh/13.htm I think it's the old Feldheim ed, by R' Shraga Simmons): There is no question as to the permissibility of cohabitation with one's wife, but still, ablutions were instituted for those who had had seminal emissions, so that Scholars should not be steadily with their wives, like roosters. Even though the act itself is permissible it implants in a person a lust for it which might draw him on to what is forbidden; as our Sages of blessed memory have said (Sukkah 526), "There is a small organ in a man which, when it is satiated, hungers and which, when it is made to hunger, is sated." And they said about R. Eleazar (Nedarim 20b) that even in the proper hour and the correct time he would expose a handbreadth and conceal two hand-breadths and imagine that a demon was compelling him, in order to cancel out the feeling of pleasure. And ch. 14: THERE ARE THREE principal divisions of Separation, involving pleasures, laws, and conduct respectively. Separation in relation to pleasures, which we spoke of in the previous chapter, consists in one's taking from the world only what is essential to him. This type of Separation encompasses anything which provides pleasure to any one of the senses, whether the pleasure be gained through food, cohabitation, clothing, strolls, conversation or similar means, exceptions obtaining only at such times when deriving pleasure through these means is a mitzvah. Separation in relation to laws ... Separation in relation to conduct ... Which also limits marital intimacy to what is necessary to fulfill piryah verivyah and onah. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:36:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:36:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55AFD49B.4070904@gmail.com> On 7/21/2015 8:48 PM, Meir Shinnar wrote: > Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions > I) in hazal - that continued desire for some forbidden actions is > compatible with a high spiritual state - issue is control of the > desire - NOT its presence > I) Aristotelian ethics - a high spiritual state does not desire for > forbidden - the desire is a sign of a flaw. > SP resolves by differentiating between mefursamot - whose desire is > problematic and a flaw - and religious law - where desire is not a > flaw - and applies this specifically to arayot - as examples in Talmud > of Rabbanit with desire are of arayot, > It is difficult for me to reconcile this position with the MN - if our > proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is " to instil > disgust" - how can desire still remaining not be a flaw???? > In the MN, there is a conceptual framework to distinguish > homosexuality and bestiality from regular sexuality - but they are ALL > viewed as things that should repulse us - just some more than others. > It is by no means clear that this framework and distinction can be > read into the SP, and would think that One would need good evidence > that it does not include ALL arayot... The Moreh Nevuchim III:35 explicitly states that his view about this matter is the same as his view in Shemoneh Perakim: The fourteenth class comprises the commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain sexual unions. They are those that we have enumerated in the Book of Women [/Sepher Nashim/] and in Laws concerning Prohibited Sexual Relations [/Hilkhoth Issurei Bi'ah/. The interbreeding of beasts belongs to this class. The purpose of this ... is to bring about a decrease of sexual intercourse and to diminish the desire for mating as far as possible, so that it should not be taken as an end, as is done by the ignorant, *according to what we have explained in the Commentary on the Tractate Aboth.* (All commentators agree this is a reference to the introduction to the commentary, the Shemoneh Perakim, just as the Moreh stated regarding the thirteenth class.) Your kushya is good: if [as per MN] our proper relationship to even permitted sexualityis "to instill disgust" - how can desire still remaining not be a flaw [as per ShP]???? But I think the solution I offered is reasonable. To wit: What do you do with the elephant in the room I mentioned? The Torah commands /t'shaktsu/ concerning the eating of non-kosher creatures (which is certainly as much in the category of non-mefursomos as bassar b'chalav and arayos); yet Chazal (and naturally, then, Rambam) say that when it comes to basar b'chalav, etc., one should have the attitude of "I have the desire to do it, but Hashem prohibited me.'' I offered one answer to both questions: When Rambam says that Hashem wants to instill in us disgust for the act, and the Torah (as per Chazal) says "t'shakstu,'' they mean that despite the fact that we should not deny or seek to eradicate the physical inclination for such pleasures, we must maintain an aversion to succumbing to it except for limited situations. (And the purpose of that is to keep us from doing it in excess, which is the real flaw.) *So although as per MN,] our proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is to instill a reluctance except for limited occasions (such as in a marriage setting), the desire still remaining is not a flaw [as per ShP] to be eradicated.* "I have the desire to do it [even outside of marriage, and I will not eradicate the sexual desire from myself,] but [live with it and constrain it outside of marriage,] because Hashem commanded me so [and this will bring me to perfection]. So, a word about the Moreh's wording. Pines translates: "As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. ... the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity." Friedlander translates: " we ought to limit sexual intercourse altogether, hold it in *contempt,* and only desire it very rarely." Ibn Tibbon translates "ha-arayos, ha-inyan b'kulam shahv l'ma-eit ha-mishgal *v'lim'os* bo, v'shello yirtseh mimennu ki im m'aht mi-za-ir...sheh-inyan ha-tiv'i *nim-ahs* l'hay-a-sos rak l'tsorech." I suspect from the context (lim'os/disgust/contempt, *except for limited occasions*) that the Rambam's original Arabic, not to mention his intention, is closer on the scale to the idea of avoidance for the sake of gaining perfection, than to disgust and contempt. Basically, it translates to what I believe is in fact our common attitude regarding these things. To put things in perspective, note that immediately before this section, the Rambam, following the same attitude of engaging in unrestrained physical pleasures being an obstacle to personal perfection, writes similarly about the activity of eating, again equating what he writes in the Moreh to what he wrote in Shemoneh Perakim: The thirteenth class comprises the commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain foods and what is connected therewith. These are the commandments that we have enumerated in the Laws concerning Forbidden Foods [/Hilkhoth Ma-akholoth Asuroth/]. The [commandments concerning] vows and the state of the Nazarites belong to this class. The purpose of all this is, *as we have explained in the Commentary on the Mishnah in the introduction to Aboth,* to put an end to the lusts and licentiousness manifested in seeking what is most pleasurable and to taking the desire for food and drink as an end. [Email #2. -micha] On 7/22/2015 1:25 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > But the most famous Ramban does speak of perushim tihyu and how perishus > is the key to holiness. ...And his first example is yema'eit > bemishgal... > I presume, in an unXian sense, the Rambam refers to onah, not "only" > piryah verivyah. > Perishus and neqi'us come up a lot in lower-case-m mussar literature, even > among anti-Maimonidians like Rabbeinu Yonah. To quote Mesilas Yesharim ch 13 > ..." And they said about > R. Eleazar (Nedarim 20b) that even in the proper hour and the correct > time he would expose a handbreadth and conceal two hand-breadths and > imagine that a demon was compelling him, in order to cancel out the > feeling of pleasure. > And ch. 14: ... > Separation in relation to pleasures, which we spoke of in the > previous chapter, consists in one's taking from the world only what > is essential to him. > Which also limits marital intimacy to what is necessary to fulfill piryah > verivyah and onah. Which, as I was contemplating to write, shows that the Ramban and Rambam (and as you have pointed out, mainstream Jewish thought) all share the same basic nuanced attitude--despite the Ramban's opposition to the Rambam's presentation. Thanks for the sources. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:00:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:00:43 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> References: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:06 AM, M Cohen via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after > chatzos on Tbav > > Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc > > Why ? > > What changed in the afternoon? (especially since some pple fast both the 9 > th and 10th( > There are two answers in the Birkhei Yosef quoting Sefer Hakavvanot of R. Haim Vital (OH 559 s"k 7) for why we say verses of consolation at minha, both based on Midrash Eicha Rabba, and perhaps the reason is the same. Firstly, that this was when the BHMK began to burn, and it was davka a time of consolation because the people realized that HKBH was pouring his anger on stone and wood, not on flesh and blood. Secondly, that this is the time when the Messiah whose name is Menahem is born. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 22:23:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 01:23:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55B07A69.5020203@gmail.com> On 7/22/2015 1:26 PM, H Lampel wrote: > When Rambam says that Hashem wants to instill in us disgust for the > act, and the Torah (as per Chazal) says ''t'shakstu,'' they mean that > despite the fact that we should not deny or seek to eradicate the > physical inclination for such pleasures, we must maintain an aversion > to succumbing to it except for limited situations. (And the purpose of > that is to keep us from doing it in excess, which is the real flaw.) I should also note that the Rambam teaches that hand-in-hand with the flaw of excessive involvement in physical pleasures, and the ultimate problem with that, is the attitude behind it, of making physical pleasure an end in itself, rather than a side benefit of a means. The Rambam applies this objection to both sexual pleasure for its own sake and eating pleasure for its own sake: The prohibition of certain foods and what is connected therewith.... The purpose of all this is, as we have explained in the Commentary on the Mishnah in the introduction to Aboth, to put an end to the lusts and licentiousness manifested in seeking what is most pleasurable and to taking the desire for food and drink /as an end/. ...The commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain sexual unions... The purpose of this ... is to bring about a decrease of sexual intercourse and to diminish the desire for mating as far as possible, so that it should not be taken /as an end/, as is done by the ignorant, according to what we have explained in the Commentary on the Tractate Aboth. Zvi Lampel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 01:16:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:16:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R' Aharon Lichtenstein was bothered by the difference in opinion regarding marital intimacy between Chazal who seem to have a very positive attitude and the Rishonim (especially the Rambam) who have a very negative attitude and the attitude of contemporary authorities who seem to have swung back to the positive side: "We, for our part, are confronted by a quandary of our own; and it is dual. At one plane, we ask ourselves, within the context of our learn- ing?it is Torah, and we must learn?a simple and straightforward ques- tion. In light of the predominant evidence we have noted from Hazal and, particularly, its halakhic component, how and why did Rambam, Ramban, and some other rishonim, deviate so markedly from their prevalent attitude? With reference to yetser (the inclination)?generic in connotation but defined by Rashi as shel tashmish (sexual desire)?Hazal identify it as one of a triad which, optimally, one should ?let the left hand deflect and the right hand bring close? (Sota 47a). One sometimes gets the impression that the proportion was subsequently inverted. ... To the extent that we do succeed in harmonizing the positions of Hazal and of rishonim, we ameliorate the pressure of one issue but exacerbate that of another. For we are brought, in turn, to a second quandary: our own. While I have conducted no empirical survey, I believe there is little question regarding the sensibility of the contempo- rary Torah world, irrespective of camp and orientation. We stand, fun- damentally, with R. Bar-Shaul. We assert the value of romantic love, its physical manifestation included, without flinching from the prospect of concomitant sensual pleasure; and we do so without harboring guilt or reservations. " Source: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 06:35:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:35:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shimon haTzaddik and Alexander the Macedonian Message-ID: <20150723133509.GA14333@aishdas.org> The story of Shim'on haTzaddiq, in the office of kohein gadol, meeting Alexander the Great, as told in Yuma 69a, is pretty well known. Josephus told the story earlier, in Antiquities 11:8. The Daily Mail recently covered what appears to be another retelling : Mosaic of Alexander the Great meeting a Jewish priest is the first ever non-biblical scene to be discovered inside a synagogue - Artwork was uncovered in a fifth-century synagogue in Huqoq, Israel - May depict Alexander the Great, based on the presence of elephants - Scene is the first non-biblical story to be found in an ancient synagogue - Depictions of Biblical hero Samson are also part of the decorative floor By Sarah Griffiths for MailOnline Published: 03:43 EST, 15 July 2015 | Updated: 07:21 EST, 15 July 2015 ... The artwork was uncovered in the east aisle of a fifth-century synagogue in the ancient Jewish village of Huqoq. ... The largest top strip contains the scene showing a meeting between two men, who perhaps represent the legendary warrior and a Jewish high priest. In the scene, a bearded soldier wearing battle dress and a purple cloak leads a bull by the horns, followed by other soldiers and elephants with shields tied to their sides. He is meeting with a grey-haired, bearded elderly man wearing a ceremonial white tunic and mantle, accompanied by young men with sheathed swords, also in ceremonial clothes. Southern Galil, 5th cent CE. Within a generation of the compilation of Mes Yuma. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 06:14:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:14:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B0E8A7.7050202@gmail.com> I agree with all those who reacted to my remark about Ramban vs Rambam, and I am especially grateful to Marty Bluke for the link to Rav Lichtenstein ztl's comprehensive article that provides the sources and notes the challenges they present. (I think that link was recently posted on R. Gil Student's blog.) As R. Akiva Miller has pointed out, it was Rebbi Eliezer of Nedarim 20b, referenced at the end of Kitzur 150:1 (and, as RAM pointed out, the Mechaber OC 240:8) who is understood to have expressed duress during the marital process. (And who is a Tanna, not an Amora, as I incorrectly stated.) Also, RAM asked, > For purposes of Talmud Torah, where is this Ramban who "strongly disagreed > with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting"? And again, I stand corrected. The Rav who gave me my "chassan shmuess" was probably referring to the /Iggeress ha-Kodesh,/ which, as Rav Lichtenstein pointed out in his article, is often erroneously attributed to Ramban. But apparently, had Rav Lichtenstein been giving me the "chassan shmuez," I would have come away with the same halacha l'ma'aseh regarding attitude. He writes: We cannot, as the author of the /Iggeret ha-Kodesh/ could not, abandon the conviction that so central a component of human nature is not part of the /tov me'od/ of primordial creation. Consequently, impelled by our spiritual instincts and animated by the faith instilled in us by our Torah mentors, we opt for consecration rather than abstinence. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 07:12:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:12:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> Message-ID: <26C8383E-E3E8-4443-8BAD-62AB922C5681@gmail.com> Again, one has to be very careful. There are four different sources here. 1)Shmona Prakim -- chapter 4 -- where reason for laws on arayot is to limit Sexuality -- in the sense of a golden mean. 2)Shmona Prakim -- chapter 6 -- where desire for things forbidden only by halakhah is endorsed as not a spiritual flaw 3) MN 3:35, where he describes category 14 of mitzvot -- relating to arayot -- in terms similar to source 1, as the rambam notes and meforshim point out. 4) MN 3:49 -- where purpose of hilchot arayot is to instill disgust -- not merely control and limit Therefore, RZL is correct that MN 3:35 refers to Spm but chapter 4. One can reconcile sources 1,2 and 3, or 1,3 and 4 -- but difficult to recocile all 4. I would ad that source 2 is problematic, in that it's view of halakhah as an almost arbitrary set of limitations, seems quite different than the rambam's normal presentation of the purpose of Halacha. Meir Shinnar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 10:15:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:15:16 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150723.131516.32484.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> Many posters - and their quoted sources - have compared the desire for intercourse with the desire for food. What I have not seen is any comparison between the *enjoyment* of intercourse and the enjoyment of food. Halacha restricts our eating in many ways, and we are taught that this is to curb our desires. But there are seem to be many exceptions to this, and I don't see parallels to intercourse. We have mitzvos where eating is merely a physical act used as a means to some other end. Achilas Matza might be the best example of this. We need to internalize the matzah and its lessons, but any enjoyment that we might get from this eating is utterly irrelevant. This seems quite comparable to the intercourse, where it is merely a means towards having children. The enjoyment that one gets from the intercourse (like from the matza) is irrelevant - or perhaps even lower, to be eschewed. One might cite Rama Even Haezer 25:2, which lists various permitted forms of intercourse, but to me, that is like saying "You can eat your meat broiled or cooked or fried, as long as you don't put milk in it, and don't eat it too often either." This is NOT what we are told about meat. Rather we are told that eating meat is the only way to enjoy Yom Tov. We are taught that eating is proper and good. When a simcha arises, we must make a meal so as to properly celebrate it. And if there are overlapping simchas, we should add an extra course so that each simcha gets its due. Red wine is more appropriate than white, but if you personally enjoy white, then go for it. Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. - Is the difference really that subtle? To me, it is as subtle as a brick. R' Marty Bluke posted: > Also see RAL's article OF MARRIAGE: RELATIONSHIP AND RELATIONS > ( http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf ) where > he discusses this question and brings many of the sources. Indeed he does bring many sources. And I was particularly intrigued by his conclusion, that the general thrust of recent authorities seems to be very different from before that: > To the extent that we do succeed in harmonizing the positions of > Hazal and of rishonim, we ameliorate the pressure of one issue but > exacerbate that of another. For we are brought, in turn, to a > second quandary: our own. While I have conducted no empirical > survey, I believe there is little question regarding the > sensibility of the contemporary Torah world, irrespective of camp > and orientation. ... We assert the value of romantic love, its > physical manifestation included, without flinching from the > prospect of concomitant sensual pleasure; and we do so without > harboring guilt or reservations. We insist, of course, upon its > sanctification?this, within the context of suffusive kedusha of > carnal experience, generally. and yet, a page later, > Assuming these facts to be correct ? as regards my own spiritual > environs, I can attest directly ? we ask ourselves: How and why > do we depart from positions articulated by some of our greatest > ? "from whose mouths we live and from whose waters we drink" - > and, is this departure legitimate? Are we victims of the Zeitgeist, > swept along by general socio-historical currents? Do we tailor our > attitude on this issue to conform to appetitive convenience and > erotic desire? Have we, in this case, adopted a self-satisfying > posture of facile world-acceptance clothed in culturally correct > garb? I did not find his answers to these questions very satisfying. But I do find his *asking* them to be extremely comforting. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 11:43:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:43:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Relative Priorities Message-ID: <1440012f20ae4d989f0b2c5fdc8b1c1e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> A yahrtzeit shiur is "being sponsored" at the same time as your regular learning seder. Evaluate the various score cards in shamayim (yours, the niftar's, your chavrutah's) depending on whether you attended the shiur or seder (all other things being equal). She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 24 07:09:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 17:09:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: artificial meat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Technological advances are bringing us to ask a pressing question: Does Judaism consider meat created in a laboratory to be kosher? Does Jewish law even consider it to be meat?The question takes on particular significance now, during the nine days, the traditional period of mourning that precedes Tisha B'Av when observant Jews abstain from meat. (Well, theoretical significance, at least ? the world's first lab-grown hamburger, created in 2013, cost a cool $325,000 and it's not exactly available at your neighborhood grocery store yet.)Some kashrut experts are ready to rule the burger kosher, and not only that, parve, reported Ynet reporter Koby Nachshoni ? meaning observant Jews, who won't eat milk and meat together, can eat their test-tube burger topped with cheese. Furthermore, the halachic authorities with whom Nachshon consulted even said this would apply to test-tube pork ? so make that a bacon cheeseburger.But, no surprise here, not everyone agrees about that.Chabad addressed the issue , too, noting that there are precedents for test-tube meat in the ancient Jewish sources. see http://www.haaretz.com/life/food-wine/1.667580 -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:30:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh Message-ID: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> Last night in the shul that I davened B'Leil Zeh was said with great fervor. However, I am wondering if it should have been said at all. B'Leil Zeh is referring to the night of the 9th of Av and the many things that occurred then. Last night was, of course, the night of the 10th of Av. Does it really make sense to have said B'Leil Zeh on the 10th of Av? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:50:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:50:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh In-Reply-To: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 10:30:37AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : B'Leil Zeh is referring to the night of the 9th of Av and the many : things that occurred then. Last night was, of course, the night of : the 10th of Av. Does it really make sense to have said B'Leil Zeh : on the 10th of Av? Now that you made me think about the question, I would ask the reverse one. Bayis sheini was set aflame shortly before sheqi'ah on the 9th and burned through the 10th. So wouldn't beleil zeh only fit a postponed ta'anis? As for bayis rishon... I'm still sorting my way through understandings of Yechezqeil and the Yerushalmi. RMT, kedarko (see ) touches on a nice subset of sources at http://download.yutorah.org/2012/1053/Tisha_Bav_To-Go_-_5771_Rabbi_Torczyner.pdf Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: R' Mordechai Torczyner -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:58:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:58:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh In-Reply-To: <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> References: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150726145900.0654D1831F2@nexus.stevens.edu> At 10:50 AM 7/26/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >Now that you made me think about the question, I would ask the reverse >one. Bayis sheini was set aflame shortly before sheqi'ah on the 9th and >burned through the 10th. > >So wouldn't beleil zeh only fit a postponed ta'anis? > >As for bayis rishon... I'm still sorting my way through understandings >of Yechezqeil and the Yerushalmi. Perhaps two separate tefillos are needed, one for the night of the 9th of Av and one for the night of the 10th of Av. However, given the vast amount of kinos and other tefillos for Tisha B'Av, I am loath to suggest adding any more. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 16:32:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 19:32:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Message-ID: From: M Cohen via Avodah There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why? What changed in the afternoon? Mordechai Cohen >>>> The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 22:02:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:02:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus Message-ID: Thew gemara in Gittin tells the story of the rich lady miryam bat batus who sent her sevant to buy food in the market, before the churban, each time the food is already sold and she finally dies from dung on her foot. OTOH the gemara in ketuvot says that miryam bat batus paid King Yanai a lot of money to appoint her son yehoshua ben gamla as high priest First the two stories are about 150 years apart. In addition Alexander Jannai was himself high priest and unlikely to sell that position -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 20:18:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:18:25 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150726.231825.30515.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> R' Zvi Lampel wrote: > But apparently, had Rav Lichtenstein been giving me the > "chassan shmuez," I would have come away with the same halacha > l'ma'aseh regarding attitude. He writes: > > We cannot, as the author of the /Iggeret ha-Kodesh/ could > not, abandon the conviction that so central a component of > human nature is not part of the /tov me'od/ of primordial > creation. Consequently, impelled by our spiritual instincts > and animated by the faith instilled in us by our Torah > mentors, we opt for consecration rather than abstinence. I am very bothered by this attitude. I will explain why. We have discussed the idea that a posek may sometimes choose a psak based on what "seems right" to him, and then he will find sources to support that conclusion. But if I remember correctly, this is usually done in the case of *new* questions, where there is little precedent to draw upon. But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed. And it changed so recently that Rav Lichtenstein couldn't name any seforim that might have explained it to him. Namely, that for some reason, various people (such as RZL's teacher) started paskening - "halacha l'ma'aseh" in RZL's words - that the halacha follows the Iggeret ha-Kodesh (whose author we aren't sure of) rather than the Shulchan Aruch and Rav Yosef Karo. Why aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? Can we really overturn the Shulchan Aruch simply because "We cannot ... abandon the conviction" that sex is "tov me'od"? When we justify a psak and say we were "impelled by our spiritual instincts", how are we different from Conservative and Reform? I would not speak this way if the topic was a machlokes rishonim. Can someone please point to another major Rishon besides the Iggeret ha-Kodesh who holds that way? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b5a34e339ce234e4610st01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 01:31:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:31:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why? What changed in the afternoon? Mordechai Cohen >>>> The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= R'YBS explained that once the mikdash started burning (PM of TB) we knew hkb"h was taking out his wrath on stones and wood, not us. 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 00:49:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:49:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> On 07/27/2015 01:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Thew gemara in Gittin tells the story of the rich lady miryam bat > batus Martha bat Baytus. > who sent her sevant to buy food in the market, before the > churban, each time the food is already sold and she finally dies from > dung on her foot. > > OTOH the gemara in ketuvot Yoma. 18a. And Yavamos 61a. I could not find any reference to this in Kesubos. > says that miryam bat batus Martha bat Baytus. > paid King Yanai a lot of money to appoint her son Husband > yehoshua ben gamla as high priest. First the two stories are about > 150 years apart. No, they're not. Yehoshua ben Gamla was the Cohen Gadol at the time of the revolt against Rome, and was murdered by the Biryonim. > In addition Alexander Jannai was himself high priest > and unlikely to sell that position Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos in both places points out, for precisely that reason. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 03:22:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:22:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> References: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150727102247.GA8241@aishdas.org> RnTK wrote: : The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting : the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people : (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house : on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. R' Yirmiyohu Kaganoff provided sources at : In some places there is a custom to wash the floors and clean the house on the afternoon of Tisha B'Av. This custom is based on a mesorah that Moshiach will be born on Tisha B'Av afternoon and that it is therefore appropriate to commemorate the redemption and strengthen people's hopes and prayers (based on Beis Yosef 554 and Kolbo). Although this seems like unnecessary work on Tisha B'Av that should be postponed, the poskim rule that one should not discourage those who follow this custom (Birkei Yosef 559:7). On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:31am +0000, R Joel Rich replied: : R'YBS explained that once the mikdash started burning (PM of TB) : we knew [HKB"H] was taking out his wrath on stones and wood, not us. I bet RYBS cited the Gra (OC 555:1). Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: Actually, Google gets most of the credit for filling in vague memories with mar'eh meqomos. -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 05:00:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:00:41 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150727.080041.13995.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> I asked: > I would not speak this way if the topic was a machlokes > rishonim. Can someone please point to another major Rishon > besides the Iggeret ha-Kodesh who holds that way? Alternatively, can anyone cite other halachos, where for centuries the acharonim followed the Shulchan Aruch, and then in recent decades, the poskim decided to follow a minority rishon? My first instinct is to say that the shitos of the Gra are in this category, but there were those who followed the Gra ever since his day, and the only real change is that his views became more and more widespread. Was there ever a community that was known for following the Iggeret ha-Kodesh in this inyan until recently? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b61d8f130a61d8b4299st01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 07:10:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:10:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 11:15:51AM -1000, R/ Dr Noam Stadlan wrote on Areivim: : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded : as ignorance... To do that woud be to disagree with her husband. See "Thinking Aloud", pg 113: DH: What is the heter for a married woman in her house not to cover her hair when there are outsiders present? RYBS: She has to cover her hair. Another exchange: DH: Someone was asking about a woman wearing a kisui rosh in the house. RYBS: We pasken you should. DH: Someone showed me a gemara in Kesubos that b'toch chatzeira it should be mutar, since otherwise there is no way any woman could remain tachas ba'alah (72b). Offhand it occurred to me that if it was lo shechichei inshei - just for going around the house when no one's around, and someone just may drop in - then it would be mutar. But if you have people coming over b'kevius, then why would it be any different than going aroung in the street? Is there a special din in the bayis that there's no din of covering your head anymore? DH: Is this kisui ervah like most kisui ervah? RYBS: Of course. DH: What should I do for myself, for my wife? RYBS: You will find out. There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 08:15:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & the Tosafists. http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ Our *Torah shebe?al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the *Torah shebe?al peh* would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe?al peh* today. I just heard a piece yesterday by Rabbi Weill, from a few years back on Kinnot and the destruction of Ashkenaz and burning of the gemorahs in Paris. It was very devastating for the area. Jews lived in other areas as well, thank God. So the Mesora continued with them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 11:42:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:42:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? Message-ID: From: Micha Berger via Avodah : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded : as ignorance...[--Dr. Noam Stadlan] To do that would be to disagree with her husband. ....There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. -- Micha Berger >>>> A similar quote (third hand): Someone told me he once asked RYBS if a married woman is obligated to cover her hair, and RYBS replied in a somewhat sideways fashion, "You are not obligated to divorce her if she does not do so." You have to understand that it was an era in which most American Jews were throwing away the Torah with both hands. It was hard enough to find a wife who was frum; demanding that she cover her hair was almost impossible in many cases. RYBS was not the only Torah scholar whose wife failed to cover her hair. I have to assume that this was simply one nisayon that was too difficult, given those times. After the post-war influx of chassidim arrived in America, kisui rosh, like so many other neglected mitzvos, became much more acceptable and common. R' Michael Brody in his article on the subject says that the Chofetz Chaim railed against the practice of women in Vilna, even those married to big talmidei chachamim, to go about with their hair uncovered. Although the CC is completely, vehemently, opposed to this practice, R' Brody deduces (I am paraphrasing) that "This proves that many talmidei chachamim did not demand that their wives cover their hair, from which we may deduce that they held kisui rosh was not required, and we may rely on them." This line of reasoning is reminiscent of the joke, "How do we know that Yakov wore a yarmulka? Answer: It says 'Vayetzei Yakov' -- would Yakov have gone out without a yarmulka?!" But at any rate it does indicate that this was a largely neglected mitzva even in Vilna, in the early 20th century -- though neglect of a mitzva does not make the obligation go away. I for one do not hold it against RYBS. What he would have preferred and what was actually obtainable, in that time and place, were not the same. For that time and place, for a woman to be Torah observant was already a madreiga. To have been the wife of such a man -- his rebetzen must have had extraordinary zechuyos. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 11:43:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:43:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> The below (and, btw, R Nachum Lamm makes an interesting point in the comments there) leads me to a different, but related, question: We trace Rashi's mesorah pretty easily back to Rabbeinu Gershom -- but where did _he_ get _his_ mesorah from? How did it get from Bavel and the Gaonim to northern Europe? > RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & the Tosafists. > http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ [1] > Our *Torah shebe?al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the *Torah shebe?al peh* would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe?al peh* today. Links: ------ [1] http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 12:41:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:41:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: From: Kenneth Miller via Avodah >> We have discussed the idea that a posek may sometimes choose a psak based on what "seems right" to him, and then he will find sources to support that conclusion. But if I remember correctly, this is usually done in the case of *new* questions, where there is little precedent to draw upon. But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? --Akiva Miller >>>> It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan Aruch. What frequency is optimum? Surely that is at least partly subjective, and any of the various sources that apparently disagree with each other can be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up what your gut tells you is right. I can easily see a modern day rav or Torah mentor varying his answers depending on the circumstances of the wife and husband who are asking him for advice, as well as accepted societal norms. Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least some obligation to fulfill. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 14:59:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gil Student via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 17:59:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume 2 of his Collected Essays. Gil Student From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 19:55:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 22:55:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Re:Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> References: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:10:59 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah > : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the > : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded > : as ignorance... > > To do that woud be to disagree with her husband. > > See "Thinking Aloud", pg 113: ... > There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with > his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. WADR, Micha misunderstands the issue. The issue is not whether RYBS agreed with his wife's practice -- there are sources (albeit most of them from long after her passing) which would suggest that he may ave disagreed, and paskened otherwise) -- but that is a different issue of whether he viewed it as ignorance -- and for sure not out of the pale of halacha. That is the crux of the issue -- not whether we wish to pasken that this is muttar for ourselves (or for those who listen to us..) -- but how we view those who follow a different shitta -- and anyone who suggests that RYBS viewed his wife as nonobservant or not fully halachically committed is motsi la'az and needs to go to her kever( you can ask R Seth Mandel his opinion how the rav would have viewed such a person) Several related stories: 1) The rav was the posek for a community, who knew that his wife did not cover her hair. The vast majority of that community, even those close to the rav, who followed his every word, did not think that he viewed this as being problematic -- and he had plenty of opportunity to let it be known.... 2) I knew a talmid who was close to the rav in the 70s (shiur many years, rav was measured kiddushin -- unfortunately niftar early. when getting married, he told me that he asked the rav all his shailos -- except about head covering for his wife (she did) -- he said that it was thought problematic to ask him because of the rav's wife 3) Another talmid was once invited, late 70s, to Rav Schwab's shabbes table. Topic got around to data's torah, and rav schwab said that many have it wrong -- there is not one da'as torah -- but da'as torah is the opinion of someone who is wholly torah -- rav kotler is da'as torah, rav feinstein is da'as torah,the satmar is da'as torah. My friend jumped in and asked what about RYBS? Rav Schwab was no fan of RYBS, and he hemmed and hawed and then said that as his wife did not cover her hair, he was not da'as torah. At that point Mrs. Schwab interjected, but you know that none of the litvische rebbitzens covered their hair. At which point R Schwab agreed to that, and then agreed that RYBS was da'as torah..... That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. Meir Shinnar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 06:52:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:52:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> Message-ID: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> On 7/27/2015 2:49 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos > in both places points out, for precisely that reason. > Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any permutation thereof. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 07:31:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:31:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> Message-ID: <55B79226.4030906@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 09:52 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 7/27/2015 2:49 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos >> in both places points out, for precisely that reason. > Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of > there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any > permutation thereof. Except this memra of Rav Assi, which is quoted twice in the gemara with the same language, so it's unlikely to be a mistranscription. Either Rav Assi was mistaken about the king's name, or there was a short-reigned later king of that name whom Josephus didn't bother mentioning, or one of the later kings had Yannai as one of his names, and Josephus didn't bother mentioning it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 07:21:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:21:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> References: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55B78FCC.2020104@sero.name> On 07/27/2015 10:55 PM, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: > At that point Mrs. Schwab interjected, but you know > that none of the litvische rebbitzens covered their hair. At which point > R Schwab agreed to that, and then agreed that RYBS was da'as torah..... > > That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it > was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, > it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. No, it was *not* a shita in Litte, it was a makas medinah. It was an aveira that was prevalent among women, and the best the rabbonim could do was not talk about it to the women, in the hope that they were shogegin. Even in an earlier generation, no less a person than R Akiva Eger had no control over his wife and daughters' mode of dress: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31632&pgnum=300 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 08:57:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:57:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 08:52:45AM -0500, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of : there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any : permutation thereof. Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and Hebrew? 400 years prior, having two names was common and the civil names we know of (Mordechai, Esther, Shadrach, Meshach, Aved-Nego, etc...) bore no relation to their Jewish names. Alternatively: Chazal could have thrown in the timing problem to flag to the historian that they were not speaking historically. After all, we know from the other narratives quoted that they knew the dates for Alexander Yannai wouldn't work. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:21:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 12:21:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> References: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150728162126.GC24227@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 11:09pm EDT, RnTK wrote: : with their friends, "You can't say kaddish for your Ima or your Abba : today, someone else has kadima"? Correct me if I am mistaken but my impression : is that kaddish yasom is really mainly for genuine yesomim, i.e., those who : lose their parents while they are still children. Rather than correct you, let me provide a mar'eh maqom: Rama YD 376:4, quoting the Mahariq. Both of us probably remembering R Michael Poppers posting this. The Rama says that Qadish Yasom was established for Qetanim, because they cannot be Chazan. BUT... the Rama is clear that this ended before the custom of multiple people saying Qaddish at once began. When writing the above, I started wondering about areas like Vilna, where a daughter would say Qaddish for parents who had no sons. Did this minhag begin back when only one person said Qaddish at a time? If so, she would get the same priority for Qaddish Yasom as a qatan, no? But cold you picture such a scene in early 19th cent Litta, a woman saying Qaddish by herself on one side of the mechitzah or by the doorway, and all the men of the minyan answering? So my instinct is that this minhag post-dates group Qaddish. But my instinct might be based on revisionist history, for all I know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:38:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:38:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:153am EDT, R Saul Guberman wrote: : RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & : the Tosafists. : http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ : Our *Torah shebe'al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish : history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a : great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, : but the *Torah shebe'al peh* would have survived without him. However, : without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, : any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe'al peh* today. Which is a different statement than the subject line. I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue understanding the gemara. But one thing RGS loses is RYBS's context. RYBS was saying this in shiur, in a room where talmidim bring a compact edition of the Rambam with them for reference. It's a different thing to make this statement while sitting in Brisk, when you may intentionally state a perspective re-setting idea more strongly than in other settings. On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 2:43pm EDT, R Sholom Simon wrote: : We trace Rashi's mesorah pretty easily back to Rabbeinu Gershom -- but : where did _he_ get _his_ mesorah from? How did it get from Bavel and the : Gaonim to northern Europe? In a teshuvah, Rabbeinu Gershom says he was taught most of his Torah by "R' Leon". He means Rabbi Yehudah (Leontin) ben Rabbi Meir haKohein. R' Leontin was from Iraly, but he was in France before reaching Mainz. In France he picked up talmidim who then followed him to Ashkenaz, including Rabbinu Gershom and R' Yosef Tuv Elem (Tuv Elem = Bonfils, you will see him the the Mordechai alot, Tosafos, and [if you ever have occasion to look] Machzor Vitri). Rabbeinu Gershom took over the yeshiva upon RYBRM's petirah, which is probably why he is "Rabbeinu" rather than "Rav". The thing is, the tradition in Provence is that they came from EY. For example, in Luneil it was (is?) believed that the city was founded by refugees from Yericho, who commemorated their city of origin by using a translation of the same name: yareiach = luna. Which brings me to RGS's reply to R Sholom, written yesterday, Jul 27, 2015, at 5:59pm EDT: : Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German : mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger : disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. : However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments : against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from : Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume : 2 of his Collected Essays. If there is any truth to the Israeli Provencial tradition, we have a link in terms of rabbinic leadership to EY. However, not only do nusach hatefillah, piyut, and a number of pesaqim (which RRW educated me on repeatedly on these "pages" in the past) point toward an EY origin of Ashkenaz, so does something I didn't see R/Dr Soloveitchik address -- genetics. A map of the Jewish genetic tree http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072 shows the closes affinity for the Ashkenazi gene pool were the Italian, Greek, Turkish and Syrian communities. Notably all under the Roman Empire. Whereas the Jews of the geonic lands -- from Bavel through Qairouan, Tunisia -- form a second grouping. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:45:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:45:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728174552.GE24227@aishdas.org> I just posted: : However, the loss of a codifier who : stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of : mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But : Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue : understanding the gemara. I meant to add a different (and to my mind very important) way of looking at this idea: In terms of mesorah, a flow of TSBP as a "dialog down the ages" (to use RYBS's terminlogy), the parshan keeps the chain connected down the ages in a way that a Yad, designed to be stand-alone, does not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:24:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:24:20 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go > by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and > Hebrew? > I don't follow: the Hasmonean and post-Hasmonean kings did all have both Hebrew and Greek or Latin names, but Yannai is a *Hebrew* name, from the same root as Yona. I know someone who Hebraized his surname from Taubmann to Yannai ("Taub" is German for "dove"). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:50:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:50:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 09:24:20AM -0700, Simon Montagu wrote: : > Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go : > by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and : > Hebrew? : I don't follow: the Hasmonean and post-Hasmonean kings did all have both : Hebrew and Greek or Latin names, but Yannai is a *Hebrew* name, from the : same root as Yona. I know someone who Hebraized his surname from Taubmann : to Yannai ("Taub" is German for "dove"). I believe this is a folk etymology. Where would the alef (yud, nun, alef, yud) have come from? But more tellingly, Alexander Janneus's Hebrew name was Yehonasan, like his uncle. See the Latin and Hebrew on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Jannaeus#/media/File:JanaeusCoinPhoto.jpg If he could be "Alexander Yannai" in one language and "Yonasan" in another, who knows it there weren't another king whose Latin name "Janneus" was simply not preserved? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:17:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:17:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: There are those who argued that Tosfos (in particular Rabbeinu Tam) essentially created Ashkenazi mesorah by radically changing how we study and relate to Gemara and how we relate to popular practice. One might suggest without exaggeration that Tosfos created our Mesora. In which case Rashi's mesora is less relevant. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> There certainly is a lot of evidence that Ashkenzi minhagim com more from E"Y than Bavel. But do we know of any chochomim that went from anywhere in the Middle East to Germany? I.e., ok, even if we accept that either there was a third school, or it came from E"Y -- do we yet know *how* it got to Northern Europe? (Or perhaps the answers are in articles that Haym Soloveitchik or David Berger wrote? (And, if so, does anyone have any citations?) -- Sholom On 2015-07-27 17:59, Gil Student wrote: > Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. > > However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume 2 of his Collected Essays. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:18:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:18:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Sources_for_Not_Covering_Hair=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > 2) I knew a talmid who was close to the rav in the 70s ... when getting married, he told me that he asked the rav all his shailos -- except about head covering for his wife (she did) -- he said that it was thought problematic to ask him because of the rav's wife I have a related story. A talmid who was also close to him. When getting married he _did_ ask about a head covering for his wife (after apologizing for asking it). If I remember the story correctly, the Rav smiled and said that he wasn't the right person to ask. -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:41:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:41:08 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Molad Message-ID: Calendars in my home town print the latest times of saying Kiddush Levana, which equate to exactly fifteen days after the announced Molad time. This might be an entire night, or an exact time, e.g. Sunday night 22.45. But since the astronomical Molad can be some distance from the calculated Molad times, by sometimes as much as twelve hours, does this not mean that these sof zeman kiddush levana times can be faulty by that same margin? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:00:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:00:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728180043.GG24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 01:28:42PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : There certainly is a lot of evidence that Ashkenzi minhagim com more : from E"Y than Bavel. Although experts, O Rabbi-PhDs, debate the issue. So what seems obvious to you or me apparently isn't. : But do we know of any chochomim that went from anywhere in the Middle : East to Germany? I already posted the mesorah from EY to Provence to Rabbeinu Gershom. Jews really started reaching the Rhineland area at the invitation of Charlemagne in the 9th cent CE, when he started the Holy Roman Empire. They came from Provence (again) and Italy. Recall that most of the captives from EY ended up in Rome, and you can understand how an Israeli presence in Italy would have already been established. Far more so than the Jews of the geonate -- who, as I mentioned, were living outside the Roman Empire. In mythic form, we have a story of a King Charles invited R' Moshe ben Klonimus from Lucca to Mainz. In documentation form, Louis "the Pious", C's son, left charters showing that he too invited Jewish merchants to provide an economic backbone to his country, and mentions that he was continuing his father's invitation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person must be very patient micha at aishdas.org even with himself. http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:10:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:10:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: AIUI the MN "was all that you needed to study". Are you/RGS saying that this is only as a codifier? RAMBAM did not feel that he was passing on the mesorah? In the end, it does not matter what he wrote, RASHI vs RAMBAM, you must have RASHI, RAMBAM is nice but without RASHI you come to a dead end? On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > > I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah > through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who > stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of > mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But > Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue > understanding the gemara. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:32:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:32:24 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are forgotten after 12 months (memory of the bet hamikdash is different) I have a personal problem with this statement. To my sorry I know of several people who have lost children especially in the age of 18-25. One thing I have learned from these people is that one never forgets a child, It is part of their lives every day. The secretary of my department lost a son in a flash flood in the negev. She changed her last name to incorporate the name of that son. Every time she signs her name she remembers her son, Others who have lost sons in military actions say kaddish every day for the son many years later. I would just imagine that Yaakov having lost his "favorite" son would not forget him after 12 months but indeed would mourn for him forever -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:09:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:09:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 12:41 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > Calendars in my home town print the latest times of saying Kiddush > Levana, which equate to exactly fifteen days after the announced > Molad time. This might be an entire night, or an exact time, e.g. > Sunday night 22.45. That should be halfway between moldos, i.e. 14d 18h 22m after the molad, not a full 15 days. It should also be adjusted for the time difference between your standard time and Y'm's real time, which for NY is 7h 20m in the winter and 6h 20m in the summer. Using a full 15 days is only bediavad. > But since the astronomical Molad can be some distance from the > calculated Molad times, by sometimes as much as twelve hours, does > this not mean that these sof zeman kiddush levana times can be faulty > by that same margin? Yes, but since we have no easy way (other than consulting readily- available secular resources, of course) of determining when the real full moon occurs, we use the calculated moldos, *unless* there is a lunar eclipse, since that by definition happens at the true full moon. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:28:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:28:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B7C9D0.5030709@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 01:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If he could be "Alexander Yannai" in one language and "Yonasan" in > another, who knows it there weren't another king whose Latin name > "Janneus" was simply not preserved? Here's a thought: AFAIK there is no mention in the gemara of a second, bad, King Agrippas. The only Agrippas mentioned is the first one, the good one. Also, as far as I know, there is no record of the second Agrippas's Hebrew name. What if the first Agrippas gave his oldest son Yannai as his Jewish name, after the first Yannai, and that is how he was known among Jews, and therefore by the Amoraim, while Josephus called him by his Roman name, Herod Agrippa? -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:23:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:23:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus Message-ID: <> Any Jewish king would have been over 100 before the churban besides there is the known problem with Yehoshua ben Gamla having his position bought for him OTOH he seems to have done good deeds Interestingly wikipedia writes "*Yehoshua ben Gamla* (or Joshua son of Gamla) was a Jewish high priest who officiated in about 64 CE. He married the rich widow Martha of the high-priestly family Boethos (Yeb. vi. 4), and she by bribing Jannai secured for him the office of high priest (Yeb. 61a; Yoma 18a; comp. "Ant." xx. 9, ? 4). Although Yehoshua himself was not a scholar, he was solicitous for the instruction of the young, and provided schools in every town for children over five years of age, earning thereby the praises of posterity (B. B. 21a). The two lots used on the Day of Atonement , hitherto of boxwood, he made of gold (Yoma iii. 9). Yehoshua did not remain long in office, being forced, after a year, to give way to Matthias ben Theophil ("Ant." xx. 9, ? 7)." i.e. Martha bribed someone named Jannai in 64CE. Not clear who this Jannai is but definitely not a king -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:44:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:44:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B7DB8C.8030404@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 03:23 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Interestingly wikipedia writes I.e. somebody, perhaps with no more information than you or me, wrote > i.e. Martha bribed someone named Jannai in 64CE. Not clear who this > Jannai is but definitely not a king Says who? Why do you say that, especially when not only does the gemara say he was a king, but we know that at the time the kehuna gedola was in the gift of king? -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 13:37:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:37:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? Message-ID: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> From: Meir Shinnar via Avodah >> That is the crux of the issue -- not whether we wish to pasken that this is muttar for ourselves (or for those who listen to us..) -- but how we view those who follow a different shitta -- and anyone who suggests that RYBS viewed his wife as nonobservant or not fully halachically committed is motsi la'az and needs to go to her kever [snip] That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. << Meir Shinnar >>>> [1] No one has ever suggested that RYBS viewed his wife as "nonobservant" so nobody has to go to her kever, although anyone who wants to may do so. I assume her children and grandchildren go on her yahrzeit. The line between observant and nonobservant is pretty clear, even though all of us sometimes sin. I have yet to hear of anyone saying that if a woman keeps Shabbos, kashrus and taharas hamishpacha, but does not cover her hair, she is "nonobservant." However if you know of a person who does say that, please cite the source, thank you. Maybe he is the same person who says that if you talk loshon hara you are nonobservant -- and therefore there are only about 500 observant Jews in the whole world, if that. [2] There is no "different shita." There was no "shitta in Lita" allowing married women to go out with their hair uncovered. What there was in Lita was the winds of Haskala, Reform and sliding, sliding, sliding away from Torah, more marked among the women even than among the men. Sarah Schnirer noted that there were chassidishe homes in Poland where, after the Friday night Shabbos meal, the teenage girls and even the mother would go out to see a play at the local theater. If there was slippage in Poland, where chassidus was strong, you can just imagine what was going on in Lita, where there was nothing to capture the hearts and minds of people who were not themselves talmidei chachamim -- viz, the unlearned masses, and the women. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 14:30:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:30:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> References: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150728213052.GA12259@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:37pm EDT, RnTK wrote: : [2] There is no "different shita." There was no "shitta in Lita" : allowing married women to go out with their hair uncovered... The AhS, whose theory of pesaq gives a lot of weight to seeing which ruling was accepted as general practice, famously permits saying Shema while seeing a married woman with her hair uncovered. But this is what he says in OC 75:7 , where that heter is given: And now, we will cry about the breached of our generation in its many since, for many years Benos Yisrael violate this sin and go with a revealed head. And whateve we yell about this, it doesn't help and it doesn't have an effect. And now this mispachas [oe of the nega'im] has spread, that married [women] go with their hyair like the besulos do. Woe to us that this arose in our generation! Still, al kol panim, according to the din is appears permitted to us to daven and make berakhos opposite their revealed heads, since now that most of them go this way... memeilah there won't be hirhur. So, RYME is pretty clear: It was common, it was viewed has a sin -- not "a different shittah", and the rabbinate did complain but no one listened. And again, that's the AhS, not the textual theoretician "what ought the ideal halakhah be from a clean slate" approach of the MB. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 14:46:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:46:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728214605.GB12259@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 02:10:52PM -0400, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: : AIUI the [MT] "was all that you needed to study". Are you/RGS saying that : this is only as a codifier? RAMBAM did not feel that he was passing on the : mesorah? In the end, it does not matter what he wrote, RASHI vs RAMBAM, you : must have RASHI, RAMBAM is nice but without RASHI you come to a dead end? As the Rambam says in the haqdamah (par 40 ), the goal was to put the "TSBP kulah sedurah befi hakol" -- his primary audience was the masses. And we know how much he thought of the masses. Similarly he continues (41) by telling you he his work "Mishneh Torah" because it fulfills the shelish bemishnah -- the studying of halakhah pesuqah. (He calls it sheliesh BTSBP, but as you just saw in the haqdamah, the Rambam both identifies the two and also says they're contained in his MT.) However, in Hil' Talmud Torah 1:12 tells you that that's only "betechilas tazlmudo shel adam, aval kesheyagdil bechokhmah" he should set time for TSBK and divrei hashemu'ah so as not to forget, "veyifneh kol yamav ligemara". So it is not impossible that even the Rambam himself might agree that those who explain how to do the shaqlara vetarya like gemara, or lomdus, or "veyotzi davar midavar veyidmeh dava ledavar" etc... are more central to the mesorah than his own Mishneh Torah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 13:54:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: <9ea4b.71e33b03.42e9460c@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) >>The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are forgotten after 12 months (memory of the bet hamikdash is different) I have a personal problem with this statement. To my sorry I know of several people who have lost children especially in the age of 18-25. One thing I have learned from these people is that one never forgets a child << --Eli Turkel >>>>> My grandmother had a baby daughter who died at the age of five months, and fifty years or more after that, I once asked her about the baby she had lost. She started to cry as if it had just happened, and described the baby in detail -- what she looked like, what she could do at five months and so on. So I learned the lesson that a parent never forgets a lost child. However, she only cried for a little while and then returned to her cheerful self. I'm sure that in the year after her baby died, she was not cheerful. I don't think "gezeira al hameis" means the person is literally forgotten, but that the degree of mourning becomes less intense. Initially the bereaved person, especially a bereaved parent, simply cannot believe the child is gone, and constantly thinks and even dreams about the child. With the passage of months and years, the knowledge that the child is truly gone is assimilated and the parent goes on with life, even if a heaviness always remains somewhere in the background. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 15:38:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 18:38:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150728223810.GD12259@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:12am EDT, R/Dr Meir Shinnar wrote: : Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions : I) in hazal - that continued desire for some forbidden actions : is compatible with a high spiritual state - issue is control of : the desire - NOT its presence : II) Aristotelian ethics - a high spiritual state does not desire : for forbidden - the desire is a sign of a flaw. But chazal too talk in terms of virtue ethics, not just in terms of kibush hayeitzer (overcoming the desire) but also tiqun hayeitzer (adjusting those desires). Most famously, "mah Hu Chanun, af atah chanun". Or, as the Rambam paraphrased, "mah hu *niqra* 'Chanun'..." It doesn't speak of giving to others without cause despite desire, it asks us to develop the middos of chanun, rachum, etc... Now, on to a totally different topic... On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 05:15:16PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote: : Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. Sex : is proper as long as you minimize it. - Is the difference really that : subtle? To me, it is as subtle as a brick. I think the difference is just about that, but because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: 1- It involves a second party. There is no threat of objectifying good. 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... Therefore, the attitude toward perishus for each comes from opposite directions. For food, which is necessary for survival, we talk about how much is too much. For sex, we talk about the right balance between keeping the other happy (chiyuv onah) and turning them into a tool for your own happiness. The bottom line is still the same: perishus from challenges I cannot handle while be maqdish olam hazeh the rest of the time. The details differ due to the differences above. On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:18am GMT, Kenneth Miller wrote: : .... This is a case where the Shulchan : Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went : uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed... On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:41pm EDT, Rn Toby Katz replied: : It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too loosely. If : it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim and acharonim, agree : that marital intercourse is always mutar (assuming the usual, the wife is not : a nidah, it's not forced, it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really : talking about here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan : Aruch. What frequency is optimum? Surely that is at least partly subjective, ... While what I said before about "minimize it" not meaning all that different from "don't overdue" addresses this question of RAM's as well, I think RnTK's response is really the essence of the answer. But to quibble with the language... I'm not sure it's "hashkafah" as much as Hilkhos Dei'os / Chovos haLvavos. After all "Qedoshim tihyu" is a chiyuv, not a nicety, and that's a source for "perushim tihyu". What a mitzvah to be or to become something (such as "qadosh") is in practice, though, is inherently situational and subjective. If we were talking about something reducible to black-letter halakhah and objective rules, it would have been. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 15:58:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:58:41 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <20150728.185841.2133.0@webmail10.vgs.untd.com> R"n Toby Katz wrote: > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar > (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, > it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might also be RTK's point). But if that is how we are to understand the vocabulary, then we have a whole new way of reading the Shulchan Aruch. Here are some examples: It's not assur to shmooze between Geulah and Tefillah of Maariv. (236:2) It's not assur to say Shehecheyanu on the Lulav on the second day. (662:2) Surely that is at least > partly subjective, and any of the various sources that apparently disagree with each other can be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up what your gut tells you is right. I can easily see a modern day rav or Torah mentor varying his answers depending on the circumstances of the wife and husband who are asking him for advice, as well as accepted societal norms. Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least some obligation to fulfill. ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b8096a62fe9695575st03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 20:51:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:51:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 02:09:11PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : That should be halfway between moldos, i.e. 14d 18h 22m after the : molad, not a full 15 days. It should also be adjusted for the time : difference between your standard time and Y'm's real time, which : for NY is 7h 20m in the winter and 6h 20m in the summer. Using : a full 15 days is only bediavad. Y-m time to EST is 7h 21m, not 20. But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we call it. It's hard to know exactly where the molad is being announced for, since the average lunation has changed over time and the accumulated difference between estimation and reality over millenia has grown large. Right now, the average molad matches the average moment of new moon for Qandahar, Afghanistan. If we go back in time to when the molad was closest to one lunar month, we get to 4th cent CE, the days of Hillel Nesi;ah. The av beis din to whom R Hai Gaon attributes our current calendar. If we assume the molad then was most accurate in start time as well when it was most accurate in durection, then the molad is being announeced for something like Ur Kasdim, which is also around the middle of Jewish settlement at the time, between the Nile and the Euphrates. In which case, the molad is being announced for a place 44 min after IST (not 21m). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 23:45:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 02:45:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 11:51 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Y-m time to EST is 7h 21m, not 20. True. I was approximating, much as the Rambam did with Y'm latitude. > But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we > call it. http://mechon-mamre.org/i/3811.htm#17 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:33:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 02:45:03AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we :> call it. : http://mechon-mamre.org/i/3811.htm#17 The Rambam there (Qiddush haChodesh 11:17) discusses the calculation of the calendar. The rules are set up based on RC in Y-m. Announcing the molad doesn't reflect the calculated calendar, but the whole Qiddush haChodesh is set up to invoke Sanhedrin being meqadesh al pi re'iyah. So perhaps they chose a clock for announcing the molad that wasn't the one they used to translate to the meridian used for translating mollad into rosh chodesh. Why would we do so? Isn't the meridian of Y-m the obvious time to use even if it weren't the one used to compute the calendar? As I quickly mentioned (I gave more details more than once in the past), I am suggesting a different meridian because if Hillel Nesi'ah ubeis dino had assumed a molad that was 23 min earlier than the one we announce, the molad would be more accurate. 23 min later than Yerushalayim does correspond to a meaningful place at the time, a point exactly midway between the Jews of EY and those of Bavel. Aside from including Ur Kasdim. Not the most obvious choice (Yerushalayim) but still not a random meridian either. So why not assume they picked the meridian for announcing the molad on that basis, and credit the Sanhedrin with knowing the molad to greater accuracy? The question is what that does to molad zaqein, and how we would explain the clean result of before noon vs posponing RH if the molad is after noon. The idea behind molad zaqein is that the furthest east Jewish community would still be able to see (weather permitting) the new moon before the end of RC. This is obviously only a loose idea, since we're talking about timing based on the molad, an approximate average. (So that on average Jews in the east would see the new moon...?) RYGB and/or RAZZ theorize http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n038.shtml#08 that the Calendar Controversy was over the issue of how far east do we worry about. R' Aharon ben Meir wanted to move the cutoff for molad zaqein by 64 chalaqim. (More than 23 min, ie 414 chalaqim.) He doesn't say why. Their article suggests that RABM was setting the rule for molad zaqein based on the furthest known Jewish settlement at that time. Which would be Kaifun, and the numbers work. Whereas RSG objected saying that the location is theoretical, not experimental. The Kuzari (following RSG -- since it's his version of the calendar that we all use) uses this to argue that the international date line is 90 deg east of Y-m ih"q. And thus any Jewish settlement that would be further east would be on the other side of the date line WRT Rosh Chodesh, and there is no problem of the molad being on their day 2. If so, changing the molad by 23 min would change the calendar, halakhah would prove my claim wrong. But few if any of us hold that the date line is 90 deg east of Y-m, east down 125.2 deg E, down Dongeng St in Changchun, China. To quote R Dovid Heber at : Families on the eastern strip of Dongfeng Street would recite kiddush while families a block to the west would recite havdala. It may be possible for those who want two days of Shabbos to walk one block eastbound, down Dongfeng Street, after Seuda Shlishis and start Shabbos again. Those who want to skip almost all of Shabbos could take a short stroll westbound, and go from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. (This post needed something light to leaven it.) >From where I sit, between those who say 180deg and the CI's adjudgment of including the entire land mass if part of it is west of 90deg, the dominant shitah is inconsistent with the Kuzari's explanation. If the date line is not involved, it would mean the machloqes would be about what we mean by the far enough end of Jewish settlement who would still experience the molad before the end of RC. RSG is saying that 90 deg is the Sanhderin mandated estimate, and RABM holds it's the actual furthest settlement. And that stands whether or not RYGB and RAZZ are correct about RAML's sevara, as we're only looking at RSG lehalakhah. I just took the Kuzari's lomdus and asked what it would mean to those who don't agree with his date line. If that line of reasoning is correct, then saying the approximate eastmost community is to be measured from the center of the core Jewish settlement -- between Bavel and EY -- ends up more intuitive than saying it's measured from Y-m. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 05:11:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:11:28 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Ooops! Yesterday I accidentally pressed "send" when I meant to "save draft". The result was a post that was far from finished. Here is what I had intended to publish: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar > (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, > it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might also be RTK's point). But IF that is how we are to understand the vocabulary, then we have a whole new way of reading the Shulchan Aruch. Here are some examples of this new way of understanding: It's not assur to shmooze between Geulah and Tefillah of Maariv (236:2) or to say Shehecheyanu on the Lulav on the second day (662:2) or to say Hallel on RH and YK (584:1) or to get a haircut before Mincha (232:2). It's not assur to daven only in your heart, but it's better if you pronounce the words with your lips. (101:2) I will concede that these examples are indeed less severe than cases where the Shulchan Aruch DOES use the word "assur". But nevertheless, we do not take these halachos as mere suggestions. Despite the lack of the word "asur", we DO accept it as normative psak halacha, and not as "hashkafa", to use RTK's word. So why should Siman 240 be different? Why would we suddenly take the words of Siman 240 to be hashkafa, and wave off the Shulchan Aruch, saying that his derech is different than our derech? Shouldn't we accept it as normative halacha? Even if I feel these halachos to be strange or difficult, shouldn't I at least accept them as a goal to strive for? And if I *don't* strive for them, doesn't that require teshuva? > Surely that is at least partly subjective, and any of the > various sources that apparently disagree with each other can > be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up > what your gut tells you is right. Maybe, but one had better be VERY sure that those sources actually exist, and that they have ample support in the poskim. Otherwise - as I asked a couple of posts ago - how is this any different than what the conservative and reform do? "It's a big machlokes - there's gotta be someone who paskens the way I want, so that's what I'm gonna do." I shudder when I hear otherwise-observant people saying such things. There are indeed some cases where there is such a *lack* of consensus among the poskim that one can do as he wants (one of my teachers paskened this way and for this reason regarding brachos on dessert), but I do not see Siman 240 in this category. We seem to be abandoning the consensus of the Shulchan Aruch and Nosei Keilim, and running to minority rishonim. > Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing > this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing > to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation > of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional > closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly > pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least > some obligation to fulfill. Are we really sure that (for the wife) physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness from the Torah's perspective? Or perhaps that is only an invention of minds which have been clouded by the outside culture? Could it be that Onah requires physical closeness, but not emotional closeness? I get mixed messages on this. On the one hand, an awful lot of Siman 240 is devoted to husband and wife both being of the proper frame of mind, and this is extremely strong evidence to the real importance of emotional closeness. But when I see halachos about keeping conversation to a minimum, and keeping the time involved to a minimum, then I wonder how much closeness can be achieved. I had posted: : Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. : Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. R' Micha Berger responded: > ... because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: > ... 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... Really? Can we really survive without it? You and me, I suppose, but that's because we are male. RTK referenced mitzvas onah. In the Torah's view, sex is as essential as food and shelter are. But only for women. Regardless of whether we're talking about physical closeness or emotional closeness, it seems that the Torah is concerned about closeness only for the woman, and not for the man. For women, closeness is a need which must be met; for men, closeness is a taavah which must be controlled. Let's not allow ourselves to get confused between needs and taavos. A person may desire something so much that he thinks it to be a need, but he is deluding himself. Nowhere do I see any responsibilities of the wife which are comparable to Mitzvas Onah. Yes, she'll be a "moredet" if she refuses, but (as I understand it) that is due to the social contract implicit in the concept of marriage, which is a very cry from a Chiyuv D'Oraisa. ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b8c3465e5f543465c9est02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:01:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:01:07 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla Message-ID: according to the Hebrew wikipedia Matyha bat Baytus bought the high priesthood for her husband Yehoshua ben Gamla towards the end of the second Temple. As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai and they guess that it was from Agripas II. Furthermore Yehoshua Ben Gamla was killed during the revolt against Rome. (Where the high priest Yishmael ben Elisha fits in we have discussed in the past) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:07:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:07:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150729160759.GF12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 06:01:07PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> according to the Hebrew wikipedia Matyha bat Baytus bought the high :> priesthood for her husband Yehoshua ben Gamla towards the end of the second :> Temple. As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai and they guess :> that it was from Agripas II. : Furthermore Yehoshua Ben Gamla was killed during the revolt against Rome. : (Where the high priest Yishmael ben Elisha fits in we have discussed in the : past) The gemara is Yuma 18a and Yevamos 61a. The mishnah in Yevemos says that Yehoshua ben Gamla married Marta bas Baisus, an almana, but before consummating the marriage "umanahu melekh" to be kohein gadol, The point of the mishnah is that they can stay married, as actually happened in this event. The gemara comments on the language of "manahu" rather than the expected "nisnamneh" to denote that the appointment wasn't the usual approval of a candidate selected by the kohanim and vetted by Sanhedrin. Then the gemara says she spent two qavin ("tarqav" = trei + qav) of dinarim to buy it. The gemara in Yuma makes this last point as well. Josephus (Antiquities XX 9:4 ) wrote that he became KG during the reign of Herod Agrippa II. Nothing about how. The translation reads weird, calls him "Jesus the son of Gamaliel". I went to the Soncino, since I don't know who else would comment on a gemara - Josephus interaction. Fn 16 on Yuma, 20 on Yevamos make the identity. They first opine that "Jannai is often employed in the Talmud as a general patronymic for Hasmonean and Herodian rulers." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:30:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:30:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?HILCHOS_KIBUD_AV_V=92EIM?= Message-ID: <20150729153144.1CF3218089B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://halachafortodaycom.blogspot.com/2013/02/archives-hilchos-kibud-av-veim.html Some selections from this site. The Aseres HaDibros, the Ten Commandments given to us by Hashem on Har Sinai are divided into two parts, the first five are commandments between man and Hashem (Bein Adam L?Makom) and the last five are commandments between man and fellow man (Bein Adam L?Chaveiro) Kibud Av V?Eim ,the fifth of the Aseres HaDibros, is listed amongst the commandments that are between man and Hashem even though it is seemingly a commandment that is only between man and man. The reason for this is that honoring one?s parents is akin to honoring Hashem. There are 3 partners in every human being, the father, the mother and Hashem. If one honors any of the three it is as if all three have been honored, and if one dishonors any of the three it?s as if all three have been dishonored. 1)It is prohibited to contradict a parent. (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah Siman 240:2) If a parent has a verbal disagreement with another person, and the child tells the other person ?I concur with your view?, it is considered contradicting the parent and is prohibited. (Shach Yoreh Deah 240:2) 2) According to some Poskim this prohibition is only in the presence of the parent. Other Poskim, however, maintain that even not in the presence of the parent it is prohibited. 1)It is forbidden to call a parent or refer to them by their name; rather they need to be referred to as ?My father [my teacher]? or ?My mother?. 1) What constitutes ?Kibud, respecting? parents? One must speak to their parents softly, with respect the way one would speak to a king. 1) Children are obligated to stand up for their parents when they enter a room. 1) If a parent does something that is against the Torah and a child sees, the child should not say ?You transgressed a Torah prohibition?, as bluntly saying so will cause the parent embarrassment. Rather, the child should say something to the effect of: ?Father Does it say in the Torah that one should not .?? in a way that sounds like a question and not like a chastisement or rebuke, and the parent will realize on their own that they have committed the sin. 1) If one?s father asks for a glass of water or any other task, and at the same time his/her mother asked for a glass of water or another task, tending to the father?s needs takes precedence, as the son/daughter and the mother are both obligated to respect the father/husband. 2) If a parent is sleeping it is forbidden to wake them up. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:51:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:51:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B8F66D.2000701@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 11:33 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > > But few if any of us hold that the date line is 90 deg east of Y-m, > east down 125.2 deg E, down Dongeng St in Changchun, China. To quote > R Dovid Heber at: > Families on the eastern strip of Dongfeng Street would recite > kiddush while families a block to the west would recite havdala. > It may be possible for those who want two days of Shabbos to walk > one block eastbound, down Dongfeng Street, after Seuda Shlishis and > start Shabbos again. Those who want to skip almost all of Shabbos > could take a short stroll westbound, and go from sunset Friday to > sunset Saturday. > (This post needed something light to leaven it.) Shu"T Bnai Tziyon points to a gemara about two villages within techum shabbos, where it was Yom Kippur in one and not the other, because that was the last place the messenger had made it before sunset. (I can't figure out how that actually worked, but that is what the gemara says.) He avoids the awkwardness of the situation posited in this clip by positing that the line is not one-dimensional but is several miles wide, and that the area inside the line has an official din of sofek, like bein hashmoshos. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:21:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 19:21:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: saw some trivia questions: 1) Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters of the alph-bet (I only know one) 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:51:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:51:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150729165138.GH12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 07:21:20PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 1) Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters : of the alph-bet (I only know one) Soferim use Tzefania 3:8 to show their penmanship, because it not only includes all 22 letters, it also includes all the sofios. Is that a way to denote total ultimate justice (the meaning of the words ) or what? This question is easier than that, just asking for 22 letters, not whether sofis or not. I already heard this one so I will leave the other 6 for others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:58:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B8F834.5060103@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 11:01 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > according to the Hebrew wikipedia Which is no more authoritative than English WP, and in fact seems to have looser rules regarding sourcing. > Matyha bat Baytus Martha. > As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai As Tosfos already points out, in both places where the gemara quotes this memra. > they guess that it was from Agripas II. That seems like a good guess, that the Yannai in the memra refers to the king Josephus calls Herod Agrippa II, but it is only a guess. On 07/29/2015 12:07 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I went to the Soncino, since I don't know who else would comment on a > gemara - Josephus interaction. Fn 16 on Yuma, 20 on Yevamos make the > identity. They first opine that "Jannai is often employed in the Talmud > as a general patronymic for Hasmonean and Herodian rulers." Which, for all we know, it may have been. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 10:13:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:13:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B909C7.7070906@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 12:21 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach 1. The definition of an "edah" from "this wicked edah". 2. Hezek re'iyah from Bil'am. 3. Standing for a davar shebikdusha, from Eglon. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 14:57:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:57:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150729215724.GA3540@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:11:28PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : R"n Toby Katz wrote: : > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too : > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim : > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar.... : > What we are really talking about : > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan : > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... : : Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. : : I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount : of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as : "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" : (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken : literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that : these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might : also be RTK's point). Which is why I quibbled with RnTK's language. Becauser I think it's assur -- really and actually assur -- not to try for perishus where possible. It's a bitul asei of "qedoshim tihyu". However, a mitzvah of hilkhos dei'os is to stretch, to move the nequdas habechirah and is therefore not only "at least partly subjective" but necessarily subjective. And if the criteria for behavior could be spelled out non-subjectively, they would be spelled out in chovos ha'eivarim. : I had posted: :: Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. :: Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. : R' Micha Berger responded: :> ... because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: :> ... 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... : Really? Can we really survive without it? You and me, I suppose, : but that's because we are male. Under normal circumstances, one can't go 3 days without food and water. Not just "one would be miserable if", but actual death. I am not sure how you could compare the need for intimacy to that kind of mechanistic do-or-die. : RTK referenced mitzvas onah. In the Torah's view, sex is as essential : as food and shelter are. But only for women. I disagree. And BTW, my #1 which you ellided /was/ mitzvas onah. : Regardless of whether we're talking about physical closeness : or emotional closeness, it seems that the Torah is concerned about : closeness only for the woman, and not for the man. For women, closeness : is a need which must be met; for men, closeness is a taavah which must : be controlled. Or, the Torah presumes that opportunity is in the hands of men. Not a difference in desire. Or -- a 3rd possibility -- lehefech, men are presumed more likely to get distracted by their own taavos and objectify their spouse and therefore the chiyuv of onah to focus on someone else's psychological needs. In any case, the requirement to avoid misery would motivate a chiyuv, one needn't define it as a need. Esperically since biologically, it's not necessary for survival the way food, drink or air are. But getting back to what you're saying here... Let me repeat point #1 in different phrasing: Because onah is indeed a chiyuv, saying that it should be minimized outside the realm of mitzvah isn't that much of a minimization. And yet, the threat of erotic desire becoming an end in itself is both more damaging, since there will be other victims beyond the self-destructive aspect and more likely. (In most people's psychology -- it's not like there is an internet food "porn" industry.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 15:37:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:37:27 GMT Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> R' Eli Turkel asked: > The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov > mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are > forgotten after 12 months ... > > I have a personal problem with this statement. ... one never > forgets a child R"n Toby Katz answered: > I don't think "gezeira al hameis" means the person is literally > forgotten, but that the degree of mourning becomes less intense. > ... the parent goes on with life, even if a heaviness always > remains somewhere in the background. I have had the same question as RET, and I thank RTK for this answer. I have written on several occasions, about my belief that Chazal often exaggerate, and this misleads those who are not used to their style of speaking. I think we have here another example of the same thing. There's a tendency to take Chazal at literal face value. We need to be more careful when reading the poetry. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 08:02:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:02:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Parallels in Kiruv Message-ID: <56c357c0b3404dbcbfc7bce2d25a6162@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Here's a quote from "Their Rock is Not Like Our Rock" - Daniel Strange In a recent article addressed to evangelical pastors I outlined a three-point "to do" list that might begin to move us into this stance: * Develop and deploy a biblically rich and nuanced theology of religions * Discern and denounce the arrogance and intolerance of pluralism * Demonstrate and display, in both word and deed, the unique power of the gospel to change lives and communities My impression is the first two are not generally done by kiruv folks but I was wondering if you replace gospel with orthodoxy and evangelical pastors with kiruv professionals, what fits? Should it be considered as an approach? Kol Tuv, 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 09:30:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:30:47 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: 'oh hanisa elokim' is one; the other is in parshat haman , i forget which one. will leave the dvar tora connecting the two , to others , other than to say the import of 'zeh gilui shechina' and lechem mishamayim as fundaments of faith,,,, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 10:38:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:38:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: From: Eli Turkel via Avodah " 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach -- Eli Turkel >>>>> Don't know if this is what you had in mind but I can think of these: [1] A woman cannot be married without her consent -- learn from Lavan -- "Nish'alah es pi hana'arah" before sending Rivka off with Eliezer to marry Yitzchak. [2] A younger sister cannot marry before the older sister (unless she gets permission from her) -- from Lavan again, excusing himself for giving Leah to Yakov instead of Rachel. [3] Celebrating seven days of sheva brachos -- from two places. One is Lavan again -- give Leah a week to celebrate and then Yakov can marry Rachel. And from the Pelishti "friends" of Shimshon who celebrated his wedding for a week. [4] We also learn from Izevel (Jezebel) that it's a big mitzva to dance at a wedding, to be mesameach chassan vekallah, but strictly speaking this is not in Tanach, it's a midrash. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 11:41:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:41:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: In Avodah V33n109, RET posted > Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters of the alph-bet (I only know one) < In the Torah, a *pasuq* in P'Va'eschanan (4 :34) is usually noted, but it (containing letter *sin* but no *shin*) works only when the *shin* and the *sin* are considered the same letter (they are, so long as we're considering the written form). The other *pasuq* in the Torah of which I'm aware is Shmos 16 :16 (in it, the *shin* is extant but there's no *sin*). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 15:30:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:30:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months In-Reply-To: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150730223053.GA17753@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:37:27PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : I have written on several occasions, about my belief that Chazal often : exaggerate, and this misleads those who are not used to their style of : speaking. I think we have here another example of the same thing. There's : a tendency to take Chazal at literal face value. We need to be more : careful when reading the poetry. Tanakh sometimes does something else with a similar effect, and it may be what Chazal are doing here. Lei'ah, rather than being described as "less loved" is "senu'ah". It's not necessarily exageration as much as a language norm to express a relative statement uing the same terms as absolutes. Here too chazal are making a comparison. Was the reader expected to know it's guzma, or was the norm in mishnaic Hebrew as well to use the term for the end of the spectrum to mean "less mourned than"? My problem with this is the parent of the MIA who can't let go for years or decades, and then it's found out that the chayal r"l was killed upon capture (or their body was taken after petirah for a bargaining chip). We have no experimental evidence of parents having that mystical knowledge of their children's state, and quite a bit of evidence otherwise. Perhaps Yaaqov avinu, or even someone with "just" ruach haqodesh is that aware of what's going on on the plane of souls without learning about them through normal olam hazeh means. But I do not see it being true of the majority of humanity. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 20:39:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 03:39:12 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> I tried to make the point that although many try to show similarites between food and sex, if we look at the Torah's view, there are far more differences. I suggested a rule of thumb: > Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. > Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. Chazal see food as an entirely proper way of enjoying olam hazeh, to the point that it is actively encouraged as a form of all sorts of celebrations. (And not only happy celebrations, but eating is also involved in various mourning practices.) Under normal circumstances, one can and should eat as much as he needs, subject to the limitations of kashrus and brachos. One is never allowed to eat in a quantity or manner that he becomes a menuval, but that is not a major concern. Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah. And even there, the restrictions are many. Food has tremendous room for creativity even within the restrictions of hilchos kashrus and brachos. Sex could be similar, even within the bounds of hilchos nidda and arayos, but the restrictions set out in OC 240 go much farther than merely to insure that one does not become a menuval. R' Micha Berger responded: > I think the difference is just about that, but because of the > biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: > 1- It involves a second party. There is no threat of > objectifying [food]. > 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... > Therefore, the attitude toward perishus for each comes from > opposite directions. For food, which is necessary for survival, > we talk about how much is too much. For sex, we talk about the > right balance between keeping the other happy (chiyuv onah) > and turning them into a tool for your own happiness. I think that he is agreeing with me that food and sex are very different, but I disagree with his explanation of *why* they are so different. In his first point, intended to be "food"), he seems to feel that the restrictions on sex are to prevent people from taking advantage of each other: If I have even a small desire for a snack, the Torah has no problem at all if I go to the kitchen and take an apple (provided that I say the bracha to acknowledge Hashem's involvement) because the apple is nothing more than an apple. But while casual eating is fine, casual sex is not. Casual sex involves people, and they must not be taken advantage of. My problem with this is on several levels. First, Chazal are pretty explicit that the purpose of Hilchos Nida is to restore a honeymoon-style atmosphere on a regular basis, and that alone might suffice to insure that spouses aren't objectified. Also, we have the many parts of OC 240 which insure that husband and wife are in the same "place" emotionally: no one is drunk, words of "ritzui", and so on. But isn't that sufficient protection against objectifying? What is gained from the additional restrictions (such as various positions, or finishing quickly) which have no parallel in food? In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach the Torah uses for Onah. While men and women are pretty much identical in the halachos of food, Onah places the husband and wife in opposite situations. Any discussion of Onah that uses the word "spouse" will be flawed, because Onah treats the husband and wife so differently. For example, whenever the wife desires relations, then the husband has a clear and present chiyuv d'Oraisa. But if the husband desires, she has no corresponding obligation; in fact (if I'm not mistaken) she's not even labeled as a "moredet" until after prolonged and repeated refusals. It seems to me that Onah may have the effect of objectifying males. Those parts of Orach Chaim 240 which forbid unwilling relations ought to suffice to insure that the women are not objectified. But Onah seems to push the pendulum too far. In response to RTK, RMB wrote: > I'm not sure it's "hashkafah" as much as Hilkhos Dei'os / Chovos > haLvavos. After all "Qedoshim tihyu" is a chiyuv, not a nicety, > and that's a source for "perushim tihyu". > What a mitzvah to be or to become something (such as "qadosh") > is in practice, though, is inherently situational and subjective. > If we were talking about something reducible to black-letter > halakhah and objective rules, it would have been. And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective rules", is it not? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 1 22:55:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 00:55:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: I initially replied on Areivim to a post reminding women during the summer to cover their hair. Mrs. Katz added that there was no support for those who hold that hair covering in public is not necessary. Others have disputed what RYBS's position on hair covering was, in view of the fact that his wife did NOT cover her hair in public at all times(someone seems to have the impression that she wore a hat). Here are the sources I have collected, in addition to the fact that a significant percentage of Modern Orthodox women to not cover their hair in public except in shul/davening situations. In response to those who have stated that the younger more educated women are covering their hair, I would point out that they have been educated to believe that it is an obligation, and the permissive sources have not been shared with them- case in point Mrs. Katz who either is not aware or chooses to dismiss them out of hand. In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is: if it is the practice of women to cover [their hair] and she uncovered it, then this is immodesty ( *ervah*). But if it was not the regular practice [of women] to cover [their hair] then [going uncovered] is not in the category of immodesty at all. If they uncover one hand?s-breadth in a place where they are habituated to cover then it is [a case of] uncovering immodesty and it is prohibited to read the Shema prayer in their presence... But if their (ladies?) custom is to uncover their hair (or a hand?s-breadth of the body) ? as single women do who by custom walk around with head [hair] uncovered - then this [action] does not constitute immodesty (*ervah*)." If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. Here is a list of easily accessable sources: Rabbi Marc Angel(former president of the Rabbinical Council of America) discusses why hair covering is not mandated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbrQwEerLsY Massive article by Rabbi Michael Broyde: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/0095-0180.pdf I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and everyone can come to their own conclusion. Rav Yosef Haim(author of Ben Ish Chai) writing that hair covering is not necessary(and how his opinion was altered by others): http://text.rcarabbis.org/the-ben-ish-hai-and-women%E2%80%99s-hair-covering-an-interesting-case-of-censorship-by-jacob-sasson/ See Rabbi Broyde's article(pages 155-158) for citations of those who state that hair covering is not mandated in the current society: R. Yitzchak Hurwitz in Yad HaLevi R. Moshe Malka(late Chief Rabbi of Petach Tikvah) R. Josef Messas(late chief rabbi of Morocco and later Haifa) R. Yaakov Haim Sofer Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did not cover her hair? Was this permitted by the *halachah*, or was it not prohibited on the grounds of modesty? He took out a *Gemara Berachot*, opened it to page 24A and showed me the Talmudic statement. "Said Rav Sheshet: [showing] hair by a woman is *ervah *(an act of immodesty)." Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with uncovered hair. Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat common. Some will say that- 'they couldn't control their wives' or other such statements. I would point out that RYBS also went to the opera- perhaps in keeping with an approach that hair wasn't erva, a lenient view of kol isha, all of which seems consistent. Furthermore, it seems quite far fetched that a rav who knew that he had great communal status would abide by gross violation of halacha in public by his own family, and at the very least would make it clear that he did not hold by it. Obviously, the fact that he did not make a deal of it(certainly not a big deal), illustrates something. Do you think he would countenance his wife eating treif? furthermore, the chiyyuv is also for men not to see hair(if that is the position that is being taken), and by not protesting his wife's uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 2 03:40:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 13:40:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: <<> 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach 1. The definition of an "edah" from "this wicked edah". 2. Hezek re'iyah from Bil'am. 3. Standing for a davar shebikdusha, from Eglon. >> Some others are: 4. Lavan: Sheva Brachot; also the Bracha we give the Kalla at the bedeken 5. also "chaye shaah" is less important that "chaye olam" from the 4 lepers, gechazi and his sons -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 2 01:25:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 11:25:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: ""It's a big machlokes - there's gotta be someone who paskens the way I want, so that's what I'm gonna do." I shudder when I hear otherwise-observant people saying such things. There are indeed some cases where there is such a *lack* of consensus among the poskim that one can do as he wants (one of my teachers paskened this way and for this reason regarding brachos on dessert), but I do not see Siman 240 in this category. We seem to be abandoning the consensus of the Shulchan Aruch and Nosei Keilim, and running to minority rishonim." R' Lichtenstein was bothered by this point and answered that we need to rely on our teachers and Gedolim. "Probably most significant, however, is our reliance upon our own mentors. Sensing that modern gedolim, ?the judge of your era??for our purposes, most notably, the Rav, but not he alone?have examined the issue and the evidence and adopted a positive stance, we, ordinary students of Torah, follow in their footsteps as we identify with their position. Whether they felt justified in accepting, out of the depths of their own conviction, a minority view; whether they held that our topic was essen- tially a matter of hashkafic proclivity, not necessarily amenable to the nor- mal procedures of pesak; or whether some other unknown but imagined element?might, for instance, the hospitable climate of Kabbalistic sources, have had some impact?is a matter for conjecture. That the authority of our mentors can inform and sustain our sensibility is not." I understand that for many of us that is not a very satisfying answer and leads to many questions about why specifically here we follow minority opinions as opposed to other places (e.g. wombs issues, etc.) but I don't think there is a better answer. This is the way the halachic system works. Even after all of this, R' Lichtenstein himself was bothered by this very point: "I am left, nonetheless, with a lacuna. Even while adhering to the Rav?s position, one may freely concede wishing that he had done for us what we have been challenged and constrained to do here: examine the various tiers of tradition and elucidate the basis for his own judgment and commitment." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 01:21:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:21:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on tefillin Message-ID: There is a disagreement between Rashi/Rambam and R Tam whether one says one or two brachot on tefillin of the arm and head. While sefardim follow SA and say one bracha ashkenazim follow R Tam and say 2 brachot bur add "baruch shem kvod ..." to avoid a bracha le-vatala I have 2 things I don't understand about the ashkenazi minhag 1) The usual rule is "safek bracha le-kula" and so when in doubt don't say a bracha 2) How does saying "barch shem" help ? We have many disagreements about brachot. For example ashkenazim (again following R Tam) say brachot on customs, eg half hallel. We don't add "baruch shem ..." in these cases. Why only in tefillin? Furthermore whenever there is a doubt about a bracha (classical case is if one forgot to count the omer at night and remembered during the day) why do the act without a bracha - why not say the bracha and add "baruch shem" -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 07:43:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:43:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150803144333.GA30399@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 03:39:12AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed : in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah... ... and priya verivya, no? : Food has tremendous room for creativity even within : the restrictions of hilchos kashrus and brachos. Sex could be similar, : even within the bounds of hilchos nidda and arayos, but the restrictions : set out in OC 240 go much farther than merely to insure that one does : not become a menuval. ... : I think that he is agreeing with me that food and sex are very different, : but I disagree with his explanation of *why* they are so different. I have the same assessment. I am saying that the same principle of when perishus is appropriate is very different for food vs sex because food and sex are different in nature. Summarizing my point #1: : But while casual eating is fine, casual sex is : not. Casual sex involves people, and they must not be taken advantage of. : : My problem with this is on several levels. First, Chazal are pretty : explicit that the purpose of Hilchos Nida is to restore a honeymoon-style : atmosphere on a regular basis, and that alone might suffice to insure : that spouses aren't objectified.... If your objection is based on the "might suffice", all one needs to assert is or might not. : What is gained from the additional : restrictions (such as various positions, or finishing quickly) which : have no parallel in food? I am not sure that prohibitions based on mood are sufficient, as it's too easy to fool oneself about what the other person really wants. In any case, you return to OC 240 again at the end of the post and ask: : And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective : rules", is it not? Perhaps not. Is OC 1 black-letter halakhah? Is hitting the snooze button, or even lying around for a few seconds before getting up, actually assur? For that matter, there is a mitzvah to remember right vs left when putting on and tying shoes, but do you really think someone was oveir an issur if they don't? As the AhS OC often notes, the style of the SA is just to discuss do vs don't, and it blurs the distinctions between levels of issur -- a deOraisa can be next to an accepted minhag, and both may even be written in parallel language. : In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival : without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, : psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach : the Torah uses for Onah. : : While men and women are pretty much identical in the halachos of food, : Onah places the husband and wife in opposite situations... Whereas moredes has no parallel because she cannot initiate a gett. And for that matter, it has no parallel because he is obligated to support here. For that matter, the assymetry in who supports who is quite possibly why HQBH set up an assymetric process for gittin. The man who obligates himself in support can get of it. Onah is a protection against that objectification. Against turning that whole support thing into near prostitution. And with onah, the outcome is more symmetric -- he can end a marriage if dissatisfied, and is obligated to keep her satisfied. Without which BD can force him to willingly end the marriage. (Just paraphrasing the din...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 08:17:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:17:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on tefillin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150803151733.GB30399@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:21:03AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I have 2 things I don't understand about the ashkenazi minhag : : 1) The usual rule is "safek bracha le-kula" and so when in doubt don't say : a bracha : 2) How does saying "bar[u]ch shem" help ? ... The AhS (OC 25:11 ) agrees with you on both points, and therefore posits (se'ifim 12-13) a totally different meaning to the 2nd berakhah. And even though shel yad and shel rosh are two different of the 613, we make one berakhah on maaser rishon and maaser sheini. He also quotes that the BY rejects a possibility that if someone talks between the two tefillin, he would have to make both berakhos on the shel rosh -- repeting "lehaniach" and yet still saying "al mitzvah". But even though he uses this as proof, he requires (se'if 16, following the Ran via the MA s"q 15) loosening the shel yad so that you are still saying "lehaniach" the 2nd time on both. This is a pretty big chiddush, a birkhas hoda'ah that says "asher qidshanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu al mitzvas..." However, similar arguments are made about Birkhas haTorah, if one says the berakhah is deOraisa (Ramban) and therefore "aqb"v la'asoq bedivrei Torah" can't be a birkhas hamitzvah. The IM says as much (OC 2:3). : We don't add "baruch shem ..." in these cases. Why only in tefillin? Leshitas AhS, it follows enacting the qesher gadol between us and HQBH for the same reason the pasuq is said after the first pasuq of Shema. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:04:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 17:04:47 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> I wrote: : Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed : in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah... R' Micha Berger asked: > ... and priya verivya, no? I was trying to show differences between sex and food. I would say that, in the eyes of Halacha, there is no connection between pirya v'rivya and the olam-hazeh enjoyment of sex, in exactly the same manner that there is no connection between achilas matzah and the olam-hazeh enjoyment of food. The latter is a means of internalizing a historical connection, and the former is a biological imperative, but neither has any connection to olam-hazeh enjoyment. However, that it not to say that halacha is blind to the fact that sex *IS* enjoyable. This is recognized by the mitzvah of Oneg Shabbos, where if the act is to be done once a week, then Shabbos is receommended. Chiyuv Onah also recognizes that if the wife has a taavah for this particular hanaah, then it is the husband's obligation to satisfy her taavah. But pirya v'rivya? No, I don't see evidence of that. I asked: : And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective : rules", is it not? RMB suggested: > Perhaps not. Is OC 1 black-letter halakhah? Is hitting the snooze > button, or even lying around for a few seconds before getting up, > actually assur? For that matter, there is a mitzvah to remember > right vs left when putting on and tying shoes, but do you really > think someone was oveir an issur if they don't? I agree that there are degrees of obligation. A simple verb like "yaaseh" clearly implies a smaller obligation than "chayav laasos". "Must" is much stronger than "should". But if a subject makes it into Shulchan Aruch - as these did - that also shows a stronger obligation than something that appears only in Mesilas Yesharim, or even Gemara for that matter. Yes, I do think that when the alarm clock rings, one has an obligation to seriously consider whether he really *needs* to stay in bed a little longer, or whether he merely *wants* to. And I will admit that - b'shaas maaseh - I rarely consider that as seriously as I should. And that's one of the things I'm trying to improve on. Same thing for tying my shoes - I think that by now I do it correctly by habit, but I'm not really sure, and I'll try to remember to watch myself tomorrow morning. RMB wrote: > Whereas moredes has no parallel because she cannot initiate a gett. And > for that matter, it has no parallel because he is obligated to support > here. For that matter, the assymetry in who supports who is quite > possibly why HQBH set up an assymetric process for gittin. The man who > obligates himself in support can get of it. Yes, I agree that this could be part of why Hashem set it up that way. But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no corresponding safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55c0f0f9c892870f9653ast02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:43:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:43:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <117801d0cedd$1904bea0$4b0e3be0$@com> > But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan > Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went > uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why > aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? Good question. I can't help but thinking that this is one of those (many) halachic issues where the hanhaga of Klal yisroel in certain halachic (or hashkafic) areas has developed to be inline with yechidim than with the majority of chazal/rishonim/etc Why this happens is certainly a discussion - is it societal / siata shimaya guiding Klal yisroel / etc We have many others similar to this (some d'oriasa, some d'rabbanan) - human hair sheitals, chadash, live music after the churban, etc. When this should happen (and when it should be fought), I will leave to the einei haeida. Mordechai Cohen From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:49:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Baruch Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 10:49:07 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Halachic Requirement for Dayanim Evaluating In-Person Facial Expressions of Parties in Bais Din In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: List Mates: In an AMI issue that was reported in VosIzNais, Rabbi Hershel Schachter was quoted as saying: ""*There is a Mishna in Pirkei Avos that the oilam says a vort on. It says, "K'sheyihiyu habaalei dinim lifanecha, yihiyu b'einecha k'resha'im. K'she'yaamdu m'lifanecha yihiyub'einecha k'tzaddikim, shekiblu aleihem es hadin." ["When the litigants stand before you (the judges), they should be in your eyes like wicked people. When they stand up from being in front of you, they should be in your eyes like righteous people, because they have accepted the judgment."] They say from a few different dayanim that they would put a tallis over their face, to not see the face of a rasha. But that is wrong; part of the din Torah is to look at the person and see from his facial expression and how he talks...whether or not he is saying the truth. You have to be able to detect whether he is telling the truth*.'" ( http://www.vosizneias.com/92931/2011/10/11/new-york-in-exclusive-ami-magzine-intreview-noted-rabbi-schachter-slams-set-up-of-rabbinical-court-system/ ) Is there a Halacha that you can direct me to that mandates in-person and face-to-face participation by the parties to a Bais Din for the reasons given by Rabbi Schechter? I found this... The seating configuration of the Sanhedrin ??????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?? ?? The Mishnah describes how the members of the Sanhedrin sat in a row in the shape of a half-circle in order *for each person to be able to see everyone else*. Why was it necessary for everyone to be able to have direct eye contact with everyone else? Rashi explains that it is only when people have direct sight of each other that they can listen and then argue and debate with each other. ?"????? elaborates and says that when people argue and express their views, they often rise from their seats. If they did not sit facing each other, it is quite possible that they would not be able to hear when a person turns as he speaks from a standing position. Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin 1:3) explains that this arrangement was used in order for the President (????) and the Av Beis Din to be able to see everyone. Lechem Mishneh notes that this was a sign of respect for these leaders to sit in the middle and for everyone to easily be able to listen to them. Rashi also addresses why the Sanhedrin sat in a half-circle rather than in a full circle. From a technical standpoint, the witnesses and litigants would have to have a way to enter the circle to present themselves in front of the judges (see Rashi, Chullin 5a). Furthermore, if the judges sat in a full circle, while the witnesses would be facing some of the judges, their backs would be turned toward the others. *The judges might have a hard time hearing the witnesses and litigants, or they would not be able to see them as they spoke. Facial expressions and other subtleties are essential in communication, and the judges must be able to pick up on any and all such nuances during the deliberations*. The Tosefta (8:1) cites differing opinions regarding the seating position of the President of the Sanhedrin. Tanna Kamma holds that the President sat in the center of the semi-circle, with thirty-five of the members of the Sanhedrin seated on each side of him. R' Elazar b. Tzadok says that when Rabban Gamliel sat in the Sanhedrin in Yavne, one of the sages sat to his right, and all the others sat to his left. Rambam (ibid.) writes that the ???? sat with the Av Beis Din to his right, and the rest of the sages to his left, seated according to their ages and their wisdom, with the wisest among them to his immediate left, and the rest seated closer according to their level. Radva"z and Kesef Mishneh ask why Rambam does not rule according to Tanna Kamma, and, as he rules according to R' Elazar b. Tzadok, why the row begins with the Av Beis Din, and not with the ???? himself. Radva"z explains that it was not only the Av Beis Din who sat to the right of the ????, but the ???? sat in the middle, as Tanna Kamma explains, with the Av Beis Din to his immediate right. ??? ???? explains that Rambam rules according to R' Elazar b. Tzadok because he cites the actual case of Rabban Gamliel http://www.dafdigest.org/Sanhedrin/Sanhedrin%20036.pdf -- Respectfully, Baruch C. Cohen, Esq. Law Office of Baruch C. Cohen, APLC Los Angeles, CA 90010 e-mail: BCC4929 at gmail.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:24:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:24:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> From: Kenneth Miller via Avodah >> In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach the Torah uses for Onah. [snip] It seems to me that Onah may have the effect of objectifying males. << Akiva Miller >>>>>> To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without reproduction. Our nitzchius is absolutely dependent on this particular activity, which is why "peru urevu" is actually a mitzva and not "mutar if you wish." It is Hashem's chessed that He made this activity intrinsically pleasurable. If you were a robot or an alien without human emotions and you witnessed this human activity, you would wonder, "What the heck are these humans doing? And why?!" I am not an expert on male physiology but I am under the impression that for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. This reminds me of something else I wanted to say in response to some of RMB's posts. He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her. But human beings derive pleasure from each other all the time, whether the pleasure is a stimulating conversation, "please scratch my back," playing with a delightful, cuddly baby -- I could go on and on -- and it is just absurd to think that if another person gives me some kind of pleasure, I have "objectified" that person. Not to forget the main point I wanted to make: sex /is/ necessary for survival, and therefore some comparison to eating food /is/ valid. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:57:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:57:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> References: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150804185730.GA28011@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 02:24:43PM -0400, RnTK wrote: : To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS : required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human : species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without : reproduction... The question is the difference in relationship a person to their hunger compared to their sex drive. You appear to only be objecting to an overly broad use of "required for survival" by not saying "individual's survival", without touching the point that people relate to each desire very differently. (You also seem to ignore non-reproductive sex -- an infertile couple, post-menapouse, etc...) .... : This reminds me of something else I wanted to say in response to some of : RMB's posts. He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from : being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her... Pleasure is a positive thing, as long as it's not the only thing. It's turning a wife into a cheftzah by which he obtains his pleasure that is literally objectifying. If the husband is forced to think about her perspective, his wife as a person, during relations, the risk of the pursuit of pleasure taking over to that point, the mutual search for pleasure is humanizing and bonding, quite the reverse. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:10:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 14:10:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150804181031.667AC180E06@nexus.stevens.edu> At 01:51 PM 8/4/2015, Noam Stadlan wrote: >If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered >hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. Is it really true that what women in the general society do is some standard for tznius for Jewish women. If so, then the practices of "well undressed" gentile women (as R. A Miller used to call them) of today have eliminated all tznius standards. One sees women in public today dressed in almost nothing. [Email #2] At 01:51 PM 8/4/2015, Noam Stadlan wrote: >Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat >common. Just because something is or was commonly done does not make is correct according to halacha. Many, many people talk loshon hara, yet it is not proper according to halacha. [Email #3] Please see Covering the Hair by Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 13:07:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 23:07:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: >> Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters >> of the alph-bet (I only know one) < [R' Michael Poppers:] > In the Torah, a *pasuq* in P'Va'eschanan (4:34 > ) is usually noted, but it > (containing letter *sin* but no *shin*) works only when the *shin* and the > *sin* are considered the same letter (they are, so long as we're > considering the written form). The other *pasuq* in the Torah of which I'm > aware is Shmos 16 :16 (in it, > the *shin* is extant but there's no *sin*). We still need another 3 pesukim in the rest of Nach including one that has not only the 22 letters of the alphabet but also all the end letters -- Eli Turkel [Well in I already wrote: > Soferim use Tzefania 3:8 to show their penmanship, because it not > only includes all 22 letters, it also includes all the sofios. Is > that a way to denote total ultimate justice (the meaning of the words > ) or what? -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 15:31:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:31:53 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I see your pesukim and raise you a medieval Hebrew poem of four lines, where each line contains every letter of the alef-beit including sofiot exactly once with no repetition: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pagefeed/hebrewbooks_org_38040_154.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 5 02:53:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 05:53:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" Message-ID: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> I think a philosophy book just came out detending a variant of RSSchwab's "two clocks" explanation of ma'aseh bereishis. RSS's shitah appeared in AOJS's Challenge (ed. R Aryeh Carmel, R/Prof Cyril Domb pg 164 onward. surveys the area and summarized RSS as follows: Similarly, Rav Shimon Schwab talks of two types of time, cosmic time and earthly time. The 6 days of creation are counted according to cosmic time, during which period millions of years may have passed according to our measure of time. (Althugh I disagree with their next sentence on REED's position.) Now for the book. I just got this review : > he Fall and Hypertime > Hud Hudson, Oxford University Press, 2014, 211pp., $65.00 (hbk), > ISBN 0198712693. > Reviewed by Trent Dougherty, Baylor University > Hud Hudson's book is a brilliant and creative defense of the following > proposition. > There is a conflict between a literal reading of the book of > Genesis and science only if one assumes that the hypertime hypothesis > is false. > The import of Hudson's thesis is that those who allege a conflict between > science and a literal reading of Genesis are not basing that claim merely > on science but on controversial metaphysics as well.,,, > To understand the hypertime hypothesis (hereafter "HH"), begin > with the "growing block" theory of time, one of the standard set of > options. According to this theory, the past is real and "still exists" > as a "block" as spacetime and the future is "open," i.e. the future > does not exist. The block grows as the quantity of either space or > time increases. Hudson notes that there is nothing more intrinsically > mysterious about the block losing parts than its gaining parts. He > then points out that it is also not more intrinsically mysterious that > a "morphing block" shrink or grow not just in units of hyperplanes > ("slices" of the block) but also in sub-regions of hyperplanes. As a > result, there are no in principle limits to the ways in which a block can > morph, to the "shape" it can take. Furthermore, there is no good reason > why the hyperplanes (or sub-regions thereof) might not be "reshuffled" > in a different order. > Because the universe is here modeled as a spacetime block, the temporal > dimension only measures changes within the block. Hypertime measures, > as we may think of it, changes to the block (though technically blocks > at different hypertimes are numerically distinct,and there remains a > question concerning the status of various essentialisms about blocks > with respect to their parts). That means that at any given moment on > the hypertimeline, there can be a complete spacetime block, a complete > physical universe distinct from blocks at different hypertimes. Given > infinite hypertime, this generates a plurality of worlds not unlike that > of David Lewis. Hudson applies the possibility of this plurality in three > ways: to an understanding of omnipresence (which I will not discuss), to > (three versions of) the problem of evil (one of which I'll discuss below), > and in defense of his main thesis. The way HH helps with an understanding > of omniscience and the problem of evil gives it credit and motivates > it as a viable option so that its application to the main thesis is > not ad hoc (though it's being ad hoc would not prevent its success for > its purpose). I will describe the application to the problem of evil, > offer a criticism, then describe its application to the main thesis. > If there is a plenitude of spatiotemporally discrete universes, then it is > difficult to infer from any empirical observation that the actual world > is not the best possible world. It is important to remember that on the > hypertime hypothesis the spacetime blocks at different hypermoments are > only one portion of total reality. Our observable universe is a drop > in the bucket. So an argument from evil against the existence of God > from ours not being the best possible world would have to argue that > the observable universe could not even be a part of the best possible > world. That is not clearly an easy argument to make. > This move takes the form of what is traditionally called a "defense" > rather than a "theodicy"... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 5 15:22:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 18:22:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesak and Safeik Message-ID: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> Anyone know a source (or at least a theory) that discusses when we treat a machloqes as a safeiq, rather than applying the rules of peaq? The issue comes up in AhS YD 24:42. (Mazal tovs on completing OC will be graciously accepted.) Siman 24 discusses 4 of the 5 halakhos leMoshe miSinai of shechitah. (Shehiyah got its own siman.) There is a machloqes between the Behag and Rashi about the line between aqirah and tereifos. Rashi says that aqira is the displacement of the qaneh or veshet caused by using a nicked knife. Most rishonim hold like the Behag, and then there is a submachloqes about what kind of dislocated simanim are aqirah, ad what are tereifos. Leshitas Rashi, they would all be tereifos. Anyway, here the AhS says that Rama holds that midinei shechitah, we are machmir for every definition of aqirah. But midinei tereifah, which differ in that it would also prohibit the milk or eggs from such an animal, we recognize that the iqar hedin if the Behag, and are meiqil. So okay, one tiny bit of my question is answered -- we have a special rule by shechitah that machloqesin are resolved by safeiq deOraisa lehachmir. But WRT tereifos.... The AhS says that despite the Rama, we are nohagim lehachmir. So, while the Rama thinks this is a case where the rules of pesaq apply, the AhS says "we" disagree and treat it like a safeiq. Why? I also realize the line isn't all-or-nothing. I presume that not every shitah rises to the level of creating a safeiq, so there is some kind of pesaq-like reasoning necessary to assess which do and which don't. So it's more an issue of how balanced do shitos have to be for us to be unwilling to pasqen and just assume it's a safeiq. But still, these two acharonim are setting te line at a different place. So, does anyoe discuss the kelalim of when to bail out from the (other) kelalei pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 07:47:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:47:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] They Found Gat Message-ID: <20150806144710.GA2303@aishdas.org> As you may have heard, a team found the gates of Gat, Golias's home town. And, as I've noticed in the past, the question of whether they find evidence of the events as found in Tanakh or evidence against can be predicted in advance by checking the religious stance of who is running the dig. So you get this story from Haaretz : Philistine City of Gath a Lot More Powerful Than Thought, Archaeologists Suggest Powerful fortifications newly uncovered by Israeli archaeologists suggest the kingdoms of Saul, David may not have been quite as powerful as thought. Nir Hasson Aug 04, 2015 3:08 AM [IDT] ... According to Maeir, the discovery of Gath as a huge, fortified city on the border of Judea during an extended period, without any signs of destruction as a result of a war with Judea, proves the Philistines controlled the Judean plain. Because Khirbet Kaifa existed for a relatively short period -- about 30 years -- it is likely the remnant of a failure of the Israelite kingdom to spread westward and not a sign of its power. "The Judean kingdom is supposed to be big, important and strong," says Maeir. "But it turns out there is a very big city on its western border. For years, I claimed Gath was a big city, but they countered that it has no lower city, and if it has one it is not fortified. After finding a huge fortification, its clearly the most important city of the 10th and ninth centuries." Now, to get a hint of how we would have heard about Gat had the dig been run by a bilical maximalist, here's an element mentioned in : Near the gate, Maeirs team also unearthed the remains of the citys extensive fortification wall, a Philistine temple, ironwork and pottery. While the pottery bears hallmarks of the distinctive Philistine style, elements of Israelite techniques can be seen on the fragments as well, indicating there was more interaction between the two cultures than previously thought. Since Pelishti culture was importing Jewish culture, doesn't that lend MORE credibity to the idea that David haMelekh's kingdom was at east on the same scale if not overshadowing theirs? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 15:28:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 23:28:31 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] : Re: De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> RAM writes: >And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective rules", is it not? In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? And further read the Tur (and the meforshim on the Tur) in Even HaEzer simin 25 to get a fuller picture of the sources (and the original gemora sources) - so you can see the history of the machlokus on how to deal with this issue all the way back. As Rav Lichtenstein articulated it, the question is not so much that we differ from the position of Chazal, as our position (and the one quoted by the Rema) is much more in line with the majority position in Chazal, but why did the major rishonim - Rambam, Ra'avid etc differ so markedly from what appears to be the majority position in Chazal and posken - well like Rabbi Eliezer (shmuti hu?), as then did the Achronim. I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the influence of the outside world. The same sort of influence that reputedly led to the cherem of Rabbi Gershom (Jews who are supposed to be the upholders of morality cannot be seen to have more than one wife in a world where that is seen as immoral). In a world which identified relations with sin and death (standard Xtian theology of the time, and the Muslim theology in many circles was not that different) - it would have been inappropriate, and led to general looseness if the general non Jewish world view had been repudiated to the extent consonant with the positive positions found in Chazal. Hence Orech Chaim, the book most accessible to the masses, contains not a word of the Rema's position, that is buried in Even HaEzer, where it is more likely only the scholarly will look (or from the point of view of Maran, go look in the Tur). But to talk about relations positively in an open way in Xtian Europe would have created temptations for the non Jewish world that would have unleashed a level of vengeance (eg from the priesthood) that could likely not be endured. There was a lot of censoring and self censoring that went on in all sorts of areas, it seems to me also here, especially as there are the minority positions to bring and rely on. Only in the modern day world which has swung so far the other way is it possible to honestly and openly evaluate the position of Chazal, and that is what in effect has been done, by Rav Lichtenstein and others. >Akiva Miller Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 17:28:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 00:28:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? Message-ID: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Apparently, In the U.S., the therapist's duties are owed to the client, subject to statutory obligations such as the mandatory-reporting requirement. There is no exception for the therapist's religious custom or belief, unless, in limited circumstances, the client consents to it. Question-from a torah point of view should it make a difference who shows up at the therapist's (or Rabbi's)door (for any therapy or advice)? How does Halacha balance the needs of the individual, the family, the community, Jewish society and/or society in general? 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 12:56:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 15:56:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" In-Reply-To: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> References: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> What's the difference between this and Gerald Schroeder? KT, GS, YGB On 08/05/2015 05:53 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I think a philosophy book just came out detending a variant of RSSchwab's > "two clocks" explanation of ma'aseh bereishis. > > RSS's shitah appeared in AOJS's Challenge (ed. R Aryeh Carmel, R/Prof > Cyril Domb pg 164 onward. > > > surveys > the area and summarized RSS as follows: > > Similarly, Rav Shimon Schwab talks of two types of time, cosmic > time and earthly time. The 6 days of creation are counted according > to cosmic time, during which period millions of years may have > passed according to our measure of time. > > (Althugh I disagree with their next sentence on REED's position.) > > > Now for the book. I just got this review > : > >> he Fall and Hypertime >> Hud Hudson, Oxford University Press, 2014, 211pp., $65.00 (hbk), >> ISBN 0198712693. >> Reviewed by Trent Dougherty, Baylor University From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 13:32:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:32:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" In-Reply-To: <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> References: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150807203234.GA14121@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 03:56:56PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: : What's the difference between this and Gerald Schroeder? R' Gerald Schroeder is working within physics, using Relativity to try to make the timelines match up. R' Schwab, and for that matter this Hypertime idea are metaphysical, saying that the 6 days were not physical days, meausured using the same kind of time Galileo turned into a variable when he measured pendulum swings, Newton took derivatives with respect to, and Einstein unified with space. Rather, a logically prior idea altogether. This is more in line with the rishonim who said that science as we know it post-dates creation, and therefore time during creation is has to be measured with a different kind of clock than the one of physics. ------- And some day when humanity develops to this point, the two will finally be in sync. Which would fit RAYK's metaphysics in which every duality is an illusion, as everything is the Or Ein Sof from the Absolute Unity. And le'asid lavo, even the division between olam hazah and olam ha'emes will fall. Leshitaso, techiyas hameisim is a consequence of the reunification of the worlds of life and of death. Those souls don't so much come back to life as the distinction disappears. (I do not recall if RAYK invokes "hayinu kekholmim".) And yes, in such a situation, physical time will be back in sync with supernal time. Although one needn't believe in RAYK's eschatology in order to accept the concept that the two definitions of time will be unified, nor do we need to believe in eventual synchronization in order to talk about the 6 days of ceration being on a different kind of clock than physics. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 13:56:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 15:56:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Re; sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R. Levine wrote: "Is it really true that what women in the general society do is some standard for tznius for Jewish women. If so, then the practices of "well undressed" gentile women (as R. A Miller used to call them) of today have eliminated all tznius standards" Response: Of course there are baseline standards of tzniut for Jew, men and women, that are independent of surrounding culture. But hair covering is not one of them.(At least according the sources and shitta that I have brought). R. Levine then brings an article by Rav Breuer. That is his shitta, it doesn't mean it is universally accepted or binding. Much of what he brings is not specific halacha but advice or Nach based(the entire sugya of kol kevuda etc) I would note that the vast majority of shittot do not require single women to cover their hair I will not have access to respond for a week or so, but will be address further responses at that time. shabbat shalom noam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 8 12:02:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 22:02:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] depression Message-ID: Enclosed is a summary of the last shiur of R Zilberstein to the doctors. I am giving a shiur on this in my shul this coming shabbat. Since I feel it is controversial I am looking for input from the list. Question from a psychiatrist - A patient has 3 kids and has mild depression since the last birth. She wont take chemical drugs and instead uses one based on plants which is good for mild depression. It had some side effects and so the patient stopped that also. The dictor suggested various anti-depression drugs and other help which the patient refused, Contacting a social worker it turns out the woman runs a "nursery' (mishpachton) from 8am to 4pm. The social worker says she manages only with a great effort; her husband comes home from work at 1pm and the mother helps. The woman refuses to open a file in the social ministry because of this nursery which they may close down. The social worker pointed out that if something happens the state will prosecute the psychiatrist. Question: On one side there might be a danger to the kids in the nursery and the psychiatrist might lose her license OTOH this is a major income for the young family. She has successfully run the nursery for several months without any complaint with the help of the husband and mother. If this is all explained to the ministry it most likely won't help and they will closer her down Answer: The job of a bet din is to watch out for the welfare of the community. Hence, according to Torah law the doctor must go the rabbi of the city or neighborhood to hear their opinion, R Zilberstein notes that in Bnei Brak there is an agreement with the authorities that the local bet din deals with such problems and calls in the local authority only if they feel this is necessary. Such an arrangement should be set up in every town that the local bet din makes the decision. see YD 336:1 that ba doctor needs the permission of the bet din to practice, Therefore one needs the permission of the local secular authorities to rely on the judgement of the local rabbi. It is well known that the "mara de-atra" have the ability to treat broken and depressed people. In England there was a baby born with Down's syndrone whose Jewish parents disappeared. The local board of health turned to Rav Yoseph Dinner Zt'L what to do, Rav Dunner , who was the 65, (after checking with his wife) said they would adopt the baby since at that time there was no Jewish institution capable of handing this baby. The local board of health accepted this solution. The couple cared for the child until they reached the age of 80. At that point they transfered the child to an instituion in Afula, Each year R Dunner would come to Israel to bake matzot and then visit the child in Afula. The doctors in Britain said the best social workers are the Jewish leaders. In the beit midrash of R. Pam there was born a child with Down's syndrone. R Pam always tried to cheep up the boy. One year the boy complained that on simchat Torah they used all the sifrei Torah except for his paper one. After Musaf R Pam went to the Bimah and announced to everyone that now they were reading from the sefer Torah of this boy. This was the happiest moment for the boy and the angles surrounding "kise hakavod" Conclusion: The psychiatrist should explain to the local rabbi the situation in the nursery. The rabbi should come to some agreement with the local secular authotities to rely on his judgement -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 8 21:21:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 21:21:33 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? Message-ID: you are basically asking when must the rabbi/frum therapist offer halachic therapy and then risk prosecution? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 12:17:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:17:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] human hair sheitals Message-ID: In the thread "De-Chokifying Arayos", I asked: > But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan > Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went > uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why > aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? R' Mordechai Cohen answered: >>> I can't help but thinking that this is one of those (many) halachic issues where the hanhaga of Klal yisroel in certain halachic (or hashkafic) areas has developed to be inline with yechidim than with the majority of chazal/rishonim/etc >>> ... >>> We have many others similar to this (some d'oriasa, some d'rabbanan) - human hair sheitals, chadash, live music after the churban, etc. You are raising a great point. I have wondered this about chadash and music myself, and I'm somewhat surprised that I didn't see the connection. Thank you very much for bringing it to my attention. (Though, to be honest, these examples sharpen my question about Conservative "psak".) But for THIS thread, my question is simple and direct: Tell me more about why you specify "human hair sheitals". Have chazal/rishonim ever distinguished between wigs made of human hair vs other kinds of wigs? I was always under the (possibly mistaken) impression that chazal and rishonim - and even acharonim - only discussed the requirement to cover hair, and how much to cover, and the ramifications of leaving it uncovered. But I don't recall any discussion of the covering itself except by the leaders of very recent chasidic groups. Am I mistaken? Where is this discussed in the seforim? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 13:15:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 16:15:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: In Avodah V33n111, RET noted: >> Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters >> of the alph-bet (I only know one) << > We still need another 3 pesukim in the rest of Nach including one that has not only the 22 letters of the alphabet but also all the end letters < Fact-checking what I found via Google'ing (besides the *pasuq* already noted by R'Micha) provides these fifteen (!) *p'suqim* containing all the letters: -- Y'hoshua 23:13 -- M'lachim Beis 4:39, 6:32 -- Y'sha'yahu 5:25 -- Yirm'yahu 22:3, 32:29 -- Y'chezqeil 17:9 -- Hosheia 13:2 -- Amos 9:13 -- Esther 3:13 -- Daniel 3:22, 4:20, 7:19 -- Ezra 7:28 -- N'chemya 3:7 All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 14:11:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: <<< To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without reproduction. Our nitzchius is absolutely dependent on this particular activity, which is why "peru urevu" is actually a mitzva and not "mutar if you wish." >>> Yes, that's true. But please note that you yourself are referring to "peru urevu". My question concerns a different mitzva, namely Onah, wherein sex is explicitly linked to food and clothing/shelter. I don't think it is a big stretch to say that the common thread of these three things is how important they are to this particular individual, and NOT how important they are to the species. <<< ... for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. >>> I think we may be understanding the word "objectify" in different ways. Contrary to what some might think, not all men are constantly obsessed with having sex. At any given point in time, a particular man might have other priorities - other activities that he'd rather do than this one. But a husband cannot give higher priority to these activities over Onah, just like he can't choose them over minyan, or other mitzvos. He must be sensitive to his wife's needs and wants, and if he senses her mood, he is under a chiyuv d'Oraisa to act accordingly. (Actually, he'll have this chiyuv even if he does NOT sense her mood accurately, in which case he will have been Mevatel the Aseh b'shogeg, though I suppose it could easily be argued that it's more of a "shogeg karov l'meizid" if he hasn't even tried to judge her mood accurately.) But there is no flip side to Onah. The wife has no responsibility to judge her husband's desires. In fact, even if she does realize that he is "in the mood", there is no Chiyuv d'Oraisa for her to ignore her other desires and respond to her husband's desires. Sure, it could well be advisable for her to do so for Shalom Bayis reasons, and one might even call it a "chiyuv" in that context, but the imbalance remains: Her chiyuv would be Shalom Bayis alone, while the husband must deal with both Shalom Bayis and Onah. That's what I meant by "objectify": Much of Orach Chaim 240 is to protect the wife from a forcible rape (for instance, she can't be asleep or drunk), and much is also to protect her from more subtle rape (such as thinking of another woman). But there are far fewer protections offered to the husband. Neither can be drunk, and neither can have decided to divorce, but in general, the wife is within her rights to demand relations whenever she wants, and to me, this can "objectify" the husband. RTK reminds us that the husband *will* have pleasure from this. But that is exactly my point: If someone is required to have a pleasure that (for whatever reason) he does not actually *desire*, it is a sort of rape. RTK also wrote: <<< He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her. But human beings derive pleasure from each other all the time, ... it is just absurd to think that if another person gives me some kind of pleasure, I have "objectified" that person. >>> You are correct. Merely receiving pleasure does not automatically objectify a person. But if one receives pleasure without returning that pleasure to the giver, this carries a danger of objectifying the giver. And if one receives pleasure against the giver's will, that is the very definition of "objectifying" (in my view). R"n Chana Luntz wrote: <<< In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? And further read the Tur (and the meforshim on the Tur) in Even HaEzer simin 25 to get a fuller picture of the sources (and the original gemora sources) - so you can see the history of the machlokus on how to deal with this issue all the way back. >>> Indeed, the first few times I saw that Rema, he seemed to be saying, verbatim, that "you can do anything you want, and whenever you want to do it." A sexual hefkervelt, a world with no rules. But a more careful reading shows that he is only making two specific points: That there are no restrictions on positions, and that (as we've already said in this thread) the timing restrictions of O"C 240 are a "madrega" but not the basic halacha. But aside from these points, I see OC 240 and EH 25 as very similar: Their main focus concerns the *mental* state, and it is in this area (it seems to me) that Shulchan Aruch - including all acharonim until quite recently - endorses a very prishus-oriented approach. RCL again: <<< I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the influence of the outside world. ... In a world which identified relations with sin and death (standard Xtian theology of the time, and the Muslim theology in many circles was not that different) - it would have been inappropriate, and led to general looseness if the general non Jewish world view had been repudiated to the extent consonant with the positive positions found in Chazal. >>> There are many responses I could give to this. Perhaps the simplest would be: So then let Shulchan Aruch be silent; why did they choose to pasken overtly like the prishus view? Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 10 05:08:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:08:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: To continue from my previous post: R"n Chana Luntz wrote: <<< In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? >>> I think it is noteworthy that the Aruch Hashulchan often goes out of his way to justify the common practice in the face of the consensus of poskim, but does *not* do so in this case. In fact, Aruch Hashulchan EH 25:11 quotes the same Tur as the Rama did, but emphatically warns us *against* following it. This suggests that the turning of the tide, from a more prishus-oriented view to something else, occurred more recently than the days of the Aruch Hashulchan. Can anyone suggest a more precise time? Or, to put my question more blatantly: Does the less-prishus-oriented view appear only in recent articles such as the one by Rav Lichtenstein, and in the sort of verbal psakim such as he received? Does it appear anywhere at all in any of the seforim that one might happen to be learning, such as the Igros Moshe, Tzitz Eliezer, or similar? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 07:14:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akirah In-Reply-To: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> References: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150811141458.GA31500@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 6:22pm EDT, I wrote: : The issue comes up in AhS YD 24:42... : There is a machloqes between the Behag and Rashi about the line between : aqirah and tereifos. Rashi says that aqira is the displacement of the : qaneh or veshet caused by using a nicked knife. Most rishonim hold : like the Behag, and then there is a submachloqes about what kind of : dislocated simanim are aqirah, and what are tereifos. Leshitas Rashi, : they would all be tereifos. : : Anyway, here the AhS says that Rama holds that midinei shechitah, : we are machmir for every definition of aqirah. But midinei tereifah, : which differ in that it would also prohibit the milk or eggs from such : an animal, we recognize that the iqar hedin if the Behag, and are meiqil. In response RAF sent me offlist an essay he wrote in Dec 2001, titled "Hagdaras Iqur Simanim baTalmud", which I put up on-line here . The article does a survey of various definitions of ique hasimanim, which vary amazingly widely. He lists some causes: - The discussion is in scattered snippets across Chullin, not one organized sugya. - The rishonim do not agree about the girsa of the gemara that contrasts iqur from tereifah. - The rishonim do not even agree on basic defining features about iqur simanim. RAF also mentioned to me: "I have a very different peshat in ikkur, based on actually looking at the Behag." Sec. 4 does appear to quote a Behag that is at odds with the mesorah about shitas haBehag that the baalei Tosafos received. We've discussed the relationship between errors in reception and whether finding one would change pesaq before. Here, the nafqa mina lemaaseh is small but real, as per above. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: If anyone else has a Torah article they want up on-line, feel free to ask. -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 15:53:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:53:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150811225301.GA13480@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 12:55:06AM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : Here are the sources I have collected, in addition to the fact that a : significant percentage of Modern Orthodox women to not cover their hair in : public except in shul/davening situations. Although there is long evidence of rabbis saying it's a problem, but not a battle they can win. So the mimetic side is dismissable. (Also, how does someone who advocates for more roles for women in shul make a mimetic argument?) : In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of : uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is... : If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered : hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. But saying it's not a breach of tzeni'us doesn't say it's allowed, that's your addition not in the translated text you quote. RYB could mean what the AhS says, that it's terrible things came to this, but you may daven in her presence. Or, that whle it's not a tzeni'us problem, it's still prohibited deOraisa as per the implication in parashas sotah. : Here is a list of easily accessable sources: : Rabbi Marc Angel... Listening to his citing R' Masas and your quoting R Badad, maybe it's a Seph thing? He presumes hair covering is das Yehudis, which makes his a rare shitah. (Again, given the derivation from a pasuq.) But then again, R' Ovadiah Yosef firmly disagrees. But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. ... : I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and : not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. : However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and : everyone can come to their own conclusion. ... which is what he does, that the theory is there, but it's a shitah dechuyah. And noticably, he too quotes R' Yosef Masas, R' Moshe Malka and the Kaf haChaim -- Sepharadi sources. : Rav Yosef Haim... So, assuming the woman doesn't eat qitniyos, may she go with her hair uncovered? And even if she does... At what point is a shitah dechuyah? ... : Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony : of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. : R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: : "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did : not cover her hair? ... : Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in : this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." : I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the : artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with : uncovered hair. : Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat : common... And yet the rabbanim protested. This isn't even admissable as mimetic tradition, any more than noting how often people speak leshon hara or buy off-the-books or anything else rabbis have failed to curb. : uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his : wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. He too, would only need to be convinced is wasn't ervah in the sense of "all those men" sinning. But as we see in the AhS, that doesn't mean it's allowed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 16:00:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:00:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R' Noam Stadlan wrote: <<< Of course there are baseline standards of tzniut for Jew, men and women, that are independent of surrounding culture. But hair covering is not one of them. ... I would note that the vast majority of shittot do not require single women to cover their hair. >>> I both agree and disagree. Hair covering is NOT a "baseline standard", in the sense that it applies only to married women and not to single girls. But hair covering IS a baseline standard for Jewish women, in the sense that it remains in force independent of the surrounding culture. Thus, we have at least three different standards: males, married females, single females. And actually, we have several more than that, if we distinguish among various ages of boy and girl children, not to mention infants. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 21:26:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:26:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: From: Akiva Miller via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) <<< ... for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. >>> [--TK] >> I think we may be understanding the word "objectify" in different ways. Contrary to what some might think, not all men are constantly obsessed with having sex. At any given point in time, a particular man might have other priorities -- other activities that he'd rather do than this one. But a husband cannot give higher priority to these activities over Onah, just like he can't choose them over minyan, or other mitzvos. He must be sensitive to his wife's needs and wants, and if he senses her mood, he is under a chiyuv d'Oraisa to act accordingly.... But there is no flip side to Onah. The wife has no responsibility to judge her husband's desires. In fact, even if she does realize that he is "in the mood", there is no Chiyuv d'Oraisa for her to ignore her other desires and respond to her husband's desires....<< Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) >>>>> There is a great irony in what you have written. You seem to think that there is an inequality, a lack of reciprocity, in the mutual obligations of men and women -- with women having all the power and men all the obligation. It is ironic because the mitzva for men to be sensitive to their wives' feelings derives from the /curse/ that was given to Chava! Look at Rashi on Ber 3:16, "el ishech teshukasech -- your desire will be towards your husband." Rashi says the curse is: You -- the woman -- will desire relations, but will not be so brazen as to request it verbally. Rather, "he will rule over you" -- it is all from him -- the initiative is his -- and not from you. [end Rashi] To modern ears this Rashi might sound strange because the idea that "women are not brazen" sounds so old-fashioned. Modesty has gone out the window in modern society. But even the brazen women -- and certainly the more refined and eidel women -- want to be wanted. By their nature, most women do not want to be the ones taking the initiative or the ones pursuing the men. For most women it is embarrassing to have to ask outright. If you want an example of a woman in the Torah who was brazen even way back then, look at Eishes Potiphar -- "Lie with me." The very fact that she behaved this way shows what a hussy she was, but also, it shows that she was utterly humiliated. Not only was Yosef not seduced by her wiles, but even when she so lost her dignity as to ask him outright, he /still/ refused. It is no wonder she felt such a burning desire for revenge. It was in order to mitigate the harshness of Chava's curse that Chazal instituted the rule that men have to be sensitive to their wives' desires, that a woman should not have to humiliate herself by spelling out what she wants. It is a chessed that a man does for his wife, to mitigate the curse, to somewhat level the playing field in which men have all the advantages! I actually think this a wonderful example of Chazal's extraordinary sensitivity to women. They acknowledge and partially correct an imbalance that favors men at the expense of women, ever since Adam and Chava. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 22:47:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (bk via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:47:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: depression Message-ID: I have worked in the mental health field and have other personal experience with serious depression. The description which you provided "mild depression", would not at all indicate a danger to anyone including daycare children. It seems that the description is very much lacking. Either there is much more to warrant defying her confidence, including/especially to a rav, or someone doesn't understand what depression is all about. I'm assuming that the former is the case. So, the question is, what can we learn from a case in which the problem is not accurate? b'kavod, ChaimBaruch Kaufman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 06:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:19:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waiting Six Hours for Dairy- A Rabbanite Response to Qaraism Message-ID: <20150812131918.925F517FC6A@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/08/waiting-six-hours-for-dairy-rabbanite.html Qaraites are a Jewish group that began around 760 CE. They rejected the Talmud and rabbinic Judaism and insisted that Jews only observe halacha as expressed in the literal text of the Torah. "Qaraite" means "Scriptualist". The movement started in Iraq and Persia by Jews who objected to the authority of the leaders of the Babylonian Talmud Academies, the Gaonim. The Gaonim and their successors, the rishonim, are called Rabbanites because of their stance in defending the Talmud and rabbinic laws. Scholars have noted that many minhagim began as a response to the Qaraite movement. For example, the recital of Bameh Madlikim on Friday evening after davening [1] was started in the times of the Gaonim to reinforce the rabbinic stance on having fire prepared before Shabbos, in opposition to the Qaraite view that no fire may be present in one's home on Shabbos [2]. There is evidence that the reading of Pirkei Avos [3] on Shabbos afternoon, which began in Gaonic times, was to emphasize to the Jewish masses that the Oral Law was passed down since Moshe Rabbeinu as stated in the first mishna of Pirkei Avos. Professor Haym Soloveitchik [4] has argued convincingly that the unique arrangement of Hilchos Shabbos in Rambam's Mishna Torah was organized specifically with anti-Qaraite intent. Briefly, Rambam's formulation of the Shabbos laws does not follow a chronological order or any other expected logical order. See the above URL for more. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:03:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 11:25:27AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : R' Lichtenstein was bothered by this point and answered that we need to : rely on our teachers and Gedolim. : "Probably most significant, however, is our reliance upon our own mentors. : Sensing that modern gedolim, "the judge of your era" -- for our purposes, most : notably, the Rav, but not he alone -- have examined the issue and the evidence : and adopted a positive stance, we, ordinary students of Torah, follow in : their footsteps as we identify with their position... : I understand that for many of us that is not a very satisfying answer and : leads to many questions about why specifically here we follow minority : opinions as opposed to other places (e.g. wombs issues, etc.) but I don't : think there is a better answer. This is the way the halachic system works. To some extent, yes. However, I do not know what halachiccategory is "gedolim". My job is to have my own poseiq, someone ho cnot only knows the halakhah, but knows me and my situation. Or to get as close to that as possible. My rav's job is to have experts to inform him, and to know when a question is either too complicated for his skills, or the stakes to high (eg mamzeirus, potential intercommunal fallout, or....) to not consult others, starting with his own rav. Yes, you will eventually reach the few at the head of the pyramid, so I guess we can call them "the gedolim", and their opinions will end up shaping policy on big or broad issues. But I do not think RYBS would be happy learning that he had a talmid in the job of mara de'asra who had so little confidence in his own ability to map theory to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronos and desires of the people in it that he hands the job off to people who know less of that reality. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:19:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:19:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> References: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150812201911.GB8165@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 11:28:31PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the : influence of the outside world. The same sort of influence that reputedly : led to the cherem of Rabbi Gershom (Jews who are supposed to be the : upholders of morality cannot be seen to have more than one wife in a world : where that is seen as immoral)... I understood this as well as the Sho'el uMeishiv's take on intellectual property in a single way, and slightly different than your explanation. The Sho'el uMeishiv invokes "lo sehei Torah shelanu kesichah beteilah shelahem. If they recognize a kind of property as a right our native sense finds moral, we obviously must obligated to protect it as well. This is not DDD, as the protection isn't to the extent of the civi law, but to the extent of the halakhos of property. He is identifying a moral obligation we must halachically defend, not the civil law in and of itself... My understanding is that it's not that we learned morality from their law, but their law reflects a new social contract. The new expectations are a change in metzi'us. Now that we expect to have intellectual property, that is part of the new situation, to which a new pesaq applies. Similarly, I understood Rabbeinu Gershom's mandating monogamy in the same terms. He was less worried about being seen as immoral, or learning morality from Xian marriage norms. Rather, once society created different expectations of what marriage is, we had no ability nor obligation to reset to the old expectations (after all, even chazal referred to sister wives as "tzaros"), and therefore have to support a moral solution to the new expactations. A woman gets married expecting a man for herself. Rabbeinu Gershom mandated treating that woman morally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:22:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150812202233.GC8165@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:04:47PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : ... But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent : the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no corresponding : safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. Given the size of the two porn industries, or the difference between what "porn" usually refers to and locating smut in a romance novel, I would think that it's not just Chazal who would conclude the threat of objectfication is assymetric. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 16:24:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:24:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> References: , <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <13CC426F-297A-4E3A-AC33-979E5391FA35@sibson.com> > > But I do not think RYBS would be happy learning that he had a talmid in > the job of mara de'asra who had so little confidence in his own ability > to map theory to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronos > and desires of the people in it that he hands the job off to people who > know less of that reality. > > I agree but I think it's also true That RYBS would not be happy learning that he had a talmid in the job of mara de'asra who had so so much confidence in his own ability to create the theory to map to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronosand desires of the people in it that he doesn't hand the job off to those more qualified to break new ground. Kol tuv 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 20:21:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:21:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: I wrote: : ... But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent : the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no : corresponding safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. R' Micha Berger responded: > Given the size of the two porn industries, or the difference > between what "porn" usually refers to and locating smut in a > romance novel, I would think that it's not just Chazal who > would conclude the threat of objectfication is assymetric. Chazal were aware of the differences between those two industries, and they suggested reasons for it on the top few lines of Kesubos 64b. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 12:36:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:36:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Copyright Message-ID: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> Back in Jun 2001, Napster was in the news, and I heard a shiur from R Zev Reichman, then of REITS' Kollel Elyon. So at the first on-list mention of copyrights, I used it as an excuse to post a summary on-list at and . It's been 14 years, and I just learned of a beautiful einfahl by R' Asher Weiss on the subject. So, I'm reviewing the list, and adding to it. (v7n58 #13 is marked ">", #4 is marked ":".) > 1- Dina dimalchusa issues: > According to Tosafos on Gittin, dina dimalchusah dinah is only on > taxation. > The Beis Yitzchak does rule that ddd applies here. However, RZR opined > that ddd still wouldn't apply apply to Sony Bono's law that was aimed > specifically at Disney, allowing them to extend their copyright on some > animated characters. It's not an evenly applied rule. > 2- I already cited the most chamur, the Sho'el uMeishiv 1:44, who goes > beyond ddd. : The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral : obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it : is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership : of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal : (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights : are lehalachah also eternal. : Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for : that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a : halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos : of copyright. : I just want to note the SuM's assumption, and the importance he assigns : moral rights identified by the surrounding culture. > RZR wondered if the SuM would also recognize the French philosophy of > copyright: that the artist could sell reproduction and profit rights, but > eternally retains rights to controlling how the idea is changed. (So even > if you sell a painting, the owner is allowed to copy it, but not modify > it.) After all, this is also a secularly identified moral right. Would > it be a halachah only in France? > 3- Hasagas gevul: > There is an old cheirem, invoked in many if not most haskamos for a few > centuries, against copying sefarim. (The SuM mentions it.) The cheirem > is at least as old as the publication of Tomer Devora (about a century > after it was written) -- because it's mentioned in the haskamos. That > if one copies the sefer beli reshus, or buys such a copy he is subject > to the cheirem and will lose all the berachos showered on people who > learn TOmer Devorah listed in the begining of the haskamah. > The Chasam Sofer traces the cheirem back to the Maharam Padua's edition of > the Rambam. After he invested all the time and money preparing the plates, > a non-Jewish publisher, Justinian, took those plates and printed his > own copy of the Yad, charging one gold coin less than the original. The > Rama said that anyone who bought a Justinian edition was under cheirem, > as they prevented him from recouping his loss. > Given this lashon, the CS concludes that the problem is hasagas gezul. > However, as RZR noted, hasagas gevul only applies to unfair competition, > not to give copies away as a tzadakah or a fundraiser. > This is also the conclusion of R' Moshe. R' Bleich, back when he was > a talmid at Torah Vadaas found a rare publication of a notebook of R' > Chaim and had it published as a TvD fundraiser. The original publisher > found out about it and cried "hasagas gevul". They went to R' Moshe who > ruled in favor of R' Bleich. > 4- Issur geneivah: > R' Bleich himself, when writing on the subject, quotes "ein berei'ach > mishum me'ilah", and that there is no geneivah without a cheftzah. > 5- Hezek > Now we're in "Micha's 2 cents" territory. Li nir'eh that even for a > tzedakah to do it, even if not hasagas gevul, you are causing hezek to > someone who would otherwise earn money. > Even if not quantifiably assur, I would want to invoke bal tishaktzu on > this one. > 6- Chilul Hashem > In a case like Napster, where the case will have a kol and a trial in > the press, I would think that the risk of chillul Hashem, and therefore > *dinei nefashos*, is enough to assur it -- even in cases where the > copying would be found to be technically legal. 7- Chamas So I heard from R' J Ziring (YUTorah.org) that R' Asher Weiss in a 2013 shiur compared the theft of intellectual property to the dor hamabul (after revisiting some of the above). I found a blog post of RJZ's that describes it or : Chazal explain that the sin of the dor hamabul was that they would each steal less than a shaveh perutah. Thus, in the aggregate they would destroy people's livelihood, but none of them could be prosecuted in court. From here he argued that there is an issur to do something, which while not formally theft, lends to a society that destroys other people's financial well being. If no one respects intellectual property, then inventors, writers, and the like will have no way of supporting himself. Thus, even if no one can properly be called a gazlan, they have all participated in chamas. Tir'u baTov! -Micha > PS: While on the subject, I should point out that we obtain reshus to > include any emails that are reposted on Avodah. When asking, I make it > clear that a copy will appear in the web archive as well. -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 15:08:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baal Nefesh in the Igeros Moshe Message-ID: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> R' Elli Fischer contrasted the use of baal nefesh yachmir in the MB with its use in the IM. (Also heard via R' Jonathan Ziring.) The MB uses baal nefesh yachmir to refer to chumeros where the person is acting in a way to fulfill all shitos. The MB lists the more recent opinions, and then advises that the baal nefesh follow the most stringent. (Although I believe we found in previous iterations that the MB doesn't actualy use the expression particularly often. The IM argues that chalav hacompanies is actually chalav yisrael, so that there is no textual reason to only drink milk that was literally Yisrae'el ro'ahu, as opposed to using anan sahade eidus. But leshitaso, FDA certified milk is kosher even according to the Peri Chadash. (YD 1:47) In 1:48 he dismisses all other possibilities, and then says baal nefesh yachmir. RMF's baal nefesh is not being chosheish for all shitos, he dismissed those other shitos. Instead he is keeping minhag yisrael saba beyond halakhah. Pretty much the opposite of the MB's baal nefesh, who is ignoring accepted pesaq in order to make sure all the textual bases are covered. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 20:27:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 05:27:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Baal Nefesh in the Igeros Moshe In-Reply-To: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> References: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55CD6005.7020707@zahav.net.il> I don't have it open in front of me, but IIRC, in his psak on eating veal RMF makes it very, very clear that the baal nefesh will not eat it and anyone who does is (to use my words) walking on thin ice. The way he relates to a baal nefesh in the CY issue (it is a nice thing to do but if you don't keep, no big deal) vs the veal issue (you really shouldn't be eating this stuff) is stark. Ben On 8/14/2015 12:08 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In 1:48 he dismisses all other possibilities, and then says baal nefesh > yachmir. RMF's baal nefesh is not being chosheish for all shitos, he > dismissed those other shitos. Instead he is keeping minhag yisrael saba > beyond halakhah. > > Pretty much the opposite of the MB's baal nefesh, who is ignoring accepted > pesaq in order to make sure all the textual bases are covered. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 14 12:13:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Heather Luntz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 20:13:15 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> I have been struggling with this thread, but have not found it easy to explain why, although I will do my best: On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:153am EDT, R Saul Guberman wrote: : RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & : the Tosafists. : http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ : Our *Torah shebe'al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish : history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a : great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, : but the *Torah shebe'al peh* would have survived without him. However, : without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, : any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe'al peh* today. And RMB then wrote: >Which is a different statement than the subject line. >I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to >the survival of mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue understanding the gemara. I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? I really struggle with that statement. Now, if you want to limit the claim, and say that Rashi and Tosphos are far more key than the Rambam to what people do in modern day yeshivas all day, including (if not particularly) the Briskers, then it would be hard to disagree. But is what people are doing in yeshiva all day in the 21st century "the mesorah" or is the Shulchan Aruch "the mesorah"? What are the consequences if we relegate the Shulchan Aruch and elevate the Tosphists in terms of halacha as she is practiced? Somehow these seem troubling directions in which to be heading, but I must log off as shabbas is coming very soon in this part of England (and I, for one, am not about to rely on Rabbanu Tam, Tosphotist par excellence, regardless of his mesorah, I don't know about you,). -Micha Shabbat Shalom Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 14 13:48:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:48:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 08:13:15PM +0100, Heather Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> Which is a different statement than the subject line. : :> I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah :> through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who :> stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of mesorah :> than the parshanim... : : I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan : Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the : Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, : we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. : : Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the : Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? Let me make it far more more explicit. The subject line differs from my understanding of RGS' expansion of RYGB's idea in that it claims "Mesora ONLY through Rashi" (emphasis added), whereas I heard them talking about cofication being "less critical". Comparative terms, not absolute ones. IOW, the mesorah could survive without codes, if we had to. But it couldn't survive without parshanim. Without them we couldn't handle any new case that isn't in a code, nor even have the skills to always determine which are the new cases. In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that discusses how the conclusions are reached. Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The parshan connects the past to the now. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 15:41:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:41:09 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> I wrote: : I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan : Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the : Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, : we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. : : Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the : Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? And RMB replied: <<>Let me make it far more more explicit. The subject line differs from my understanding of RGS' expansion of RYGB's idea in that it claims "Mesora ONLY through Rashi" (emphasis added), whereas I >heard them talking about cofication being "less critical". Comparative terms, not absolute ones. >IOW, the mesorah could survive without codes, if we had to. But it couldn't survive without parshanim. Without them we couldn't handle any new case that isn't in a code, nor even have the >skills to always determine which are the new cases.>> Firstly of course, the Rambam wrote his perush on Mishnayos, so I don't think it is merely parshanut that distinguishes the two. Secondly, in the Rambam's code there are various "nire li" statements where he comes across areas where the answer from the gemora is not clear, and he therefore inserts his own view. It seems slightly bizarre to suggest that he or the Shulchan Aruch ever assumed that their code would make determining new cases more difficult, nor does that seem accurate historically. >In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that >discusses how the conclusions are reached. So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no Rambam and no Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any distinction at all between the halacha of the Orthodox and the halacha as championed by the Conservative movement? Is that not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would of necessity lead (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent than we have today - one that would perforce have to embrace the Conservative movement, and certainly all the forms of Open Orthodoxy that RGS is so vehemently against. Part of RAM's distress on one of the other threads on this list at the moment, regarding modern day psak vis a vis sexual relations versus the postion of the Shulchan Aruch has to do with the fact that Orthodoxy in general (although not, I would note, at least some of the Chassidic movements, such as Ger, and possibly increasingly not other groups within the Charedi world) has without appearing to notice, abandoned the position as set out in the Shuchan Aruch (albeit for one that can be said to be the more majority position of Chazal). But take the codes out of the equation and *all* these multiple rishonic positions become tenable, allowing a general free for all within the vastness of the parshanut tradition. The codes therefore are a critical part of what might be considered a dual process - equivalent to the situation where one first brainstorms ideas, and then whittles away to those most tenable. There are of course, situations where Sephardim do not posken like the Shulchan Aruch, and there are even more situations where Ashkenazim do not hold like the Rema, preferring a Shach, Taz or Magen Avraham (or even a Bach). But in the post-Shulchan Aruch world the conversation that RAM has been leading on the other thread is fundamental and critical - if we do not posken like the Shuchan Aruch in the particular case in question - we need to understand and investigate precisely why not, because by and large, the Shulchan Aruch draws the line as to where we go or do not go halacha l'ma'aseh. Without the Shulchan Aruch, we are only left with the brainstorming side of the halachic endeavour, and that means - as I intimated in my closing remarks, that if you find Rabbanu Tam's shkia analysis compelling (or indeed, that of a more minor rishon), there would seem to be little to prevent you holding like it halacha l'ma'aseh. What would hold us together? Indeed you are, I see, engaged in a debate regarding hair covering on another thread. But surely those who seek to justify the practice of many, many women who otherwise led and lead fully halachic lives are full square within the mesorah of tosphos. It is only those who also have an eye to the codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in the light of common practice. >Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The parshan connects the past to the now. That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation handed over to the next. And the generation of the Shulchan Aruch, in accepting it as "The" Code which shall be followed in most circumstances (with exceptions) handed that down to all generations following - making the Shulchan Aruch the mesorah par excellence. I can debate the nature of shkia with the Tosphotists in a conversation down the generations, but my mesorah regarding Shabbas is unlikely to be based upon any such conversation, nor is it expected to be. If you want to redefine the word mesorah to mean only that which Rashi has given us, then of course the title of this thread becomes 100% correct, just rather pointless. Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more of them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the Rambam, were able to formulate their halachic conclusions. Without them it would be far more difficult to have anything like the number of people we have today engaging with the gemora. The Rambam in contrast might well not see the point - if you can't manage without Rashi and Tosphos, then, in his view, maybe you shouldn't be trying, and should be relying on his code instead, leaving gemora engagement to the true elite who should be leading the people. That aspect of the Rambam's view has not dominated as "the mesorah" - using the more commonly understood use of the term. While we might debate the length of time that should be spent in yeshiva, and whether one should do work/army instead of long term yeshiva study - there is pretty close to universal agreement within Orthodoxy that all Jews should spend at least some significant time engaging with the fundamental texts, even if they are of only average intelligence. But what people do in yeshiva is still, in my view, only a small slice of "the mesorah", as it is commonly understood (as opposed to as redefined by RYBS) and a far greater slice is the Shuchan Aruch itself, and for that, the Rambam's influence is surely pre-eminent. >-Micha Shavuah tov Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 13:35:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:35:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim Message-ID: Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? [image: --] Shui Haber [image: https://]about.me/shuihaber *"The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are."* ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 19:20:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:20:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55CFF350.3030205@sero.name> On 08/15/2015 04:35 PM, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: > Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? Devarim 6:13, 10:20. Hil' Yesodei Hatorah 2:1 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 22:14:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:14:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R. Micha offered the following critiques: > Although there is long evidence of rabbis saying it's a problem, but > not a battle they can win. So the mimetic side is dismissable. (Also, > how does someone who advocates for more roles for women in shul make a > mimetic argument?) If the same rabbi's whose wives were not covering hair were the same ones saying it is a problem, this critique makes sense. otherwise, there is no reason to say that those whose wives were not covering their hair were unhappy with the mitziut. The mimetic argument here is that the shitta existed and was followed. It doesn't mean that it is obligatory. So I think this is apples and oranges regarding roles of women in shul. >: In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of >: uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is... >: If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered >: hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. > But saying it's not a breach of tzeni'us doesn't say it's allowed, > that's your addition not in the translated text you quote. RYB could > mean what the AhS says, that it's terrible things came to this, but you > may daven in her presence. Or, that whle it's not a tzeni'us problem, > it's still prohibited deOraisa as per the implication in parashas sotah. I think that you are making a moving target, one rationale knocked down and another rationale surfaces. Obviously hair covering could be mandated for a number of different reasons, but all of them? I am not sure it is necessary to be yotzei l'chol hadayot and even if so, the sources who permit, permit it regardless of the rationale against. I also have to go back and look at the source because I think it said more than the quote. >: Here is a list of easily accessable sources: >: Rabbi Marc Angel... > He presumes hair covering is das Yehudis, which makes his a rare > shitah. (Again, given the derivation from a pasuq.) > But then again, R' Ovadiah Yosef firmly disagrees. He obviously is not paskening like R. Ovadiah > But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And > two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. There are Ashkenazim among the sources as well.....I am illustrating that not only the shitah exists, but was followed and continues to be followed by a significant segment of the MO community. And, were it not for the shoah, it seems that a large segment of Lithuanian Jewry would still be following it. ... >: I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and >: not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. >: However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and >: everyone can come to their own conclusion. > ... which is what he does, that the theory is there, but it's a shitah > dechuyah. And noticably, he too quotes R' Yosef Masas, R' Moshe Malka > and the Kaf haChaim -- Sepharadi sources. >: Rav Yosef Haim... > So, assuming the woman doesn't eat qitniyos, may she go with her hair > uncovered? Again, apples and oranges, or peanuts and sesame. It isn't just a Sephardi shita. > And even if she does... At what point is a shitah dechuyah? Good question. From my limited point of view, if it makes sense and some Rabbonim of at least some stature (and I think Rav Messas et al quality) hold that position, it is not dechuyah. What is your definition? ... >: Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony >: of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. >: R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: >: "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did >: not cover her hair? ... >: Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in >: this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." >: I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the >: artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with >: uncovered hair. >: Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat >: common... > And yet the rabbanim protested. This isn't even admissable as mimetic > tradition, any more than noting how often people speak leshon hara or > buy off-the-books or anything else rabbis have failed to curb. I do not agree. Many in Meah Shearim protest that all women do not wear long thick stockings but that doesn't mean that every rabbi holds that long thick stockings are obligatory. if it is the rabbi whose wife didn't cover her hair, you have an argument. otherwise I suggest that those who protest do not speak for everyone. >: uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his >: wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. > He too, would only need to be convinced is wasn't ervah in the sense of > "all those men" sinning. But as we see in the AhS, that doesn't mean > it's allowed. It is a possible option, but not the probable one. It seems you are going out of your way to figure out how this could occur in consonance with your pre-selected approach, rather than accepting the most likely and obvious rationale. kol tuv. Noam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 16 14:05:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:05:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150816210531.GE28046@aishdas.org> : I think that you are making a moving target, one rationale knocked down : and another rationale surfaces... You gave two counterarguments: 1- Ashkenazi mimeticism 2- A list of sources that appear to be predominantly if not entirely Sepharadi. I therefore gave a teo part reply: 1- Ashk mimeticism was consistently gainst rabbinic will. Even the AhS who weighs halakhah-as-practiced as a major factor in pesaq laments the ubiquitous sin of neglecting this din. He also says it's not ervah. So, the sole person who does spell out Ashk position gives me no reason to equate either (1a) ubiquity nor (1b) a textual statement ruling out ervah with permissability. 2- Those sources are not only Seph, but are possibly dechuyos in their community as well. But at the end of the day, I did write: :> But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And :> two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. (And I still find it ironic that someone making a mimetic argument about hair covering wants to also change the role of women by looking at tets to the exclusion of 3-1/3 millenia of common practice.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 17 08:59:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 11:59:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Soloveitchik on Single Women Lighting Shabbat Candles Message-ID: <20150817155949.GA11283@aishdas.org> http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/single-women-lighting-shabbat-candles Snippet: Torah Musings Halakhic Positions of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik Single Women Lighting Shabbat Candles By Aharon Ziegler on Aug 14, 15 1:00 am in Halakhic Positions ... ... Those who have family customs and if their minhag [custom] is that the single women do not light their own candles then they should certainly not deviate from their custom- "Ve'al Titosh Torat I'mecha"... ... .... As a matter of fact Rav Soloveitchik suggested that Le'chat'chila, all women should indeed first turn off the electric lights, light the Shabbat candles, open the electric lights and then recite the Beracha. Regarding single girls, Rav Soloveitchik noted that this was the practice in Europe, even in his town, and that is how the Rav practiced with his daughters when they were single-that they lit their own candles, even with a Beracha, even when his wife also lit candles with a Beracha. Interestingly, RYBS promoted mimeticism in not taking on the practice of lighting candles if one's mother and grandmother didn't light when they were single and still living with their parents. Yet in the same discussion, he acknowledges how the new reality of electric lights makes relying on the mimeticism of making the berachah on the candles / oil alone just a bedi'eved. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 01:22:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 04:22:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Copyright In-Reply-To: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> References: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55D2EB40.1060303@sero.name> On 08/13/2015 03:36 PM, in a message that Gmail, for some reason, decided was spam, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Beis Yitzchak does rule that ddd applies here. However, RZR opined > that ddd still wouldn't apply apply to Sony Bono's law that was aimed > specifically at Disney, allowing them to extend their copyright on some > animated characters. It's not an evenly applied rule. This isn't true. > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, > it is impossible that the Torah is less moral. This assumes its own conclusion. The exact same reasoning could have been used during the Jim Crow era to "prove" that the Torah requires racial segregation of shuls and yeshivos, or during Prohibition to "prove" that the Torah requires teetotalism. > Now we're in "Micha's 2 cents" territory. Li nir'eh that even for a > tzedakah to do it, even if not hasagas gevul, you are causing hezek to > someone who would otherwise earn money. Even if not quantifiably assur, > I would want to invoke bal tishaktzu on this one. Why should he earn that money? You could invoke the same idea against giving anything away to someone who might otherwise have bought it. Every wedding takes parnassah away from wherever the guests might have bought their dinner that night. Sellers do not own their customers, and have no rights to them. > Chazal explain that the sin of the dor hamabul was that they would > each steal less than a shaveh perutah. [...] From here he argued > that there is an issur to do something, which while not formally theft, Stop right there. Stealing less than a shaveh pruta *is* formally theft. The thief is over on lo sigzol. It's not *returnable*, which is an entirely different matter. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 17 22:18:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:18:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Splendor of Clothes Message-ID: <20150818051824.9B2F7183235@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/the-splendor-of-clothes/ Rav Soloveitchik further added that wearing a Yarmulke, a Kippa, is more dignified than a baseball cap. He said, "If the President of the United States suddenly appeared and wanted to take a picture with me, would I wear a Russian hat, a baseball cap,- or a Kippa? That is the way we should stand Shemoneh Esrei when addressing the King of the Universe, HaKadosh Baruch-Hu. See the above URL for more. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 15:08:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:08:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150818220842.GA26873@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:35:26PM +0300, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: : Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? While it's obligatory (see Zev's citations), I am not sure it's halakhah rather than something prior to halakhah. As in Moshe rabbeinu's list: Mah H' sho'el mei'imakh, ki im - leyir'ah es H' Elokekha - lalekhes bekhol derakhav - ule'avah oso - vela'avod es H' Elokekha... - lishmor es mitzvos H' ve'es chuqosav... It would seem that MRAH is excluding these for thing from the realm of mitzvos and chuqim, and yet still mandatory. Even though the Rambam calls "lalekhes bekhol derakhav" to be "HILKHOS Dei'os". I don't know how to shtim this with the pasuq. It seems more like the Rambam's approach, that there is a duty of pursuing qedushah, yashrus and tov in ways beyond the limits of black-letter halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 10:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:17:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halachic Requirement for Dayanim Evaluating In-Person Facial Expressions of Parties in Bais Din In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150819171747.GA2506@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:49:07AM -0700, Baruch Cohen via Avodah wrote: : ... The Mishnah describes how the members of the Sanhedrin : sat in a row in the shape of a half-circle... : Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin 1:3) ... : The Tosefta : (8:1) cites differing opinions regarding the seating position of the : President of the Sanhedrin. Tanna Kamma holds that the President sat in the : center of the semi-circle, with thirty-five of the members of the Sanhedrin : seated on each side of him. R' Elazar b. Tzadok says that when Rabban : Gamliel sat in the Sanhedrin in Yavne, one of the sages sat to his right, : and all the others sat to his left.... My apologies to RBC that I don't have any thoughts about his intended topic, but he got me thinking about something else... To quote myself from 2010 : > REMT quoted the IE, which I found at Shemos 25:37, in what Bar Ilan > calls the short version of the IE: > Neiroseha: And the qadmonim said that one lamp was in the middle > ve"hashisha ne'erachim ze achar ze bachatzi iggul" (to cut-n-paste > from REMT's post) > And after the scripture said "vehei'ir al eiver paneha", and the > reason for "al eiver" one [eiver], behold the shape is clear. Not semicircular as seen from the front, but the lamps in that pattern as seen from above. Continuing: > The IE appears to very explicitly places all the lamps on the same side > of the middle one. Similarly, in the long version of the IE, Shemos 27:21: > Yaarokh: baavur hayos haneiros bechatzi igul. Ve'od adaber al zeh. Notice that leshitaso, the layout of the Sanhderin parallels the layout of the neiros in the keli most associated with chokhmah. Which makes it interesting that the definition of neir ma'aravi also parallels the machloqes about where the nasi sat. We generally assume it's the middle lamp, on the central shaft. However, Tamid 33a speaks of the two western lights, which we also find implied in Abayei hava mesader, "hatavas shetei neiros" being at a different time than "hatavav 5 neiros". >From which Rashi (see also Rashi Menachos 86b "mimenah hayah madliq") concludes that the neir ma'ariv was the 2nd in the row. So it looks like a two machloqes, leshitasam, setup. But... IE's semicircular menorah is based on the idea that the middle lamp was westmost, the other lamps curving off toward the NE and SE directions. A variant on the shitah that the menorah stood so the lamps run north to south. The idea that the 2nd was the ner hama'ari has the lamps running from west to east. The 2 neiros on the west are lit on their own. The second from the west end is the neir hama'arivi, a title not given the westmost candle because it is lit facing the NhM, with the wick on the east. But that leshitasam looked so pretty! Anyone want to help me salvage it? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 12:25:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:25:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? In-Reply-To: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> References: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150819192519.GB2506@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 12:28:27AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Question-from a torah point of view should it make a difference : who shows up at the therapist's (or Rabbi's)door (for any therapy or : advice)? How does Halacha balance the needs of the individual, the : family, the community, Jewish society and/or society in general? Confidentiality and for that matter focusing on the needs of the client serves society in general in the long run. Society needs not only therapists, but therapists clients are willing to get help from. If we tell therapists that they are to compromise client trust for the sake of the family, community or society, we will lose that. So, even if halakhah requires factoring others' needs in to a greater extent, it might not change things all that much. (After all, the profession developed those standards for a reason. That reason needn't reflect a different set of values.) There are also the secondary effects of the law... If someone loses the opportunity to offer therapy because disobeying those standards open them up to threat of suit or legal consequences, we still lose the therapy. Which has to be factored in to the halachic decision. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 14:45:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:45:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Bais Hamussar] The Small Things Message-ID: <20150819214542.GD812@aishdas.org> ----- Forwarded message from Bais Hamussar ----- Bais Hamussar Al Sheim HaRav Shlomo Wolbe zt"l Shoftim - Elul Rav Wolbe (Daas Shlomo) cites a mind boggling Medrash (Bereishis Rabba 2:7). Reb Avahu said, "From the beginning of time Hashem gazed at both the actions of the righteous and the actions of the wicked. Yet, it is not clear whose actions He desired. Once the Torah writes, 'And Hashem saw the light that it was good' it is clear that He desires the actions of the righteous and not the actions of the wicked." What is this supposed to mean? Could there be a possibility that Hashem prefers the actions of the wicked over the actions of the righteous? Rav Simcha Zissel Ziv, the Alter of Kelm, offers a beautiful explanation. Indeed, even the wicked perform good deeds. However, they limit their good deeds to grandiose actions whose effects can be heard around the world. They will found organizations, create moral ideologies and give their lives for the sake of their country. In contrast, the righteous focus on the small, even minuscule, actions. Chazal were asking who's good deeds are superior -- those performed by the righteous or those performed by the wicked? The answer was provided by the Torah: Hashem prefers the small actions of the righteous over the high-flying deeds of the wicked. A similar idea is mentioned by the Rambam. He asserts that for one who wishes to give tzeddaka, it is better that he give many small donations than one big donation. Many small mitzvos are preferential to a single big action. Rav Yisrael Salanter writes that the focus of teshuva also must be on the small actions. Many are overcome with despair when faced with the prospect of teshuva. "There is no possible way for me to stop speaking lashon hara" or "I simply can't overcome this middah" they lament. However, there is no room for despair when the topic is teshuva. They are absolutely right; at the present time they cannot entirely overcome their inclinations. Nevertheless, they can greatly reduce the severity of their actions if they would merely desist at the times when it is easy for them to refrain from transgressing. If they would take small steps and resist for five minutes here and there, they will already have progressed tremendously down the road of teshuva. With this in mind, our understanding of Chazal's well known statement becomes even more profound. "Hashem says to Klal Yisrael, 'Open for me a hole like the eye of a needle and I will open for you gateways that wagons and carriages will be able to pass through!'" Hashem specifically is interested in the small holes. Teshuva must begin with a focus on the small actions. "Just five minutes" is a mantra that can change your life. I will refrain from lashon hara just for five minutes. I will learn just for five minutes. I will spend just five minutes on helping another Yid. The truth is that sometimes one doesn't even need five minutes. A wave of the hand to motion that one can't talk now can save a person from pages of bittul Torah or loads of lashon hara. Moreover, Hashem guarantees that He will reciprocate our small gesture with a huge dose of Heavenly assistance, as He waves us through big gateways of teshuva! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 20:49:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:49:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: I'm really very unsure what this thread is asking. Let's take, for example, this paragraph from R' Micha Berger: > In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the > BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, > but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that > discusses how the conclusions are reached. What can you possibly mean, that we COULD HAVE limped along without it? We ARE limping along without it! There is so much that is ALREADY missing from the Mesora! There are so many masechtos missing from the Bavli, for example. I suppose it is possible that Ravina and Rav Ashi never saw a need to compile them, but it's much more likely that they were written and then lost, no? Now, imagine, if you will, a halacha which was decided (by a rishon, acharon, it doesn't matter) because of one obscure gemara that some ingenious thinker found and applied to a particular situation. Without this gemara, the halacha pesuka would have been different than we are accustomed to, but because that gemara -- obscure though it might be -- WAS found, and is a legitimate part of our Mesora, the halacha as we know it came to be. There must be hundreds of such halachos, maybe even thousands. But what if that particular gemara was not hiding in Chullin or Makos? Suppose it was a gemara in Terumos? Then that halacha would never be known to us, because that gemara has been lost. R"n Chana Luntz wrote: > Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more > of them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the > Rambam, were able to formulate their halachic conclusions. You do realize, of course, that there was no such person as "Tosphos". The Tosaphists were very real, and very important, but they were not the ones to decide on the inclusion or exclusion of any particular comment. That was the choice of the publisher of the gemara, and if his whim had gone in another direction, who knows what other views would have gotten more press coverage. (Yes, I know that there are many volumes filled with the writings of even the most obscure Tosaphists, but the fact remains that getting included in the standard printed edition is the path to widest influence.) My point is that while RMB and RCL are trying to imagine what Torah would look like without Tosaphos, as I see it, even the Tosaphos that we do have is a somewhat random document. If Hashgacha (or, some might prefer, blind luck) had gone in another direction, Tosaphos would be very different, and practical halacha with it. But it doesn't stop there. Need I remind anyone that even our Torah Sheb'ksav is a reconstruction (or, some might prefer, an approximation) created by the Baalei Mesorah? If the sources that they worked from had been just a bit different, then our Sifrei Torah today would be different too. And yet, somehow we manage. We use the Torah that we have today, because it rendered the previous versions (the source material of the Baalei Mesorah) to be passul. What an amazing concept! One day, these several Sifrei Torah, all with known yichus, each had its own chezkas kashrus. And the next day, a new document, different from those that preceded it, comes to center stage and replaces the others! I would like to suggest that this is exactly how it would have worked if there was no Rashi, or no Rabenu Tam, or no Rambam, or no Rav Yosef Karo: We would use whatever we did have, and that would be our Torah. It would be different than the Torah that we do have, but so what? Rashi's Torah was different too! IN CLOSING, RCL asked: > So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no > Rambam and no Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any > distinction at all between the halacha of the Orthodox and the > halacha as championed by the Conservative movement? Is that > not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would of necessity lead > (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent than > we have today ... If you've been following me, then my answer to this should be clear: No! This "much broader tent" is pure speculation. If we had no Rav ABC to guide us, the void would have been filled by Rav XYZ, whose views might have been to the right, to the left, or the same. And in *exactly* the same manner as how we are obligated by the new Torah created by the Baalei Mesorah, the possibility of differences is much less important than our confidence and emunah that this Torah is the right one FOR US. Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller on gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:19:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:19:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mesorah only through rashi Message-ID: <> Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against the concept. Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own interpretation and not rely or be bound by any text. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:29:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:29:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mimetism Message-ID: <> I understood mimetism and trying to follow the custom of one's family. This is of no help when the physical circumstances have changed. Would anyone suggest using outdoor toilets because that is what our ancestors did and would object to an indoor bathroom. Plumbing changed the halacha. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:25:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:25:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] splendor of clothes Message-ID: > Rav Soloveitchik further added that wearing a Yarmulke, a Kippa, is > more dignified than a baseball cap. He said, "If the President of the > United States suddenly appeared and wanted to take a picture with me, > would I wear a Russian hat, a baseball cap,- or a Kippa? That is the > way we should stand Shemoneh Esrei when addressing the King of the > Universe, HaKadosh Baruch-Hu. The average person would also not wear a black hat while taking a picture with the president. I have noted before there has become a new minhag of wearing a hat all the time not only when wearing davening or saying a bracha. I went this week to a charedi wedding and most of the men wore their hats throughout the meal. OTOH I also went to a shiur of Rav Zilberstein this week. Throughout the shiur he wore a kippah. In the break he took some food and put on his hat for the bracha and then removed it for the shiur. This is also what I observed from RYBS If so why do other rabbis insist on giving a shiur wearing a hat? [Email #2.] BTW I just received a copy of a formal photo of RYBS with Ed Asner. RYBS is wearing a black kippa -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 05:10:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 08:10:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] splendor of clothes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 3:25 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > I have noted before there has become a new minhag of wearing a hat all > the time not only when wearing davening or saying a bracha. I went this > week to a charedi wedding and most of the men wore their hats throughout > the meal. For me, at least, this is a practical matter: There is often no place to leave a hat, not even in the coat room; and certainly no place from which the hat can be easily retrieved before bentching. --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 16:16:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 19:16:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:49pm EDT, R Akiva Miller wrote: : I'm really very unsure what this thread is asking... Part of the difficult of this thread is that we came in mid-conversation. RGS quoted Qinot Mesorat haRav. The quote is long, so I'm just giving part: Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebe'al peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... This is a comment RYBS frequently made in shiur. Picture sitting in a brisker shiur, where every talmid needs a reference set of shas and Rambam. It is logical for the rebbe to need to remind people that they couldn't play this game of comparing that Yad back to shas if we didn't have Rashi and Tosados opening up shas to understanding. Interestingly, RGS compared this to the Yam Shel Shelomo: Rav Shlomo Luria, the Maharshal, famously said that Rabbeinu Tam was greater than the Rambam (introduction to Yam Shel Shlomo). In discussing Kinah 42, Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik suggests that the French and German Tosafists were more important than the Rambam, without discussing who was greater. The Maharshal was very opposed to the SA. He had a hostile attitude toward the whole notion of codification which goes way beyond RYBS's intent in ways RYBS wouldn't agree to. He and the Maharal (his brother) were of the "many" in RET's response. On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:19am IDT, R Eli Turkel wrote: : Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against the : concept. : Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own : interpretation and not : rely or be bound by any text. This coming in in the middle caused language confusion and consequent frustration for RnCL. On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:41:09PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the :> Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The :> parshan connects the past to the now. : That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. : Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation : handed over to the next. Yes, but if you want to know what RYBS meant, it requires knowing what the word means in RYBS's lexicon, with the connotations he assumed. Notice my suggestion about how "mesorah" was being used fits the quote from the qinos and the example of the Yerushalmi. I understand the frustration of thinking you were discussing a statement that meant one thing and only after formulating a log response being told that it likely meant something else. But that's a straightforward misunderstanding due to your being outside the target audience when RYBS was saying / learning Qinos, and therefore not being used to the connoctations he assumes; and Lewis Carrol refferences aren't needed. I intend to write a post on the meaning of the word "mesorah" as developed in RYBS's and RHS's thought as the start of its own thread. Because it not only comes up here, it comes up in the discussions raging elsewhere (Torah Musings, Cross Currents, Facebook) on RWMO's objections to Open O and feminism. RnCL argues for the importance of codes in that post: : So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no Rambam and no : Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any distinction at all between : the halacha of the Orthodox and the halacha as championed by the : Conservative movement? Is that not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would : of necessity lead (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent : than we have today... ... : But take the codes out of the equation : and *all* these multiple rishonic positions become tenable, allowing a : general free for all within the vastness of the parshanut tradition... ... : It is only those who also have an eye to the : codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in : the light of common practice. Actualy, it's only those who have an eye on common practice. After all, we discuss machloqesin between Rashi and the Rambam in halakhah lemasseh contexts all the time. And if Ashkenazim accepted Rashi's ruling, or one found in Tosafos, the Rama has no problem limiting his pesaq to that rather than that of the Rif, Rambam or Tur. And had there not been a Rama, then some shu"t or parshan could as well. For that matter, there is also the middle ground, the shu"t writer (eg the Ritva) who discusses halachic sevara and lomdus without either using a study of a pre-existing text as his organizing principle nor trying to codify a complete set of rulings. For that matter, the Beis Yoseif and AhS also sit in the middle ground -- code-like works that spend more space discussing how they understood the sources to get there. Returning to RAM's post for his reply to RnCL's question: : If you've been following me, then my answer to this should be clear: No! : This "much broader tent" is pure speculation. If we had no Rav ABC to guide : us, the void would have been filled by Rav XYZ, whose views might have been : to the right, to the left, or the same. And in *exactly* the same manner as : how we are obligated by the new Torah created by the Baalei Mesorah, the : possibility of differences is much less important than our confidence and : emunah that this Torah is the right one FOR US. Without the parshanim, there is no way to fill in the holes between se'ifim, to know how the conclusions were reached so that halakhah can survive beyond the limited set of cases in the Rambam or SA. However, without the codifiers, it's hard to find Rashi's ruling, but not impossible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 02:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:02:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha Message-ID: RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear as ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) 1) Prozbul - while the originial takanah was for individuals that made loans and meant a trip to bet din today it has become a piece of paper signed given to the rabbi or some ad hoc bet din (similar to hatarat nedarim). 2) nonJewish produce during shemitta - whther bought directly from nonJews or through heter mechirah the end result is that the consumer feels little difference between a shemitta year and a regular year. Only consumers that use Otzar bet din have to account for shemitta rules (of course it affects the farmer) 3) mechirat chametz - In the extreme one goes away for the entire Pesach, sells everything in the house and returns after Pesach to eat whatever is around, no need to even put away the chametz. For the rest of us it means putting what we sell in some closet and for some getting rid of "real" chametz like cakes 4) heter iska - again originally meant making a document for a specific loan and allowing a possibility pf loss. Today (in Israel) the banks and other financial insitutions have the document on the wall somewhere and most customers are not even aware of it. Because of court cases the heter iska has been refined so that the possibility of loss to the bank is essentially zero. In addition the heter iska today applies to non business loans - eg renovating a house, buying a car or going on a pleasure trip In addition to things that appear as cereonies to the average layman there are halachot called "ha-aramh" which is a trick way of avoiding the usual halacha. Again some eamples (again including inyana de-yoma" 1) paying the chazan for RH and YK for singing the first night of selichot 2) returning to shemitta - buying the lulav and throwing in for free the etrog 3) R Tarfon "married" 300 women so they could eat termah In an actual case involving yibum a couple without children and the husband was senile and near death while the brother-in-law lived in New Zealand. The solution was for the brother-in-law t "marry" the wife's sister and then divorce her but now the wife no longer needs a yibum or chaitzah. Note that pruzbol and heter iska began as ha-aaramah and later became a ceremony. I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview it. Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 11:57:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 14:57:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah Message-ID: <20150821185758.GA8815@aishdas.org> The word "mesorah" is overloaded with too many meanings. Literally, it's "that which was passed on". So logically, a common usage would make it synonymous with TSBP. And yet it's also used for the near opposite -- we speak of the mesoretic text, its vowels and its trope -- the ultimate in TSBK. And the collections of notes that describe that text are also called "mesorah". (So the mesorah describes the mesorah?! And you can join the email list if you wish to discuss the mesorah, diqduq, nusach hetefillah and the like.) More along the lines of the direction I want to head in, unlike talking about TSBP and thus focusing our attention on Divine origins, when we speak of mesorah we focus out attention on the chain of people. And so there is the usage of "mesorah" to mean mimetic tradition, and is often posed in contrast to textual TSBP. Notice R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik not only defines "mimetic tradition" as knowing what a kezayis is because you remember what your father and greandfather ate at the seder but also considers such cultural mesorah (my term) rather than textual transmission to be the carrier of value and emotion. It is the loss of mimetic tradition that he blames for the loss of dread of the Yamim Noraim and (in speech, not writing) for the loss of what his father RJBS called the "Erev Shabbos Jew" (from "On Repentance, pp 97-98): Even in those neighborhoods made up predominantly of religious Jews, one can no longer talk of the 'sanctity of Shabbat.' True, there are Jews in America who observe Shabbat... But it is not for Shabbat that my heart aches; it is for the forgotten 'erev Shabbat'.... There are Shabbat-observing Jews in America, but there are no 'erev Shabbat' Jews who go out to greet Shabbat with beating hearts and pulsating souls. There are many who observe the precepts with their hands, with their feet, and/or with their mouths - but there are few indeed who truly know the meaning of the service of the heart!" Then we speak of someone "having a mesorah" in two different uses: both if they have a received practice and cultural (as above) and if they have a known rebbe-talmid lineage. Still in contrast to texts, we're talking about the importance of all that Torah that doesn't fit into books. We also talk about those in the hands-on kelei qodesh, such as a sofer, a mohel, a shocheit, etc... also of "having a mesorah" from the one who taught them the craft. And that too is all about the kind of thing you need to learn with your senses and muscles, and not know from books discussing the topic in the abstract. To pasqen mar'os, a rav must also have a mesorah in that sense. It's a skill, a craft, that is learned from practice under the guidance of a mentor. Usually called "shimush". For regular pesaq too there is an element that is a craft, an art, a skill, the kind of thing one needs to learn from shimush, not by studying from abstract texts. Qara veshanah velo shamash TC, harei zeh am ha'aretz. ... - Sotah 22a This is why I like R/Dr Moshe Koppel's metaphor of laws of grammar for some usages rather than always comparing halakhah to civil law. (More as per his sefer "Metahalakhah" than in the essay "Judaism as a First Language" .) As I wrote in Feb : The "First Language" model is much like R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik's mimeticism, but also somewhat different. Halachic rules are an approximation of something that is inherently more complex in kind than rules and algorithms. Much the way grammar is only approximated by ever more complex rules which still never get a foreigner studying the language in class to the same feel for grammar that the native-speaker has. (And why TSBP loses something when not be'al peh.) So the ESL student may know what a past pluperfect is, and I don't, but the native speaker is more likely to know what is valid poetic license and what will produce non-English results. Similarly, a poseiq needs to pick up that feel, not the formal rules. Unstructured knowledge. I have two rather lengthy quotes that help create a feel for what I am talking about. They're quite beautiful, so I appreciate this excuse to share them. Notice how RYBS explicitly defines the word "mesorah" at the beginning of this first quote, UBiqashta miSham 10:1, pp. 63-65 (tr. RARR, The Rav, vol. I, pp. 247-250): Let me stress the idea of the Mesorah by telling you a personal story. I remember that when I was growing up I was frightened and lonely boy. I was afraid of the world. For me, the world was a cold and strange place. I imagined that everyone was mocking me. But I had one friend; do not laugh at me, it was the Rambam [Maimonides]. How did we become friends? Simply, we met. Rambam was a constant guest in our home. During the days when my father was newlywed, supported by my grandfather... father studied Torah day and night. A small group of outstanding young scholars gathered around him and eagerly absorbed his teachings. My father studied with his disciples in the room where my bed was located. My wont was to sit on my bed and listen to my father's words. He constantly quoted Rambam. His method was to first open the Talmud and analyze the text under discussion and the relevant commentaries. He would generally say: these are the explanations of Tosafot. Now, let us analyze the explanations of Rambam. My father would inevitably discover that Rambam rejected the basic explanation of the text and differed with Tosafot. My father would declare, as if to complain, that we cannot comprehend the approach and conclusion of Rambam towards the Talmud text. It was almost as if my father were directly saying to Rambam: "Rabbi Moshe, why have you taken this approach?" My father would continue, "at first glance, the Ra'avad (commentary on the Rambam) is correct at his criticism." The students would jump forward and each would express his thoughts. My father would carefully listen but would refute their proposed interpretations. Once again he would exclaim that the words of Rambam were incomprehensible. Nevertheless, my father would not give up. He would place his head on his hand and soon be engrossed in deep thought. The students would not disturb his thought process. Finally, my father would gradually lifts his head and begin to expound the true meaning of Rambam. Sometimes he would be lengthy, and on other occasions brief. I would strain my ears to catch my father's every word. In my young and impressionable mind, there developed a duel impression: First, that the Rambam was being attacked by enemies who wanted to hurt him, and second, that the Rambam's only defender was my father. I felt strongly that without my father, who knows what would happen to the Rambam? It was as if the Rambam himself were with us in the room, listening to my father's words. The Rambam sat next to me on my bed. What did he look like? I don't know exactly. He seemed to look like an exceedingly handsome and good father. His name was also Moshe, just like my father. Intensely following my father, the students absorbed his every word. Slowly but surely, the tension evaporated. My father continued his discourse with strength and courage. New ideas were clarified; the laws under discussion were classified and carefully articulated. A new light emerged; the questions were resolved and the topic properly explained. Rambam emerged triumphant, and my father's face was filled with happiness and delight. He had defended his friend, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon. The Rambam was comforted and smiled. I too was delighted and joined in the feeling of joy in the room. I would jump from my bed and run to my mother and cry out the good news: "mother, mother, the Rambam won; he beat the Raavad. Father helped him. Look how wonderful my father is!" But once in a great while my father did not succeed, and despite all his efforts the enemies of the Rambam defeated him. Their questions were as strong as iron. Although my father mustered all his strength, he could not save the Rambam from his detractors. Salvation did not come for the Rambam. Deep in thought, my father would lean on his head on the palms of his hands on the table. The students and I, and even the Rambam, waited in great tension for my father's words. But my father would raise his head and sadly state: "there is no answer. The words of the Rambam are difficult. The shiur ended with no explanation. The students were sad, and even my father was depressed. A sense of despair descended upon all of us. I cried. Even the eyes of the Rambam glistened with tear-drops. With a broken heart, I would walk slowly to my mother and cry out to her: "Mother, father cannot answer the Rambam. What will we do? He did not succeed today." And my mother would tell me: "Don't worry. Father will find and answer to the Rambam. If he does not succeed, then when you grow up perhaps you will find an answer to the Rambam. Always remember, my son, the important thing about Torah is to study it in happiness and enthusiasm." It is true that this story is part of my youth. It is not, however, the fantasy of a young child or the creation of mystical feelings. This story is an historic and psychological reality that guides me at all time. When I sit down to learn, the giants of the Mesorah are with me. Our relationship is personal. The Rambam sits to my right, Rabbeinu Tam to my left. Rashi sits at the head and explains, Rabbeinu Tam asks, the Rambam decides the halacha, and the Raavad objects. All of them are with me in my small room, sitting around the table. They look at me with fondness. They world the text out with me, and life a father, they encourage and strengthen me. Learning Torah is not just a didactic, formal, and technical experience whose purpose is the creation and exchange of ideas. Learning Torah is the intense experience of uniting many generations together, the joining of spirit to spirit, and the connecting of soul to soul. Those who transmit the Torah and those who receive the Torah are invited to meet one another at the same historic juncture. And Reflections of the Rav, vol II, pp. 21b-23 (original language in: RARR's The Rav vol II, pp 186-189) this quote winds up with mention of the mesorah: The old Rebbe walks into the classroom crowded with students who are young enough to be his grandchildren. He enters as an old man with wrinkled face, his eyes reflecting the fatigue and sadness of old age. You have to be old to experience this sadness. It is the melancholy that results from an awareness of people and things which have disappeared and linger only in memory. I sit down; opposite me are rows of young beaming faces with clear eyes radiating the joy of being young. For a moment, the Rabbe is gripped with pessimism, with tremors of uncertainly. He asks himself: Can there be a dialogue between an old teacher and young students, between a Rebbe in his Indian summer and students enjoying the spring of their lives? The Rebbe starts his shiur, uncertain as to how it will proceed. Suddenly the door opens and an old man, much older than the Rebbe, enters. He is the grandfather of the Rebbe, Reb Chaim Brisker. It would be most difficult to study Talmud with students who are trained in the sciences and mathematics, were it not for his method, which is very modern and equals, if not surpasses, most contemporary forms of logic, metaphysics or philosophy. The door opens again and another old man comes in. He is older than Reb Chaim, for he lived in the 17th century. His name is Reb Shabtai Cohen, known as the Shach, who must be present when civil law (dinai mamonot) is discussed. Many more visitors arrive, some from the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, and others harking back to antiquity -- Rabbeinu Tam, Rashi, Rambam, Raavad, Rashba, Rabbi Akiva and others. These scholarly giants of the past are bidden to take their seats. The Rebbe introduces the guests to his pupils, and the dialogue commences. The Rambam states a halacha; the Raavad disagrees sharply, as is his wont. Some students interrupt to defend the Rambam, and they express themselves harshly against the Raavad, as young people are apt to do. The Rebbe softly corrects the students and suggest more restrained tones. The Rashba smiles gently. The Rebbe tries to analyze what the students meant, and other students intercede. Rabeinu Tam is called upon to express his opinion, and suddenly, a symposium of generations comes into existence. Young students debate earlier generations with an air of daring familiarity, and a crescendo of discussion ensues. All speak one language; all pursue one goal; all are committed to a common vision; and all operate with the same categories. A Mesorah collegiality is achieved, a friendship, a comradeship of old and young, spanning antiquity, the Middle Ages and modern times. This joining of the generations, this march of centuries, this dialogue and conversation between antiquity and the present will finally bring about the redemption of the Jewish people. After a two-or three hour shiur, the Rebbe emerges from the chamber young and rejuvenated. He has defeated age. The students look exhausted. In the Mesorah experience, years play no role. Hands, however parchment-dry and wrinkled, embrace warm and supple hands in commonality, bridging the gap with separates the generations. Thus, the "old ones" of the past continue their great dialogue of the generations, ensuring an enduring commitment to the Mesorah. So there is a community of baalei mesorah that carries down a mimetic tradition of how to pasqen. A tradition of informal knowledge that cannot be codified into books and that creates a feel and emotional consequence. This is RYBS's usual usage of the word, "mesorah". No better or worse than any of the other usages, but more relevant to two of the conversations we've (we as in various members of the A/A chevrah, not necessarily here on Avodah) been having lately. In the discussion of feminism and Torah (which hasn't been here, but we have had identical cycles here before), RHS's piece "Preserving Our Mesorah in Changing Times" and others like it are often cited. RHS opens: What is Mesorah? Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today.[1] The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers.[2] 1. Avot 1:1. 2. For a more extensive discussion of mesorah, see Nefesh HaRav, pp. 34-58 and Beikvei HaTzon, pp. 21-37. Firmly in line with what we've seen from his rebbe, mesorah is used in the sense of the chain of transmission down time that conveys the art and culture of halakhah decision-making and Torah as a whole. And a bit further down he discusses "Who Is Authorized to Institute Change?" {emph mine): Changes in practice require delicate evaluations that only a master Torah scholar, a gadol baTorah, can properly conduct. Only someone with a broad knowledge and a deep understanding of the corpus of halachah, with an intimate familiarity with both the letter and the spirit of the law, WITH A MASTERY OF BOTH THE RULES AND THE ATTITUDES OF THE MESORAH, can determine when a change is acceptable or even required. The more wide-reaching the proposed change, the greater the expertise required to approve it. The evaluator must not only be a master of the mesorah, but he must also be able to consider new practices based solely on values internal to the mesorah, removing external influences from the deliberation.[14] 14. See Halakhic Mind, n. 98. But I think this example from a teshuvah (tr and poor title by YWN is more on-topic: Indeed, the Rav would often say (see drasha to Parshas Korach), that every person must recognize that he needs a Rav or a Rebbe. Even a Talmid Chochom whose Rebbe had passed away must constantly ask himself in truth (when they present questions to him) what his Rebbe would have said in such a scase, and what stance he would have taken. ... The expression that some of those who have permitted this utilize that according to the technical halacha a certain act is permitted, and that which people wish to prohibit it is because of political considerations is incorrect. For even a matter such as changing the mesorah the traditions of the Jewish people is in and of itself an integral section of halacha. When one rules on the donning of Tefillin for women it is not enough to merely examine the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch in Hilchos Tefillin and in the sources there and treat it as a simple question. The version of mesorah in RYBS's usage is the same concept RHS invokes to reject a "but it can be fit to the technical halakhah so your objection is merely political" attitude. Change must conform to mesorah to be valid, even if the textualists are satisfied. This is not an invocation of "daas Torah", because we're talking about questions of Torah, not politics or other metzi'us; we are invoking knowledge, if cultural and informal knowledge rather than book knowledge, and not invoking any metaphysical or mytical power; and because we do not expect a single correct answer that "the gedolim hold". But it still makes halachic decisionmaking when it comes to significant change subject to the skill of a few, and the rest of us are forced to submit to their understanding. The other use we've been knocking around, and this was here on-list, is RYBS's statement (Qinos Mesorat haRav, quoted by RGS here : Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebeal peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... RYBS identifies mesorah as the ineffible skill to think like a poseiq. And that we do get from those who explain how the prior generations developed the law, how the community down the ages conversed about the law, from living in the culture whose mimeticism is mesorah. And we saw Sotah's opinion of someone who learns without shimush. From only a little further down in that sugya (22a): Tanna: Hatannaim (those who repeat codified law) are swallowers of the world. Could you really think [they] are "swallowers of the world"? Ravina said: For they are morah halakhah from their repetition of the law. There is a a beraisa like this: R' Yeushua said, "And are they 'swallowers of the world? Aren't they settlers of the world, as it says 'halikhos olam lo' (Chavaquq 3)? Rather, because they are moreh halakhah from their repetition of the law. You can't pasqen from codes, from legal knowledge. It takes knowledge of how the codes reached their conclusion -- both textual knowledge obtained from the meforshim, and the skills to pasqen obtained by shimush. As R Yochanan quotes besheim Rashbi (Berakhos 7b), "gedolah shimushah shel Torah yoseir meilimudah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 22 16:06:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 00:06:16 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:41:09PM +0100, RMB wrote: :> Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the :> Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The :> parshan connects the past to the now. I replied: : That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. : Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation : handed over to the next. And RMB further replied: <> I read the quote and the original RGS posting before commenting on the thread because I generally try not to jump in mid-conversation without understanding what has previously been said. And that is precisely what I am objecting to. Because the RGS piece (including the quote) - is actually about our mesorah *regarding learning* (ie a much narrower slice of the wider definition). In that, as I said, I think it correct - our mesorah regarding how to learn - how to sit in Yeshiva and deal with the texts owes far more to Rashi and Tosphos than to the Rambam. But as stated in the quote, this suddenly becomes "our mesorah" in general and that is what I find problematic as I will try and articulate below. So let us look at the quote again: RGS quoted Qinot Mesorat haRav. The quote is long, so I'm just giving part: Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebe'al peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... The point I am making is that "any mesorah, "any chain of tradition" is much, much wider than what is done in Brisker yeshivas as part of the learning process. <> Now, if the point you are making is that RYBS was addressing yeshiva bochrim within a yeshiva setting (albeit explaining kinos on Tisha B'av) and hence explaining what it is that they do all day learning-wise- then the use of such language is probably excusable without the modifier - ie in this context mesorah is simply short for "mesorah with regard to how to learn". But the problem is that this language has now been pulled, by way of RGS's article (and lends itself to being pulled by its sheer breadth), into a wider application and wider audience, and not modified as such. It was then pulled across into Avodah, and the reference questioned, which I think it should be, because RGS's argument is implicitly if not explicitly far wider. And that I think is a problem, because what is true for one slice of "the mesorah" is not necessarily true for the whole. Whether this imprecision is RYBS's or RGS's is hard for me to be sure, as you say, this is a quote taken out of context. <> And this is where this slide from discussing one slice of the mesorah - what to do in Yeshiva, to a much wider slice of the mesorah becomes problematic, because of the implication you have just made which is that what is true of the section applies to the whole. And in this context you are dealing with what is called in common parlance the mesorah, not about conversations down time. So by slight of hand what you are doing is taking a definition which you acknowledge is a very limited and idiosyncratic one, but then sliding the conclusions that arise from that definition into the more standard debate, and claiming that was RYBS's opinion regarding the debate about what is more commonly known as "the mesorah". Let us therefore back up for a minute and discuss that aspect of RGS's post which in my view is unquestionably correct, even using the usual definition of mesorah: RGS comments that he and his father tried to learn meseches Nedarim just using the meforash, in the absence of Rashi, and were not able to do so (they were then only able to do it using the Ran, a much later commentary) - thus demonstrating the point of the post, which is, without Rashi, most of the Talmud Bavli would be a closed book to most people of average, and even above average, intelligence (like the Talmud Yerushalmi). This is unquestionably true. The Rambam was also aware of this problem (after all he learned all of Talmud Bavli without Rashi and everybody he knew either did so or tried to do so). His solution to RGS's problem was to tell RGS and his father, and people like him, not to try and learn Talmud Bavli, but to learn his, the Rambam's, Code instead. Ie instead of trying to tackle Maseches Nedarim, he would suggest that RGS and his father learn Hilchos Nedarim from the Mishne Torah. Now the truth is that if RGS and his father had in fact learnt all of Hilchos Nedarim from the Rambam, and all of the rest of the Mishne Torah, backwards and forwards and inside out - they are likely then to be well set up to tackle the Talmud Bavli without Rashi. Ie you *can* use the Rambam as a guide back into the Talmud if you are bright enough (because you have most of the concepts already explained by him), but it is not an easy way to do it. The Rambam assumed that the average person would stop with his Code, and only the best and brightest would need then to go back to the Talmud, to help determine the ambiguous cases not caught by his code, in a method not a million miles away from the one use by smicha students in learning Hilchos Shechita or Kashrus - first learn the Shulchan Aruch, then work your way back to the underlying gemoras so you are in a position to posken those cases the Shulchan Aruch doesn't catch. Our mesorah is like Rashi in this regard and not the Rambam (except when it comes to smicha students). We open up the Talmud Bavli even to children using Rashi and hundreds of thousands are sitting in yeshiva following Rashi. The problem is that people (it would appear including you) then generalise from "how we learn" to "how we posken" - which is what really is involved in the discussion regarding Open O and feminism. And they are not the same thing at all. Indeed, the fact that smicha students (those that are being set up to posken) are taught in a totally different way to the more general way of learning in yeshiva, and one that owes far more to the Rambam than to Rashi and Tosphos should alert you to that. I am then going to diverge a bit to discuss RAM's post, because he is discussing something completely different again: I wrote: > Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more of > them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the Rambam, were > able to formulate their halachic conclusions. And RAM replied: <> But you here (and it is even more explicit later) are discussing something completely different to what I was and am discussing. To best differentiate, I would say that you are discussing *content* and I am discussing *process*. Yes with regard to *content* it makes a difference which particular one of the Tosphosim were included on the page, and which weren't - but that is not what I am discussing. Rather I am discussing *how to learn* - ie how to make sense of this Talmud Bavli which (as RGS elucidated so eloquently) is so difficult for people to get into without help. What Rashi did was to provide a clear and simple explanation of the words on the page. What Tosphos did (and in this regard the whole commentary called Tosphos - despite the fact that it was made up of many different people, in fact teaches pretty much the same thing) was to teach people to say "hold on a minute, if we take the simple explanation provided by Rashi, then: a) there is a contradiction with what the gemora says somewhere else; or b) there is a contradiction with what in fact people do - so therefore we need to try and solve this problem. I then further goes on to teach people to say: very commonly we can solve this problem by: (i) re-interpreting this gemora; and/or (ii) reinterpreting that gemora; and/or (iii) finding some way of harmonizing the two gemoras, or the gemora and people's practice, or if we cannot manage to that (but only in extremis), (iv) working out that a certain gemora is more authoritative or the people are wrong. Note that when you are considering the process, it doesn't matter which particular sets of Tosphos' questions made it onto the page and which didn't - what is far more important is the fact that the commentary in general teaches people to ask these questions and mechanisms for trying to answer them. That is what a (eg child) who is first taught to study the gemora with Rashi suddenly encounters when he moves on to Tosphos. Hold on, Rashi's commentary may make a lot of sense in localised context, but we now have to try and consider the whole. Now of course the Rambam had not only to be his own Rashi, but he had to be his own Tosphos. He could not have written his Code if underneath the surface he did not deal with the fact that the gemora appears to contradict itself all over the place, and also to contradict what people are actually doing. The fundamental job of most meforshim on the Rambam is therefore (a) to explain how the Rambam understood the simple explanation of the gemora (ie what the Rambam would have said if he had written Rashi) and (b) how the Rambam resolved the contradictions in the various gemoras and with common practice (ie how the Rambam deals with the kinds of problems raised by the Tosphosim). But all of this is under the surface. All we have from the Rambam is the result, what we have from Tosphos are the questions. And it is the questions which give people a better window into how to learn gemora. So that is why, when discussing *process* it does not matter that: <> Because while we might have different Tosphos questions (ie content) on (or off) the page if hashgacha had gone in a different direction, or if there were gemoros on some of the mesechtos on which we have none, the process of *how* Tosphos (or the Rambam) would have dealt with that content is still the same. But if we would have had no Rashi and no Tosphos at all, ie the process they originated, but only the Rambam, we would all have learnt the code backward and forward, and a few bright sparks would have then used that to understand the gemora - a very, very different process of learning. In that regard our mesorah of learning comes from Rashi and Tosphos. On the other hand, RET is correct: <> Although I would modify that statement not to say "and not be bound by any text", as most at that point agreed that they should be bound by the gemora (and the Tanach as understood by the mishna/gemora), just not beyond that. And that is the point. There are two different concepts being discussed here, the mesorah of "how to learn" and the mesorah of "how to posken" (which then leads into what it is that people do). And when the Shulchan Aruch came out a lot of people strongly objected to the way of poskening that is a consequence of the codes. They thought that each posek should re-learn the relevant underlying gemoras, and work out their own harmonisation of them without being influenced, and certainly not bound, by what the Shulchan Aruch said. Some people perhaps thought that was a bit extreme, and that at least they should learn the underlying gemoras with all the rishonim, and, to the extent there was rishonic view, at least make a judgement within that spectrum (but not necessarily prioritise eg the Rambam, Rif and Rosh, or the Trumas HaDeshen and the Mordechai, being the most recent, over the others). The problem you have though is that - well, according to the gemora there are at least 50 ways of determining that a sheretz is kosher. Even if you then say that the gemora draws certain lines in the sand, there is no question that - well, let us take the hair covering question as illustrative. There are clearly (at least) two ways of reading the question: (a) hair covering for married women is an absolute and immutable d'orisa principle; (b) hair covering for married women is a tznius related convention - and given the convention at the time of the gemora (and earlier) it is required in those societies where it is practiced by modest Jewish women by virtue of rabbinic decree. If you can't see that the underlying sources (eg the mishna and gemora) *could* lead to either interpretation, then you are either wilfully blinding yourself or you can't learn. If you purely follow Rashi and Tosphos, then *if* you can read the underlying gemora sources in such a way as to harmonise with common practice today (even if you believe it is a bit of a dochek), then you would be free to do so, or at least, have no basis to criticise others who do this. However, nobody has that conversation today. The conversation you are having is about "how authoritative" are the various poskim (and from which tradition) who do appear to rule in one way or another. The power of Rav Broyde's article for example - is that he argues that the Rosh (and hence the Tur) and even the Rambam actually posken (b) out of the options, and this can be seen in the Shulchan Aruch. That is the kind of conversation we have today - with others of course rejecting that this is what can be read into the Shulchan Aruch. Hence I said: : It is only those who also have an eye to the : codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in : the light of common practice. And RMB replied: <> But neither Rashi nor Tosphos gave us any method of limiting where psak went, and indeed the Ri can hold one thing and Rabbanu Tam another within the same Tosphos. The Codes are far less open. And the language of the Shulchan Aruch is in the vast majority of cases the language of the Rambam thereby leading back to the thought process of the Rambam. The Rema then picks up a few of the cases where Ashkenazi practice differs and used a Code process to insert Rashi's explanation into the Code (although often where it had already been filtered through the Rosh and the Tur first). That is taking Rashi content and using it in a Rambam like way. Which is why the mesorah for how we posken is much closer to the Rambam than it is to Rashi. And what we do outside of the yeshiva is more about how we posken than about how we learn. Which is why I disagree: >Without the parshanim, there is no way to fill in the holes between se'ifim, to know how the conclusions were reached so that halakhah can survive beyond the limited set of cases in the Rambam >or SA. Of course there is, you have to go back to the original gemora - having first learnt through all of the related si'ifim in the Codes, and then make sure you understand how the rulings that are in the Codes relate to the underlying gemora. Once you have done that you can start to fill in the gaps, But only the select few who need to actually posken need to know this method - which is why it only needs to be taught to smicha students. But it is obvious that is the method used by the Rambam when answering questions outside of his own code in his teshuvos. <> And if you don't find it, it probably doesn't matter - because without the attitude of the codifiers, you really only need Rashi to understand the gemora and if you can do it without him, then great. And if you can't understand the gemora without him you wouldn't have a hope of formulating any ruling as the gemora would be a closed book. >Micha Shavuah tov Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 04:38:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:38:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Daf HaKashrus August 2015 Message-ID: <20150823113822.1203D183A0B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/daf_hakashrus_aug_2015.pdf This issue includes articles about bishul on Shabbos and dairy bread as well as other topics. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 02:10:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:10:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: [Email #1, in reply to R' Akiva Miller.] > My point is that while RMB and RCL are trying to imagine what Torah would > look like without Tosaphos, as I see it, even the Tosaphos that we do have > is a somewhat random document. I believe this is somewhat of an exaggeration. The school of Tosafot was basically begun by Rabbenu Tam followed by Ri (haZaken). Unfortunately we don't have much of their notes and Sefer haYashar is fragmentary. However, from Tosfat Shantz through Tosafot Tuch we have several manuscripts. It is true that the early publishers (or more exactly the rabbis chosen by these publishers) used whatever material they had however, I don't think that in most cases the differences between different talmidim were that great. Obviously some were more verbose and some less so and each included their individual rebbes and their own opinions. Nevertheless on the whole they were similar. Tosafot haRosh was the main version used in much of Spain. For reasons that are not clear to me this version was lost for many centuries before reappearing relatively recently. In individual cases one learns something new from Tosafot haRosh but I am not sure that on the whole it is that dramatically different from the printed versions [Email #2, in reply to me. -micha] > To pasqen mar'os, a rav must also have a mesorah in that sense. It's > a skill, a craft, that is learned from practice under the guidance of > a mentor. Usually called "shimush". I recall seeing recently (on avodah?) a machloket of poskim whether one needs shimush in order to pasken on maaros or it is sufficient to learn from seforim. In general some poskim feel that for many areas shimush is no longer needed now that we have detailed seforim. A number of gedolim of the 20th century essentially learned alone with minimal input from teachers. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 07:20:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 17:20:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] child conversion Message-ID: The recent court to allow conversion of under bar/bat mitzvah children is controversial. The bone of contention is whether it is considred a zechut for children to become Jewish when they grow up in a non-religious setting. R. Rosen recently gave a list of rabbis that allow it (at least bideved) and those that forbid it. I found the list interesting and not what I would have guessed Machmirim and not allowing the conversion: R Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor, Sridei Eish,R. Kook and R. Yisraeli Mekilim (at least bideved) Bet Yitzchak, Mateh Levi, Achiezer, RMF, R. Elyashiv, ROY -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 15:03:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:03:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150823220352.GA13158@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:10:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : In general some poskim feel that for many areas shimush is no longer : needed now that we have detailed seforim. A number of gedolim of the : 20th century essentially learned alone with minimal input from teachers. Well, RYBS's notion of "mesorah" is broader than that, as Rashi and Tosafos are considered part of it. Yes, shimush is more central to relaying a feel for how halakhah should be decided, but books that spell out past decisions also apparently play a role. But the truth is most of the gedolim in the 20th cent (Slabodka alumni aside) learned one-on-one often moving in with their rebbe. What you call "minimal" I would call "short and intense". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 25 18:27:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:27:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion Message-ID: The assumption is that it is better to be a non-religious Jew (thereby violating numerous halakhos) than a moral non-Jew. (I am being over simplistic as being non-Jewish citizen in Israel is more of a liability than elsewhere, so there may be a zechus to be a non-religious ger katan.) The irony as many have noted is that those who are most lenient about child conversion tend to be those who are also lenient in accepting that one could lead a perfectly good life as a non-Jew. Those who think that it is better to be Jewish than non-Jewish by extension should accept the conversion of a ger katan who will be raised by a non-religious family. The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for reasons of Nationalism. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 25 18:50:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:50:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) Message-ID: To parachute into an ongoing discussion, I have found that people use Mesorah in four different ways: 1) Personal Mesorah from a Rebbe to a Talmid. What a scholar or layman learns from his teacher. 2) Mesorah as the unbroken chain of Torah going back to Sinai. Rambam zt"l has the most famous mesorah chart, though I like Micha Berger's. (Parallels can be in Hadith transmission traditiona, Sufi traditions or the Catholic Church's assumption of an unbroken chain back to Peter). 3) Communal norms and traditions. This is how the term is commonly used in the Chareidi communities and also how it is being used in the ongoing discussion. This is the idea that there are legitimate practices, norms, values or halakhic understandings. For example different methodologies of learning. Or, as my brothers-in-law say to me, well if that is the mesorah of your community, then it is legitimate, even if they don't relate to this practice. (Personally, I do not relate to such a usage. Either an approach is valid/true or not valid/true.) I discussed the last category in an essay that Gil was kind enough to post: http://www.torahmusings.com/2011/07/two-types-of-orthodox-judaism/ There are probably other uses of the term *mesorah*, but I cannot think of them at the moment. Best wishes, Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 26 00:43:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:43:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] smart lighting Message-ID: can one use smart lighting on shabbat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_lighting -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 05:00:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:00:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov Message-ID: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? KVCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 10:37:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:37:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:00:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party : to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not : actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) My own lexicon: hakaras hatov: realizing that a good thing came into your life hoda'ah: acknowledging the one who / One Who provided that good Say Avi gives Berakhah a ball. Berakhah's hakaras hatov has an primary object, which is the ball -- the tov she received from Avi. Not taking life's gifts for granted. But her hoda'ah has a primary object -- which is Avi, and a secondary object, the ball. As in the grammar of "Modim anachnu Lakh al..."; the prespositional phrase giving you the secondary object is a list of all the things Hashem does for us. I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. Which, if you think about it, is what Chazal say about the early makos and how Moshe would not be the one to launch a makah that afflicts the water that saved him as a baby or the sand that hid the body. I'm not thrilled with the whole idea of exchanging favors, creating a market. It turns everything back on self-service -- every positive act is tainted by expectation of being repaid. : How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? Perhaps kibud av va'eim and kavod harav are their own concepts for a reason. And that hakaras hatov might explain the issur against hurting or cursing one's parents, but not kavod and yir'ah. I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 10:55:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:55:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". Tir'u baTov! -Micha Zechiyah uMattanah - Chapter Seven Translated by Eliyahu Touger Halacha 1 It is a universally accepted custom in most countries that when a man marries, his friends and acquaintances send him money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Then the friends and acquaintances who sent him this money come and eat and drink with the groom during all - or part - of the seven days of wedding celebration; everything should be done according to the accepted local custom. The money that he is sent is called shushvinut, and the people who send the money and then come and eat and drink with the groom are called shushvinin. Halacha 2 Shushvinut is not an outright gift. For it is plainly obvious that a person did not send a colleague 10 dinarim with the intent that he eat and drink a zuz's worth. He sent him the money solely because his intent was that when he would marry, he would send him money as he has sent him. Therefore, if the sender marries a woman, and the recipient does not return the shushvinut, the sender may lodge a legal claim against the recipient and expropriate the money from him. KVCT 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 12:01:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:01:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55DF5E92.9020405@sero.name> On 08/27/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". I believe the reference is to the law of shushvinin. But that is not a matter of hakaras hatov; it's an explicit quid pro quo arrangement. If you don't pay it back when it falls due, you're cheating the person of a quantifiable amount of money that you explicitly owe him, so he can sue you for it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 12:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <55DF64EA.6000201@sero.name> On 08/27/2015 01:55 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Mistranslation: This should be "...the expenses of the feast." -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 11:40:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 11:40:40 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus Message-ID: if there is a general assumption that one eats in another shomer shabbos' house without going thru their pantry, does the same hold in a shmitta year in israel where there are also multiple minhagim ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 14:08:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:08:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> On 08/28/2015 02:40 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > if there is a general assumption that one eats in another shomer > shabbos' house without going thru their pantry, does the same hold > in a shmitta year in israel where there are also multiple minhagim ? Lich'ora, since there is no consensus about shmita standards among shomrei shabbos, one who has a stricter practise can't assume that a randomly selected shomer shabbos is at least as strict as his. Therefore, without ascertaining this he can't eat those things which (according to his practise) are subject to shmita, but can eat those things which are not. Most importantly, though, he *can* eat from the other person's kelim, even if he *knows* that his shmita practices are more lenient than his own; for this purpose he can rely on "stam keilim einam benei yoman", even though normally one may only rely on this bediavad. This is the famous kula of "keilim divnei rhenus". -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 13:56:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:56:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov Message-ID: R' Micha Berger: <<< I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. >>> "Mah ashiv laShem, kol tagmulohi alai?" Akiva Miller On Aug 28, 2015 2:46 PM, "via Avodah" wrote: > Send Avodah mailing list submissions to > avodah at 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 at lists.aishdas.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." > > > A list of common acronyms is available at > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi > (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Child Conversion (Kaganoff via Avodah) > 2. Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) (Kaganoff via Avodah) > 3. smart lighting (Eli Turkel via Avodah) > 4. hakarat hatov (Rich, Joel via Avodah) > 5. Re: hakarat hatov (Micha Berger via Avodah) > 6. Re: hakarat hatov (Rich, Joel via Avodah) > 7. Re: hakarat hatov (Zev Sero via Avodah) > 8. Re: hakarat hatov (Zev Sero via Avodah) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:27:59 -0400 > From: Kaganoff via Avodah > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion > Message-ID: > oOARsdknGfHD5uwwUfKrmZGA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > The assumption is that it is better to be a non-religious Jew (thereby > violating numerous halakhos) than a moral non-Jew. > > (I am being over simplistic as being non-Jewish citizen in Israel is more > of a liability than elsewhere, so there may be a zechus to be a > non-religious ger katan.) > > The irony as many have noted is that those who are most lenient about child > conversion tend to be those who are also lenient in accepting that one > could lead a perfectly good life as a non-Jew. > > Those who think that it is better to be Jewish than non-Jewish by extension > should accept the conversion of a ger katan who will be raised by a > non-religious family. > > The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious > Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also > for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for > reasons of Nationalism. > > Yonatan > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150825/68f7e72c/attachment.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:50:52 -0400 > From: Kaganoff via Avodah > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) > Message-ID: > JWwz1eftmfgGuULn71A at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > To parachute into an ongoing discussion, I have found that people use > Mesorah in four different ways: > > 1) Personal Mesorah from a Rebbe to a Talmid. What a scholar or layman > learns from his teacher. > > 2) Mesorah as the unbroken chain of Torah going back to Sinai. Rambam zt"l > has the most famous mesorah chart, though I like Micha Berger's. (Parallels > can be in Hadith transmission traditiona, Sufi traditions or the Catholic > Church's assumption of an unbroken chain back to Peter). > > 3) Communal norms and traditions. This is how the term is commonly used in > the Chareidi communities and also how it is being used in the ongoing > discussion. This is the idea that there are legitimate practices, norms, > values or halakhic understandings. For example different methodologies of > learning. Or, as my brothers-in-law say to me, well if that is the mesorah > of your community, then it is legitimate, even if they don't relate to this > practice. (Personally, I do not relate to such a usage. Either an approach > is valid/true or not valid/true.) > > I discussed the last category in an essay that Gil was kind enough to post: > http://www.torahmusings.com/2011/07/two-types-of-orthodox-judaism/ > > There are probably other uses of the term *mesorah*, but I cannot think of > them at the moment. > > Best wishes, > Yonatan > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150825/4814ca39/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:43:29 +0300 > From: Eli Turkel via Avodah > To: Avodah > Subject: [Avodah] smart lighting > Message-ID: > < > CAGDtJ1GVgO0Ez55DoorrtQw_kfhbpGcPtQS8J8mV2rq-8rjYAA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > can one use smart lighting on shabbat > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_lighting > > -- > Eli Turkel > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150826/394e7ffd/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:00:05 +0000 > From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" > To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group (avodah at lists.aishdas.org)" > > Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: > <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de at VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party to > return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not > actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) > How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? > KVCT > 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. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150827/99422da9/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:37:32 -0400 > From: Micha Berger via Avodah > To: "Rich, Joel" , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <20150827173732.GA29088 at aishdas.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:00:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > : Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party > : to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not > : actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) > > My own lexicon: > hakaras hatov: realizing that a good thing came into your life > hoda'ah: acknowledging the one who / One Who provided that good > > Say Avi gives Berakhah a ball. > > Berakhah's hakaras hatov has an primary object, which is the ball -- > the tov she received from Avi. Not taking life's gifts for granted. > > But her hoda'ah has a primary object -- which is Avi, and a secondary > object, the ball. As in the grammar of "Modim anachnu Lakh al..."; > the prespositional phrase giving you the secondary object is a list > of all the things Hashem does for us. > > I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although > there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, > Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an > obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. > > Which, if you think about it, is what Chazal say about the early makos > and how Moshe would not be the one to launch a makah that afflicts the > water that saved him as a baby or the sand that hid the body. > > I'm not thrilled with the whole idea of exchanging favors, creating a > market. It turns everything back on self-service -- every positive > act is tainted by expectation of being repaid. > > > : How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? > > Perhaps kibud av va'eim and kavod harav are their own concepts for a > reason. And that hakaras hatov might explain the issur against hurting > or cursing one's parents, but not kavod and yir'ah. > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, > micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just > http://www.aishdas.org beginning. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:55:37 +0000 > From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" > To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group (avodah at lists.aishdas.org)" > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: > <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7 at VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > > Zechiyah uMattanah - Chapter Seven > Translated by Eliyahu Touger > > > Halacha 1 > > > It is a universally accepted custom in most countries that when a man > marries, his friends and acquaintances send him money to support the > expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Then the friends and > acquaintances who sent him this money come and eat and drink with the groom > during all - or part - of the seven days of wedding celebration; everything > should be done according to the accepted local custom. > > The money that he is sent is called shushvinut, and the people who send > the money and then come and eat and drink with the groom are called > shushvinin. > > > Halacha 2 > > > Shushvinut is not an outright gift. For it is plainly obvious that a > person did not send a colleague 10 dinarim with the intent that he eat and > drink a zuz's worth. He sent him the money solely because his intent was > that when he would marry, he would send him money as he has sent him. > > Therefore, if the sender marries a woman, and the recipient does not > return the shushvinut, the sender may lodge a legal claim against the > recipient and expropriate the money from him. > > KVCT > 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. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:01:38 -0400 > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > To: Micha Berger , The Avodah Torah Discussion > Group > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <55DF5E92.9020405 at sero.name> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > On 08/27/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > I believe the reference is to the law of shushvinin. But that is not > a matter of hakaras hatov; it's an explicit quid pro quo arrangement. > If you don't pay it back when it falls due, you're cheating the person > of a quantifiable amount of money that you explicitly owe him, so he > can sue you for it. > > -- > Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you > zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in > the street and commands me to surrender my purse, > I have a right to kill him without asking questions > -- John Adams > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:28:42 -0400 > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > To: "Rich, Joel" , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <55DF64EA.6000201 at sero.name> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > On 08/27/2015 01:55 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > > money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. > > Mistranslation: This should be "...the expenses of the feast." > > -- > Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you > zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in > the street and commands me to surrender my purse, > I have a right to kill him without asking questions > -- John Adams > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Avodah Digest, Vol 33, Issue 117 > *************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 30 20:32:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 23:32:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz - Lu'ach 5776 Message-ID: <20150831033207.C42DF1831DF@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 00:33:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 03:33:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz - Lu'ach 5776 Message-ID: <20150831073325.1618E182644@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 18:44:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 21:44:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: <20150901014419.GA6761@aishdas.org> Something I noticed... After the animal is shechted, a lung could be hollow, or full of liquid, and it's still kosher. But if there is a pinhole in both membranes around the lung, it's treif. Similarly the brain -- if the outside is solid, the inside could be rotten and the animal is still kosher. These are laws of tereifah that we refuse to change recardless of whether veterinary medicine disagrees about survivability. So I assume there is some point being made about chiyus in general in all this. However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is more important than penimius. Maybe something more like "fake it till you make it" -- as long as you keep the externals going, there is hope that the internals will fill in. But I'm fishing for better suggestions. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 19:18:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 22:18:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Factory Farming and Panicking the Animals Message-ID: <20150901021819.GA14109@aishdas.org> If the lung is tzemuqah (dried enough to be wrinkly like a raisin, but not dry enough to be called yeveishah)... There is a halakhah leMoshe miSinai that if it was due to fright caused by a person, the animel is tereifah if it's caused by HQBH (eg a lion attack), the animal is kosher. (AhS YD 36:70) If you do not know what the cause was, you check the lung -- man-made rei'ah tzemuqah won't rehydrate when soaked in water for 24 hours. But, this test is only used if the cause of the fright wasn't known (se'if 74); the cause of the stress is the iqar, not the dryness. Interesting is a comment at the end of se'if 70: Therefore it is correct that shoechtim be careful not to shecht one ba'al chai in front of another ba'al chai so that the lungs not get wrinkly and will require checking, ae will be explained. Also, there is tza'r ba'alei chaim in it ve'issur gamur hu and so wrote a number of gedolei ha'achronim. So I'm wondering, is our factory-style slaughter mutar? Can you say that this speed is a tachlis that makes the tza'ar needful, and thus mutar? Do people disagree with the AhS and his unnamed acharonim? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 20:52:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 05:52:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus In-Reply-To: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> References: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> Message-ID: <55E5210A.9050302@zahav.net.il> I would just add that like any other kashrut issue, a lot depends on why one has a particular practice. If one refuses to eat heter michira vegetables (that is the real issue) because he feels the HM is simply invalid, that is quite different than not using HM products because one wants to be machmir (assuming of course that not relying on the HM is a chumra). Ben On 8/28/2015 11:08 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > Lich'ora, since there is no consensus about shmita standards among > shomrei shabbos, one who has a stricter practise can't assume that > a randomly selected shomer shabbos is at least as strict as his. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 10:49:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 13:49:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another Tereifos Observation Message-ID: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> As I mentioned yesteday, any hole in the surface of the lung large enough to leak air would make the animal tereifah. What if the hole heals? AhS YD 36:7 (and elsewhere) says that a qerum (membrane) she'alah machmas makkah doesn't count. In se'if 14 he learns peshat in Rashi (Yavamos 76a "eino qerum") that there are two sevaros: 1- because this kind of closure isn't permanent 2- the closure is new. Akin to Chullin 68b "kivan shenitrefah, shuv ein lah heter) But in reality, the AhS says, "be'emes chad ta'amah hu" -- what makes the closure temporary is that it is made from the liquids of the makah. And therefore once the makah is healed, it has no cause. RYME notes that this is bedavqa when a new membrane is closing the hole. But if the side grow in until it closes, the lung is kosher. What about "kivan shenitrefah"? He writes "keshehaheter hayah mukhan be'eis hatarfus, lo chal alahh sheim tarfus ba'olam." Continuing what I wrote yesterday, that there must be much lehislameid from the halakhos of tereifos, given how we etched them in stone despite many of the rules losing their veterinary explanations.... We are told to have bitachon that before sending troubles, "Ein HQBH makeh es Yisrael ela im kein borei lahem refu'ah techilah" (Megillah 13b) This rule of tereifos, that the chalos sheim "tereifah" doesn't apply if the means by which the hole would close were pre-existing, seems to imply something further. In a sense, the makah itself isn't real because the refu'ah is already prepared. It is not that the bad times cause the good ones. Because they aren't permanent enough to be the root of permanent solutions. Rather, it is because it's all one process, the bad times being a bump in a road that from the moment you strarted traveling it leads to good. Or as Nachum ish Gam Zu said, "gam lu LEtovah" (emphasis mine), not "gam zu tovah". What redeems the bad times is that the route from them to tov is there before they even begin. ---- Language note: I noticed that rei'ah means "lungs", even though the term is in the singular and the translation is in the plural. There is no term of art for a single lung -- the main body of each lung is an omah and the lobes are onos or in Hebrew "aznayim". Tir'u baTov! -Micha Off-topic PS: I am seriously finding the beginning of YD turning me off to meat. -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 09:55:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 19:55:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Kosher Switch, Grama and Rav Osher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://podcast.headlinesbook.com/e/8-15-15-headlines/ where Rav Osher Weiss explains in detail his approach to grama, and electricity on Shabbos in general. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 11:17:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 14:17:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another Tereifos Observation In-Reply-To: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> References: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55E5EBB7.7060400@sero.name> On 09/01/2015 01:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Language note: I noticed that rei'ah means "lungs", even though the term > is in the singular and the translation is in the plural. There is no > term of art for a single lung -- the main body of each lung is an omah > and the lobes are onos or in Hebrew "aznayim". Yes, Chazal conceived of the lungs as a single organ. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 18:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 21:45:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > Similarly the brain -- if the outside is solid, the inside > could be rotten and the animal is still kosher. > ... > However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that > chitzonius is more important than penimius. > > Maybe something more like "fake it till you make it" -- as > long as you keep the externals going, there is hope that > the internals will fill in. > > But I'm fishing for better suggestions. I will offer another data point which also seems to suugest that chitzonius is more important than penimius. Mechaber 78:1 and Mishne Brurah 78:2,3 are obviously talking about a person who unfortunately suffers from incontinence. If he urinates while davening, he must pause, but can continue when the flow stops. This applies even if his legs and undergarments are totally wet, but NOT if the urine is on his outer garments. It seems that the cleanliness of one's outer garments is more important than the cleanliness of his undergarments, or even of his body itself. Similarly, if one needs to defecate, but he can hold himself for 4 mil, he will be yotzay davening b'dieved -- Mechaber 92:1. But that leniency is because it is mere pnimius; Mechaber 76:4,5 seems to be stricter once the tzoah has gone external. (Note: I think that it would not be difficult to show that chitzonius *is* important. The problem as I see it is that we've found some cases where it is *more* important than pnimius.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 00:17:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 10:17:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] bavli variants Message-ID: We are pleased to announce the launch of a new version (1.2) of the ' *Hachi **Garsinan*' Site for Variant-Readings of the Talmud Bavli. The site is freely accessible to all through the Friedberg portal: http://jewishmanuscripts.org . Version 1.1 of the website shows all hand-written text witnesses of the Talmud Bavli from the Cairo Genizah, with digital images (more than 4,600) and their transcriptions, in the framework of a software that allows the display of all text-witnesses of a specific Talmudic text in parallel columns in small units. Identical excerpts in a specific text-witness and in the Vilna can be marked, in order to spare the user the effort of comparing the texts. There are also additional helpful functions such as Save and Print, as specified in the website Homepage. *In the new version (1.2) - text witnesses from the following early printings have been added:* - *Guadalajara**(1480?), Spain / Portugal (Toledo? 1480-1490), Portugal (Faro? before 1498), Faro (1497?), Fez (1516-1521)* - *Soncino (1484-1489), Italy (1489-1498), Barco (1498-1499), Pesaro (1509-1516), Constantinople (1505-1509)* - *Venice** (1520-1523) * *(for details on tractates included in early printings - see Homepage). * *Furthermore, a function has been added to enable the user search for **terms or expressions in the Vilna** edition and each of the text witnesses that take part in the current version (Genizah and early printings) as well as a function to display the lexicon (**list of different words and their frequency**) of Vilna and of each of the other text-witnesses. Finally, the new version allows each user to alter the way that the text units are displayed on the variant-readings screen, using special editing tools designed for this purpose.* -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 05:05:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 08:05:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In my previous post, I cited some halachos which seem to demonstrate - surprisingly - that externals are *more* important than internals. Perhaps the source pasuk for those halachos might help us out. Devarim 23:15: "... v'hayah machanecha kadosh, v'lo yir'eh v'cha ervas davar..." "... your *camp* will be holy, and nothing unseemly will be seen in *you*..." We learn much from each of these phrases, but does anyone compare the relative importance of the reisha to that of the seifa? Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 08:31:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 11:31:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150902153128.GB27954@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 09:45:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Mechaber 78:1 and Mishne Brurah 78:2,3 are obviously talking about a person : who unfortunately suffers from incontinence... : Similarly, if one needs to defecate, but he can hold himself for 4 mil, he : will be yotzay davening b'dieved -- Mechaber 92:1. But that leniency is : because it is mere pnimius; Mechaber 76:4,5 seems to be stricter once the : tzoah has gone external. I am not sure these are examples. It may have to do with when tzo'ah smells, or when it starts being "tzo'ah" rather than part of the person. : (Note: I think that it would not be difficult to show that chitzonius *is* : important. The problem as I see it is that we've found some cases where it : is *more* important than pnimius.) Thinking about it more, I have more confidence in my earlier guess, that chitzonius is a better indicator of future penimius than current penimius is. Someone who is a passionate eved H', but for some reason isn't acting on it will likely lose that passion, and someone who develops the right habits in attempt to develop the feelings, mitokh shelo lishimah, ba lishmah. So it's not that it's more important; it's still of derived value. And yet, this reasoning explains Yahadus's focus on halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 18:30:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 21:30:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In Avodah V33n118, R'Micha wrote: > However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is more important than penimius. < Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what can be seen? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 06:30:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:30:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We recently had a thread which discusses the meaning of the word "mesorah". Coincidentally or not, I'd like to ask about the meaning of the verb "moser" as it occurs in the context of the Prozbul. I'd like to begin by giving two different *colloquial* uses of "moser": It can refer to the act of literally handing a fellow Jew to the authorities, but it can also refer to merely informing the authorities about a fellow Jew. My question about Prozbul is this: When the Prozbul says that the lender is "moser" the loans to Beis Din, does he actually hand them over, or does he merely inform? For decades, I had thought that the lender actually gives the loans to the Beis Din, in a manner similar to how anyone can use a commercial collection agency: Usually, if someone owes me money, I can sell that debt to a collection agency, but in the context of Shmitta, I give it as a gift to the beis din. Then, the beis din authorizes me to collect the debt on their behalf, and will allow me to retain 100% of it as my service fee. With the above, I have accomplished three important things: (1) When Rosh Hashana arrives, no one owes me anything, so I have no possibility of violating any halachos of Shmitas Kesafim. (2) When I collect from the borrower, I'm merely acting as an agent of beis din, to whom Lo Yigos does not apply, so I'm not violating anything. (3) Although the lender did not repay anything to me directly, my finances did not suffer, and future Shmitos will not influence to me avoid lending. BUT - From what I've learned, when a Prozbul is done, no kinyan ever occurs between the lender and the Beis Din, not even a kinyan sudar of the sort that I do when authorizing the rav to sell my chometz. Without a kinyan, I can't see how the loan ever leaves the ownership of the lender. So it is clear to me that Prozbul does NOT follow the "collection agency" model. Is there some other model that it does follow? The Mechaber Choshen Mishpat 67:8 talks about a situation that I will presume occurs before Erev Rosh Hashana: "If one claims money, and the other denies it, and the first sues in beis din and wins, and the psak din is that the second one must pay - this is a gibui, and shmita does not cancel it." If I'm understanding this correctly, then when a court verdict declares the A must pay B, this is not the sort of debt that shmita cancels, because the requirement to pay does not come from any interaction between the two men, but directly from the beis din's power. In other words, the lender can ask the borrower for money, but he is not asking for the loan to be repaid; rather, he is enforcing the court's ruling. This is a new obligation upon the borrower, which was created by the court, and is therefore exempt from Shmitas Kesafim. Perhaps this is how Prozbul works: Without any evidence or documentation, or even an itemized list, a person approaches the beis din and tells them that there are debts which are owed to him. The beis din responds with a court order that those debts must be paid. He can now collect them, because it is the *Beis Din* that wants them to be paid (irrespective of the fact that the lender wants them paid). This explanation solves the problem of Lo Yigos: The lender is not pressing the borrower for repayment of a personal loan; he is pressing the borrower to pay the court judgment. But the personal loan does still exist, doesn't it? The lender would still have an obligation to be personally m'shamet the loan at some point, but I think most people think that the Prozbul relieves them of that obligation. I'm stumped. When the lender is "moser" the loan to Beis Din, exactly what is happening? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 11:26:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 18:26:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0b20dda77d534fbdbec18095eaf0ce72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> We recently had a thread which discusses the meaning of the word "mesorah". Coincidentally or not, I'd like to ask about the meaning of the verb "moser" as it occurs in the context of the Prozbul. Akiva Miller ================================= Listen hear for discussion on point http://www.torahbase.org/prozbul-concept-halachos-5775/?lang=en Rav Asher Weiss-Prozbul ? Concept and Halachos 5775 Kvct 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 13:07:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:07:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch Message-ID: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> S"A O"C 55:11 as recorded in the 1st volume of the mishna brurah (it's not in my regular S"A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of the S"A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn't apply "now" because dina dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? KVCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 14:41:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2015 23:41:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What am I missing? Message-ID: <55EB6184.5050706@zahav.net.il> Re prozbul, I seem to be missing something. Personally I haven't loaned out any huge sums such that if I don't get them back, I would be reticent about loaning in the future. If I did loan out something small, why should I sign the prozbul? If the borrower doesn't pay me, well he doesn't have to (right?). If the borrower does pay me, he gets a bracha and everyone is a winner. What am I missing? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 21:10:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 00:10:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <55EBBC9C.9070304@sero.name> On 09/04/2015 04:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > S?A O?C 55:11 as recorded in the 1^st volume of the mishna brurah (it?s not in my regular S?A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of the S?A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn?t apply ?now? because dina dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? The note appears in the first edition, so presumably it was put there by the original publisher, in order to get it past the censor. Or perhaps it was inserted at the censor's insistence. In any case it houldn't need saying that it was not intended to be taken seriously by the intended audience. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49623&pgnum=170 (BTW, the censor's approval is dated 23-Dec-1882, the Hebrew date on the front page is 5683, but the secular date on the front page is 1884. Presumably that's how long publishing took.) -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 21:04:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 00:04:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Factory Farming and Panicking the Animals Message-ID: From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> If the lung is tzemuqah (dried enough to be wrinkly like a raisin, but not dry enough to be called yeveishah)... There is a halakhah leMoshe miSinai that if it was due to fright caused by a person, the animel is tereifah if it's caused by HQBH (eg a lion attack), the animal is kosher. (AhS YD 36:70) ....Interesting is a comment at the end of se'if 70: Therefore it is correct that shoechtim be careful not to shecht one ba'al chai in front of another ba'al chai so that the lungs not get wrinkly and will require checking, ae will be explained. << Micha Berger >>>> I remember reading that Temple Grandin had designed a spiral ramp with high walls for cattle to walk along before reaching the slaughtering spot. The design was such that the animal could not see out the sides or very far ahead as it walked, and would thus not witness other animals being slaughtered. This was meant to keep the animal calm and not frightened. I did not find the article with a quick google search but I am sure it's available somewhere. Temple Grandin is a famous expert in humane methods of animal slaughter. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 01:19:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 11:19:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? Message-ID: Most of selichos is us beseeching Hashem (poetically) for forgiveness and declaring that we are unworthy and sinners. However, the main part of selichos is the recitation of the 13 middos. However, the recitation of the 13 kiddos seems like almost magic, something we say because Hashem told us to as we say in the preceding paragraph "Hashem you commanded us to say the 13 [middos] ... as you told Moshe [the anav] ...". What is our kavannah supposed to be when we say the 13 middos? What should we be thinking? Why is saying the 13 middos so important? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 16:25:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 19:25:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150906232531.GA15175@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 11:19:51AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Most of selichos is us beseeching Hashem (poetically) for forgiveness and : declaring that we are unworthy and sinners. However, the main part of : selichos is the recitation of the 13 middos. However, the recitation of the : 13 kiddos seems like almost magic, something we say because Hashem told us : to as we say in the preceding paragraph "Hashem you commanded us to say the : 13 [middos] ... as you told Moshe [the anav] ...". What is our kavannah : supposed to be when we say the 13 middos? What should we be thinking? Why : is saying the 13 middos so important? Actually, the wording in the gemara is Whenever Israel sins *ya'asu* lefana keseder hazaeh, and I will pardon them. The point isn't to say the 13 Middos, they're just a reminder that we're supposed to do them. If we remember the essential, to be merciful people in His Image, HQBH is ready to pardon everything else. (I am defining "mocheil" as pardon as in being mochel a debt, in contrast to full forgiveness. That's a choice among how acharonim take selichah, mechilah and kapparah, so your mileage may vary.) I passionately recommend printing up and keeping it with your selichos and YK Machzor. It's a summary of the 13 Middos as per Tomer Devorah mapped to the version of the Thirteen Middos in Shemos that we say in Selichos. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 16:58:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 19:58:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 08:07:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : S"A O"C 55:11 as recorded in the 1st volume of the mishna brurah (it's : not in my regular S"A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of : the S"A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting : for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn't apply "now" because dina : dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. However, the MBs Poland wasn't it. Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 07:31:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 10:31:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: Let's go back to one of the sources: Yoma 72b - "Any talmid chacham whose tocho (inside) is not like his baro (outside) is not a talmid chacham." Is this speaking only of one who appears fine externally, but is deficient internally? Or does it also apply to one who is fine internally, but doesn't look it to an outside observer? If it applies to both, does anyone compare the two? I have always presumed that the one who is not-so-good on the inside is a bigger problem than the one who is okay on the inside. But if I understood them correctly, RMB and RMP brought independent reasons why one should focus on the externals. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 01:32:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 11:32:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What am I missing? Message-ID: R' Ben Waxman asked: > Re prozbul, I seem to be missing something. Personally I haven't loaned > out any huge sums such that if I don't get them back, I would be > reticent about loaning in the future. If I did loan out something small, > why should I sign the prozbul? If you have money in the bank in Israel then you have lent the bank money and therefore Shemitta will cancel your loan and the bank could keep your money. Now, the fact is that all the banks in Israel have a hater iska so that they can pay interest, but even with a heter iska half the amount is an iska but half is a loan, so the half that is a loan would be cancelled by shemita. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 17:56:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 20:56:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> I passionately recommend printing up . It explains the 13 Middos as found in Shemos and therefore Selichos in terms of the version in Michah and the Tomer Devorah thereon. Rather than repeating the same words / names over and over throughout selichos and much of Yom Kippur, it can become an opportunity to commit and recommit to emulating them. As the gemara (RH 17b) says Whenver Israel sin, they shall perform before Me like this structure (ya'asu lefanai keseider zeh), and I will forgive them. Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:27:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:27:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 08:56 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > As the gemara (RH 17b) says > Whenver Israel sin, they shall perform before Me like this structure > (ya'asu lefanai keseider zeh), and I will forgive them. > > Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:18:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:18:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55ECF3DF.8090003@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 04:19 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > However, the recitation of the 13 middos seems like almost magic, > something we say because Hashem told us to as we say in the preceding > paragraph Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we say them and invoke that promise. Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a magical power that the holy ketores has. The Malach Hamaves told Moshe Rabbenu about this trick, and when the occasion arose Moshe told Aharon to use it. "There are more things in heaven and earth..." -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:22:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:22:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was > written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? No. > Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law > and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't > practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. > > However, the MBs Poland wasn't it Yes, it absolutely was. > Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 12:08:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 15:08:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dr. Leo Deutschlander - Father of the Bais Yaakov Movement Message-ID: <20150907190830.A1951181640@nexus.stevens.edu> The name of Sarah Schneirer is invariably associated with the Bais Yaakov Movement. However, she was not the only one who was responsible for the success of the movement before WW II. Sarah Schneirer was an idealist who decided that religious schools for girls were needed in Poland and who set out to found such schools. However, WADR to Sarah Schneirer, she had a very limited academic background and her Jewish education was quite basic. (This was the case for most girls who lived when she did.) Thus others were needed to assist her in the development of the Bais Yaakov Movement. One such person was Dr. Leo Deutschlander. Up until today I knew very little about him. I did know that there had been an article in the Jewish Observer about his life, but I did not have access to it. Today a friend mine, who has a complete collection of all issues of the JO, brought me a copy of the article about Dr. Deutschlander. I have put it at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/deutschlander.pdf Note that other people who helped Sarah Schneirer with the development of the Bais Yaakov movement are mentioned and almost all of them have a Frankfurt background which means they attended the school that RSRH started in Frankfurt that educated both boys and girls. Thus in a certain sense RSRH is to be considered the grandfather of the Bais Yaakov Movement. Judith nee Rosenbaum Grunfeld played a key role in the development for the Bais Yaakov movement. See her article about Sarah Schneirer at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/sara_schenierer.pdf Anyone really interested in the history of the Bais Yaakov movement should read Rabbi Abraham Atkin's PhD thesis which is titled The Beth Jacob Movement in Poland 1917-1939. I have put this document at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/beth_jacob_movement_poland.pdf Note that the article about Dr. Deutschlander says that he never had children. To the best of my knowledge, he never married, yet he taught Bais Yaakov girls of seminary age and perhaps even younger, something that would be considered scandalous today! Given that Dr. Deutschlander never married, I find him being characterized by Chaim Shapiro as the "Father of the Bais Yaakov Movement" somewhat amusing. >:-} YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 11:41:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 14:41:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar Message-ID: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> Please click here to download a back issue of Halachically Speaking on eating before Shofar. ---------- From the article Custom of Some Gedolim The Steipler zt"l used to recite the zohar and other tefillos during the break. In his later years he recited portions of tehillim.[1] He did not make kiddush before tekios.[2] Harav Moshe Feinstein zt"l did not eat before tekios.[3] Harav Elyashiv zt"l [4] and Harav Yisroel Belsky Shlita do not eat or drink before tekios. [1] Orchos Rabbeinu 2:page 182:4. Refer to Darchei Chaim V'sholom 716:page 251. [2] Orchos Rabbeinu 2:page 181:1. Refer to Chelek Levi 189. [3] As related by Harav Aron Felder Shlita. [4] As quoted in Chag B'chag page 113:footnote 79. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 14:13:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 17:13:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar In-Reply-To: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <55EDFE13.7010505@sero.name> I have to admit that this is one of the Lubavitcher customs that puzzle me. All year, not just on Shabbos but also on weekdays, the official Lubavitch minhag is to allow eating before davening (after saying sh'ma, on weekdays in tefillin), on the grounds that it's difficult to daven properly without it. In the Tzemach Tzedek's words, "it's better to eat in order to daven, than to daven in order to eat". If you find that you're davening in order to get to breakfast, you'd do better to get breakfast over with and then daven with kavanah. And yet on Rosh Hashana, when one often doesn't get to kiddush until 2 or 3 in the afternoon, and when one needs kavanah in davening more than ever, Lubavitchers fast until kiddush! I don't understand it. If you can make it on Rosh Hashana, why not on any other day? And if you can't daven on an empty stomach on a weekday without thinking about breakfast, then how can you daven on an even emptier stomach on Rosh Hashana without thinking about lunch? -- Zev Sero KVChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 16:32:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:32:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:18:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. : Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we : say them and invoke that promise. : Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores : to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a : magical power that the holy ketores has.. Where is this made explicit? On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:27:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. : That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". Who said that remembering something in tefillah, unlike lekhishah, talks about the words themselves without internalization? What's the verb for tefillah, anyway? In any case, the idea that it's about saying the words until we're committed to emulating them isn't mine, it's R' Elimelekh miLetzhinsk's, the Chafeitz Chaim's and R YL Chasmin's. The latter two relate this gemara to "mah Hu 'Rachum' af atah..." Hashem is not only just, He's not a Vatran. The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 16:43:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:43:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:22:37PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was :> written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? : No. Source? :> Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law :> and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't :> practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. :> However, the MBs Poland wasn't it : Yes, it absolutely was. Again, source? Actual excommunications were commonplace. Comes up in teshuvos on agunah. :> Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. : Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could : be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the : MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. In the CC's hayday, Radun was in the Vilna Voivodship, Poland. And I didn't ask about censortship, I asked about autonomy, as in having courts empowered to punish, and the Jewish community certainly did. At least, azoi shteyt YIVO The Polish government never recognized Jewish communal autonomy de jure, but autonomy existed de facto in hundreds of local communities, school systems, and youth movements during the interwar period. Because regardless of whether this appeal to dina demalkhusa was real or to satisfy a censor, the mileau that created this footnote had to have such a law. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 17:42:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 20:42:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EE2EF6.2060509@sero.name> On 09/07/2015 07:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:18:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. > : Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we > : say them and invoke that promise. > > : Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores > : to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a > : magical power that the holy ketores has.. > > Where is this made explicit? It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell? Also, the gemara deduces that this is where Moshe must have got it, because how else could he possibly have known about it? Now if it was about the kavanos or the zechus of the mitzvah stopping plagues, then why couldn't Moshe Rabbenu have worked it out from first principles? This shows that it isn't anything that could be worked out, there's no reason why it should be so, it just is. In other words, magic. > > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:27:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. > > : That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". > > Who said that remembering something in tefillah, unlike lekhishah, talks > about the words themselves without internalization? What's the verb for > tefillah, anyway? "Lehazkir" doesn't mean to remember, it means to mention, to pronounce words. For that matter, the word "yaasu" that you're basing yourself on refers not to the midos themselves but to the "seder tefillah", i.e. the ritual of naming the midos. > Hashem is not only just, He's not a Vatran. The notion of magic words > that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah > would be very problematic. But that is what the gemara seems to say. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 18:06:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 21:06:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EE34A8.7060303@sero.name> On 09/07/2015 07:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:22:37PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was > :> written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? > > : No. > > Source? There is no source that it was banned then. Why would you even imagine that it would be? There is no such note in any edition of the Shulchan Aruch. In any case, the concept of banning cherem doesn't seem to have come up until the late 18th century. http://t95.el.sl.pt > :> Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law > :> and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't > :> practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. > > :> However, the MBs Poland wasn't it > > : Yes, it absolutely was. > > Again, source? Actual excommunications were commonplace. Comes up > in teshuvos on agunah. Catherine the Great banned cherem in 1795. Of course they ignored the law and did it anyway, but to get a sefer past the publisher they had to pretend to be obeying the law, so if the sefer mentioned cherem they had to note that this was written before it became illegal. > :> Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. > > : Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could > : be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the > : MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. > > In the CC's hayday, Radun was in the Vilna Voivodship, Poland. What Poland? There was no such place as Poland. It was Russia, and there was no autonomy. > And I didn't ask about censortship, I asked about autonomy, as in having > courts empowered to punish, and the Jewish community certainly did. > At least, azoi shteyt YIVO > > The Polish government never recognized Jewish communal autonomy de > jure, but autonomy existed de facto in hundreds of local communities, > school systems, and youth movements during the interwar period. Read what you just wrote: "The Polish government". What period could this paragraph possibly be talking about? The period when there was a Poland and a Polish government. IOW not the time we are discussing. And indeed if you look at the page again, you will see that it is explicitly discussing the interwar period, after Polish independence. > Because regardless of whether this appeal to dina demalkhusa was real > or to satisfy a censor, the mileau that created this footnote had to > have such a law. Yes, it did. Catherine's law that I mentioned above. And it also had a strict censorship law, which this sefer was subject to. If you need any further convincing, note the language of the censor's stamp. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 20:16:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 23:16:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Joel Rich wrote: > Listen hear for discussion on point > http://www.torahbase.org/prozbul-concept-halachos-5775/?lang=en > Rav Asher Weiss - Prozbul - Concept and Halachos 5775 Thank you very much for showing me this. I listened to it a few times, and it seems that he gives his conclusions right at the beginning: (00:42 to 01:05) "The takana of Pruzbul is that there is no need to physically give over your notes to Beis Din and there is no need Beis Din should be the ones to collect your money. Hillel was metaken: it is enough if you declare, either orally or in writing, Mosrani lachem..." (02:00-02:24) "The takana of Hillel was: It is enough if you write 'Mosrani lachem ploni v'ploni'. It is considered AS IF you transferred your notes to Beis Din, and when you collect the money, you would be considered AS IF you would be shliach of Beis Din even though it's not really the real thing in practicality. But that was the takana of Pruzbul." But how does it work? He clearly says (at 8:40 to 9:23) that the functions of a Beis Din do not include acting as a collection agency. There ARE (9:49 to 10:30) are very limited circumstances where Beis Din does have that function, such as collecting for yesomim, because that *is* one of the roles of the Beis Din, as "avi yesomim". One the other hand, (10:30 to 10:52) yesomim do not need to make a pruzbul at all, because Beis Din is *automatically* the Avi Yesomim, and their loans will not be cancelled by shmitta. So he suggests (12:19 to 12:40) that although it is not Beis Din's practice to accept the responsibility of collecting loans except for unusual cases, perhaps the difficulties posed by Shmitta put other loans in this category, and so if someone would be moser his loans to Beis Din, then Shmitta will not cancel them. But exactly why are such loans exempt? He explains (14:20 to 14:40), "You have to be m'shamet loans, but the moment you gave your notes, your loans over to Beis Din, it is k'gavui dami - it is as if those monies were already collected." He then compares this situation to the case where the lender has collateral for the loan, and that too is "already collected" and exempt from Shmitas Kesafim. It seems to me that this is how Rav Weiss understands the Pruzbul: The loan was and remains property of the lender, but Beis Din accepts the responsibility to go to the borrower to demand payment. From that point, it is considered as "already collected". Since it is already collected, not only is he allowed to request the money after Rosh Hashana, but there's no need to even state "M'shamet Ani". There is no need for any kinyan, because the loan remains property of the lender, and the role of Beis Din is simply to accept responsibility for collecting the loan; this occurs automatically at the inception of the loan where the lender is an orphan, and it also occurs automatically at the execution of a Pruzbul per Ezra's takana. ON THE OTHER HAND, over Shabbos a friend lent me his copy of Sefer Dinei Shviis Hashalem, published by Keren Hatarbut Degel Yerushalayim, which contains a photo of a pruzbul on the stationery of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and (apparently) in his handwriting, dated 29 Elul 5754. It contains a very interesting clause. Other pruzbuls avoid details, and simply say something like "I am moser my loans to beis din", but this one adds some very significant points. Here is the full pruzbul, as best as I can render it: "[B'mosav tlasa bei dina k'chada havinu] We were three dayanim sitting together, [uva l'faneinu...] and R' Aharon Dovid Goldberg came [v'amar lanu] and said to us: [Hen shana zu hee shnas hashviis] This year is the seventh year, [v'yesh li chovos b'shtar uv'al peh] and I have loans - both in writing and orally - [al ayzeh anashim] against certain people. [V'hareni moser lachem pruzbul] I am now moser a pruzbul to you, [viyhavis l'chon b'matana] and give it to you as a gift [b'kinyan dalet' amos karka] with a kinyan of four amos of land, [me'arah d'ees li] from the ground that is mine. [V'al gabayhon] And through that, [arshees yas'chon] I give you permission [limigbah kol chovos] to collect all my loans, [d'ees lee al inshee] which I have against people. [Mayatah t'havoon li daiyna] Henceforth you will be my dayanim, [v'sagbuhu uskabluhu li] and you will collect and accept payment for me. [V'im lo tagbuhu atem] And if you do not collect it yourselves, [mayata kayvan shemasarti lachem pruzbul zeh] then since I was moser this pruzbul to you, [ani goveh kol chov] so I can collect any loan [sheyesh li ad hayom etzel kol adam] which I have up to today against anyone, [kol zman she'ertzeh] any time I want. [next paragraph] - "[Anachnu beis din] We the court [shamanu dvarav] heard his words, [veefinu kocho] and affirm its validity, [shelo t'shamet lay] that he will not have a cancellation, [v'yigbeh kol chovosav] and he can collect all his loans, [al ydei pruzbul zeh] via this pruzbul, [k'takanas Hillel v'Chazal] in accordance with the takana of Hillel and Chazal. [next paragraph] - "[Banu al hechasum] We have signed below [yom kaf"tes l'chodesh Elul, shnas heh-tav-shin-nun"dalet] this day, 29th of Elul 5754 [poh Ir Hakodesh Yerushalayim] here, the holy city of Yerushalayim. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach [I cannot read the other two signatures]" (end of pruzbul) I don't understand the purpose of the four amos of land. (Yes, I'm quite aware of the requirement in halacha, I just don't understand why that requirement was included. That's a topic for another thread.) And I quite likely made some errors in the transliteration and the translation. But I think that I understood it well enough to state with confidence that it seems that RSZA does indeed subscribe to the "collection agency" model, which Rav Asher Weiss had so clearly rejected. RSZA explicitly uses the word "kinyan". One could argue that the "matanah" which the lender is giving to the beis din is merely the pruzbul and not the loans. One could also point out that after the kinyan has occurred, the lender continues to refer to the loans (which beis din would collect) as "MY loans", suggesting that they are still owned by the lender and not the beis din. But if that is so, then what does it mean to make a kinyan on the *pruzbul*? This pruzbul is merely a record of the court proceedings, and it seems very likely to me that the intent is for the court to acquire the loans themselves, in very much the same way that a modern collection agency works. If anyone disagrees, and feels that RSZA does *not* subscribe to the "collection agency" model, please explain how you think this pruzbul works. And if anyone does agree with me, then I wonder if any other poskim hold that way, because every explanation of pruzbul that I've seen describes the document itself, and no one ever mentions any requirement of kinyan. Thank you Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 02:10:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 05:10:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar Message-ID: And if you can't daven on an empty stomach on a weekday without thinking about breakfast, then how can you daven on an even emptier stomach on Rosh Hashana without thinking about lunch? Kal v?chomer, how can you daven on T?B and Y?K when you wake up without having even drinking or eating and then must go another good 12 hours on an empty stomach? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 03:51:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:51:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote; > "It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that > ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to > have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there > the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so > obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. > How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell?" Rashi in Chumash quoting the Mechilta offers a second explanation of why the ketores was used to end the plague. Bnei Yisrael were complaining about the ketores that it was a sam hamaves, that it killed people. The ketores killed Nadav and Avihu, it killed the 250 people, therefore Hashem said watch that it can stop the plague and that sin is what really kills people. We see clearly from this explanation that there was nothing magical about using the ketores, rather Hashem wanted to make a point to the Jewish people about the ketores. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 07:35:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:35:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very problematic. (Or perhaps "confusing" would be a better description, as it moves the focus away from a "problematic halacha", chalila, and towards my obligation to understand it.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 08:14:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 11:14:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:35:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a : measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very : problematic... And I don't believe there is such a thing, so I have no problem. I suggested twice now 2007 http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol23/v23n174.shtml#12 and 2010 http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n130.shtml that itzumo shel yom mechaperes only someone who acknowledges and embraces the etzem shel yom. >From 2007: > My understanding is that itzumo shel yom is mechapeir, but without inuyim, > one isn't connected to that etzem. IOW, someone who eats on YK doesn't > get kapparah, but someone who observes YK gets kapparah from YK itself, > not the zekhus of observance. > And it's clear from R' Elazar ben Azaryah on Yuma 86a that YK is never > effective in and of itself. > - For an asei, teshuvah is effective > - For a regular lav, teshuvah must first achieve selichah (removal of > onesh) before YK can effect kaparah > - For a chayav kareis, one needs teshuvah and YK for selichah, and onesh > brings kaparah > - For chillul Hashem, only misah brings kaparah. > The philosophical problems are > (1) The justice in YK being mechapeir > (2) Given a ba'asher hu sham approach, why would onesh or misah in and > of itself help? > I couldn't make heads or tails of it without stretching the notion, > and saying that YK is mechapeir to the extent that one allows oneself to > experience the soul-changing nature of YK, and thus change the ba'asher > hu sham. Similarly oneshim or misah. I know all this could be seen as dachuq BUT, Divine Justice is the 11th iqar. I would prefer to take a number of chazal's statements as colloquial shorthand for more nuanced ideas than to dismiss what we have blessed as a defining feature of Yahadus. Or IOW, given that Ani Maamin and Yigdal made it into the siddur, I feel the burden rests on those who take itzumo shel yom in its simple sense. (And yes, "problematic" should be tken as "a problem for us to understand.") Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 10:08:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:08:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 midos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55EF15F0.8060200@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 06:50 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote; >> "It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that >> ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to >> have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there >> the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so >> obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. >> How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell?" > Rashi in Chumash quoting the Mechilta offers a second explanation of > why the ketores was used to end the plague. Bnei Yisrael were > complaining about the ketores that it was a sam hamaves, that it > killed people. The ketores killed Nadav and Avihu, it killed the 250 > people, therefore Hashem said watch that it can stop the plague and > that sin is what really kills people. > > We see clearly from this explanation that there was nothing magical > about using the ketores, rather Hashem wanted to make a point to the > Jewish people about the ketores. Yes, this is an alternative explanation, offered because the primary explanation leaves some question unanswered. But it is the second explanation rather than the first, because the problem with it is obvious: Hashem didn't tell Moshe to do this. Moshe told Aharon on his own initiative, which is why the gemara wonders how he knew that it would work. This is also why the Malach Hamaves challenged Aharon's right to stop him; if the instruction had come from Hashem he would have had no reason to object to being stopped. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 12:04:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:04:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55EF3124.3060704@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 05:10 AM, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: > Kal v?chomer, how can you daven on T?B and Y?K when you wake up > without having even drinking or eating and then must go another good > 12 hours on an empty stomach? Absolutely. But you don't have a choice. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 12:07:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:07:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> References: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EF31E7.5090303@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 11:14 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:35:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > : True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a > : measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very > : problematic... > > And I don't believe there is such a thing, so I have no problem. > > I suggested twice now 2007 > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol23/v23n174.shtml#12 and 2010 > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n130.shtml that > itzumo shel yom mechaperes only someone who acknowledges and embraces > the etzem shel yom. Rebbi is the one who says Itzumo shel yom mechaper, and he explicitly says that one who eats on YK is automatically forgiven the moment he swallows the food, so that the only way to get kares for eating on YK is to choke on the food and die before swallowing it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 10:18:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:18:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] thermostats Message-ID: as thermostats for the house get more sophisticated do they present a shabbat problem? http://www.cnet.com/products/nest-learning-thermostat-third-generation/?ftag=CAD1acfa04 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 10:37:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:37:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 12:11:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 15:11:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> References: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F08476.8010605@sero.name> On 09/09/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay > (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan. Whether it's allowed is a different question from how it works. Moser Shtorosav leveis din worked even when shmitah was d'oraisa. Tosfos says that Hillel didn't invent it, he merely legitimised it. Before his day it was known, but it was considered unethical, and no reputable beis din would go along with it. To do it required finding a fly-by- night beis din willing to entertain it, so upstanding lenders didn't take advantage, and instead were reluctant to lend. Then Hillel decreed his "solution for rich and poor", which was to instruct botei din to accept and even encourage such applications, so that people would be willing to lend. And he only felt comfortable doing so because shmita was d'rabonon. -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 15:32:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 18:32:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 09:30:46PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V33n118, R'Micha wrote: :> However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is :> more important than penimius. : Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what can : be seen? How is the surface of a lung or brain more visible than the innards? The only difference is how much cutting is required. In general, halakhah only deals with what can be seen in principle, not what happens to be visible in this instance. You can't eat unchecked lettuce any more readily because the light bulb blew in the room you're in. And in principle, these things can be checked. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 17:23:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:23:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> Re: Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom - Rabbi Natan Slifkin From: Ben Rothke via Areivim <_areivim at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:areivim at lists.aishdas.org) > >> "The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom" is the latest book by Rabbi Natan Slifkin. I found it to be a fascinating work. My review is here: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/book-review-the-torah-encyclopedia-of-the-ani mal-kingdom Let me know what you think. << --Ben Rothke >>>>> I think the book is magnificent. I've seen the first volume and read a good chunk of it (the projected second volume is not out yet). It is a fascinating work based on tremendous research, and also aesthetically beautiful. The first volume is about wild animals mentioned in the Torah. The projected second volume I believe is about domestic and kosher animals. The book definitively answers, at least to my satisfaction, a question I've wondered about for a long time: What is a re'em? According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). In Moshe's brachos to the shevatim he says Yoseph has "the horns of a re'em" (Dev. 33:17). Bil'am says when Hashem took the Jews out of Egypt He had "like the strength of a re'em" (Bamidbar 23:22). R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs, a huge and powerful horned animal, a wild ox, nearly the size of an elephant, that lived in Europe, Asia and North Africa. It went extinct only about 400 years ago. The last recorded aurochs died in Poland in 1627. BTW a description and drawing of the aurochs can be seen on pages 17 - 18 of a lovely 28-page monograph that is particularly appropriate for this season. See *Exotic Shofars: Halachic Considerations* by R' Natan Slifkin. http://zootorah.com/assets/media/essays/ExoticShofars.pdf --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 21:37:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:37:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> ------------------------------ I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem?s love for His people: ?If you sin, even if you?re not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here?s a ?ticket? of sorts that I?m giving you _now_ to show my love for you, that if you ?remind? me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate that you see yourselves as close to me, and I?ll give you some measure of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah.? The best Mashal I could think of for this is a PBA placard ? you buy it and put it in your car, and when the cop pulls you over for speeding, you show it to him and he goes easy on you, because he sees that you?re really a friend of the police. NOT because you demonstrated regret for speeding, necessarily. Does that make sense? KT, MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:14:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:14:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Thinking about, knowing about, and knowing G-d In-Reply-To: <000601d0eb81$09d77c90$1d8675b0$@gmail.com> References: <20150901180343.GC11612@aishdas.org> <20150903002115.GA1793@aishdas.org> <55F08884.3010503@sero.name> <000601d0eb81$09d77c90$1d8675b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150910191452.GD3345@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:27:43AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Areivim wrote: : R' ZS: :> The Nachum in your story is too busy to think about HKBH, and that's not :> good, but OTOH HKBH Himself said "I wish they would forget me and keep my :> Torah", so this Nachum is better than someone who is constantly :> thinking about HKBH but doesn't keep mitzvos. But this is why Tanya :> (ch 41) says to interrupt ones learning once an hour to think about why one :> is learning. : This discussion reminds me that there's another step - not only to think : about Hashem, but to _know_ about Hashem, as in the old story (excerpted : from a piece I wrote for "A Daily Dose of Torah"): : R' Levi Yitzchok of Berditchev studied for an extended period of time with : the Maggid, R' Dov Ber of Mezeritch. When he returned, his father-in-law - : who did not approve of R' Levi Yitzchok's leanings towards chassidus - asked : him, "What did you learn there?" R' Levi Yitzchok answered, "I learned that : Hashem exists." His father-in-law, annoyed, protested that everyone knows : that, and to prove it, asked the maid, "Does Hashem exist?" She answered, : "Certainly!" : "She says it," R' Levi Yitzchok responded, "but I know it!" : Certainly pertinent to Malchiyos. I often quote something R/Prof Shalom Carmy wrote in (Aug '01): > [RGStudent: ] >> However, in his Al HaTeshuvah (pp. 195-201), R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik >> investigates what it means to "know" God. As he points out, it is >> impossible to know God. Rather, the Rambam means that we are obligated to >> constantly recognize God's existence. As it says in Mishlei (3:6), "In all >> your ways know Him." Cf. Rabbeinu Yonah's commentary to Mishlei, ad loc. > People who throw around big words on these subjects always seem to take > for granted things that I don't. > The people who keep insisting that it's necessary to prove things about > G-d, including His existence, seem to take it for granted that devising > these proofs is identical with knowing G-d. > Now if I know a human being personally the last thing I'd do, except as > a purely intellectual exercise, is prove his or her existence. RMYG's point is similar to that in the quote from RGS. There is a difference between knowing about Gcd and knowing Gcd. The latter is experiential, and doesn't demand proof. And IMHO more related to Malkhios. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:23:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:23:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150910192331.GA25852@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 04:56:04PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger: :> I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although :> there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, :> Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an :> obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. : "Mah ashiv laShem, kol tagmulohi alai?" I do not see obligation here. Rather, how can I possibly repay, given that everything I have is from Him. Even if voluntarily. Therefore (next pasuq), I will simply recognize what He gave me (kos yeshu'os esa) and that He was the One Who gave it (uvsheim H' eqra), follow through on what I already promised.... Do you see new obligations in this pereq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:47:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:47:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:02:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. : I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear as : ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) ... It's an intersting point, but relating it to RYBS's position just confuses the matter. You're using the word "ceremony" in nearly the opposite sense. And while you note that: : I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview it. : Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not : ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view This isnt' merely an answer, it's an indication that you're discussing two different topics. There is no question, just a miscommunication. Anyway, the contrast between the usages of the word "ceremony" interested me. You listed a number of cases where a halachic legality can be accomplished through something the lay-person considers meaningless ritual: pruzbul, mechiras chameitz, heter isqa, ha'aramos, etc.. RYBS made that statement about ceremony in the sense of ritual in which the person finds meaning, but lacks halachic structure. The two examples that most readily leap to mind are (1) his disparaging kiruv that focuses on white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos candelabra, and (2) his modifying the minhagim of the Three Weeks and Nine Days because leshitaso, the minhagim must follow the same forms as ones found in hilkhos aveilus. I posted about this in Aug '08 at . I also noted in 2011 that RYBS's position that minhag must mirror halachic structure is in opposition to the Brisker Rav's (his uncle's) shitah. RYZS holds that one makes berakhos on minhagim that have a cheftzah shel mitzvah (eg lighting a Chanukah menorah in shul), and that the Rambam and Rabbeinu Tam don't argue about that. What they do argue about is whether Chatzi Hallel is close enough to Hallel to qualify for a berakhah. However, leshitas RYBS, there are no such minhagim that wouldn't require a berakhah. If Chatzi Hallel didn't require a berakhah because it's not close enough to the cheftzah shel mitzvah, it would be "ceremony", and not a valid minhag. He therefore would have to reject his uncle's chiddush. Neo-Chassidus is basically a MO rebellion to this kind of Halakhic Man approach to Yahadus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 10:54:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:54:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle Message-ID: <20150910175503.5E910182948@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6500 Picture, if you will, the hallowed halls of almost any Yeshivah, almost anywhere in the world, on Rosh Hashanah morning. As the strains of Shiras Chanah conclude, followed by the post-Haftarah brachos, there suddenly is a loud bang on the Bimah and the Gabbai calls out "Kiddush!" Most of those assembled take a break for a quick Kiddush and then return for the day's main Mitzvah - the Tekiyas Shofar, the Blowing of the Shofar. The reciting of 'Lamnatzeach' soon reach a crescendo, not unlike a deafening roar, as the congregation eagerly anticipates and prepares for the Shofar Blowing. Although this is indeed the common custom in almost every Yeshivah, curiously, the idea of making Kiddush and eating prior to the main Mitzvah of the day is considered an anathema to some. In fact, the Matteh Efraim, who is considered the authority on issues relating to the Yomim Nora'im, writes that it is actually prohibited to eat before Tekiyas Shofar, barring if one is weak, and, even only then, a small 'Te'imah', tasting of food, in private, is allowed.[1] If so, why do so many make Kiddush[2] and eat before Tekiyas Shofar? To sum up the matter, and although this dilemma is quite complicated, one must ascertain from his knowledgeable halachic authority, as well as taking his personal situation, strength level, and minhag into account, as to what to do on Rosh Hashanah morning.[23] Postscript: One interesting upshot of this machlokes seems to be the recent proliferation of Vasikin Minyanim on Rosh Hashanah. In this way, it is possible to daven all of Shacharis and Mussaf and still be able to make Kiddush after completing davening but still before Chatzos, as well as gain all the spiritual benefits of 'Davening Haneitz'.[24] A seemingly excellent way to avoid spiritual conflict on the Day of Judgment, all the while literally fulfilling the Rambam's famous dictum (Hilchos Teshuvah Ch. 3: 4) of 'Uru Yesheinim Mi'shnascham, Wake up you slumberers, from your sleep', for the clarion call of the Shofar. See the above URL for more. ---------- Any one living in Flatbush is welcome to come to the YI of Ave J Haskama Minyan on RH morning. We start at 7:15 and davening will be over by 11:30 (with Musaf). Then there is plenty of time to go home and make kiddush before Chatzos. Davening is on the second floor in the Simcha Hall. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 08:46:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:46:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha responded to me: >> Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what >> can be seen? > How is the surface of a lung or brain more visible than the innards? > The only difference is how much cutting is required. And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an external tool is required in order to 'see' something. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 13:00:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:00:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:46:32AM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: : And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external : magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an : external tool is required in order to 'see' something. You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying glass. To me that seems obvious. But to articulate it, I find myself going to words like cheftzah, which is a bit too technical to be appropriate language for relaying why I find it self-evident. The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. The magnifying glass compensates for the fact that water bears and other microscopic beasties are not in the realm of experience. We aren't getting the situation right, we are compensating for something with the cheftzah itself. To put it another way, maggot eggs do not have halachic existence. Do tiny crustaceans cease to exist and come back into existence if you flip the light off or on? (This is just different kind of appeal to cheftzah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 13:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:19:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha noted: > You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. < I omitted the blown lightbulb because IMHO the level of required light is a murky subject (poor attempt at humor :)). > I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying glass. < And I am disagreeing: you need an external tool to reach that inside area. Since you're pushing your "kasuv hashelishi", you also need to define what level of light is "normal" -- surely you're not saying that a bug which can only be 'seen' when the level of light exceeds *olam-hazeh* norms (e.g. the lumen level exceeds that of the sun at its strongest) qualifies as visible? > The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. < I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:46:32AM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: > : And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external > : magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an > : external tool is required in order to 'see' something. > > You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen > by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. > > I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing > the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying > glass. > > To me that seems obvious. But to articulate it, I find myself going > to words like cheftzah, which is a bit too technical to be appropriate > language for relaying why I find it self-evident. > > The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, > the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside > the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an > aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is > within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. > > The magnifying glass compensates for the fact that water bears and > other microscopic beasties are not in the realm of experience. We aren't > getting the situation right, we are compensating for something with the > cheftzah itself. > > To put it another way, maggot eggs do not have halachic existence. > Do tiny crustaceans cease to exist and come back into existence if > you flip the light off or on? (This is just different kind of appeal > to cheftzah.) > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole > micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." > http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, > Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 17:40:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:40:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911004049.GA29555@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 05:20:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> The recent court to allow conversion of under bar/bat mitzvah children is :> controversial. The bone of contention is whether it is considred a zechut :> for children to become Jewish when they grow up in a non-religious setting. I thought we dissuade geirim (non-qetanim) in part because this is not true. Alternatively: How do the meiqilim justify this practice, particularly in venues (Golden Age of Spain, much of the world today) where there is comparatively little antisemisim? Rashi (Yevamos 74a, "de'amar) is concerned about the sinning convert's influence on other Jews. This being R' Chelbo's "qasheh ... kesapachas". Tosafos understand R' Chelbo as referring to the extra issurim of mistreating a geir, or that they make us look bad. The Semag (Lav 116, quoted by the BY YD 268) says we dissuade the ger to make sure he knows exactly what he is accepting, avoiding a "meqach ta'us" (my term). On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:27:59PM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious : Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also : for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for : reasons of Nationalism. Or, that being a Jew in Israel is so much better that zakhin le'adam shelo befanav applies. IOW, not by reasons of nationalism, but by taking nationalism into account as part of the metzi'us. Similar to those who rule that we do not dissuade a non-halachic convert, since they will be living among the Jews and their children will quite likely marry Jews either way. And in the latest volume of IM (vol 9, EhE 14), RMF similarly tells a BD to be proactive in convertain someone who thought until now they were Jewish. He even invoked the case of Timna, saying that to not do so would be to be repeating the avos' mistake. So we do see that facts on the ground about whether it is beneficial for the life they will be leading do matter. The bigger problem I have is qabbalas ol mitzvos. RnCL and I argued at length about whether the following qualifies as QOM, but whatever you want to call it.... Upon reaching adulthood, the geir has to affirm their acceptance of the mitzvos. While people pictures this means coming to BD on their 12th or 13th birthday, that is impossible -- the affirmation would have to be tokh kedei dibur of growing shenei sa'aros. Instead, BD sees if during that span of their lives they were observant, and if they were, we consider the geirus affirmed. This din is real enough that the gemara asks about a giyores from when she was less than 3, who is married of to a kohein as a qetana may be given terumah. After all, she might annull the geirus, in which case should would retroactively not have been an eishes kohein! The gemara answers based on rov (most children do not choose to convert out of the religion they were raised with), not that the affirmation is optional. So, what's going to happen to these qetanim when they reach adulthood? How can they be said to have effectively accepted ol mitzvos? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 17:20:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:20:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan >>> Agreed. But there still has to be rules, logic, framework. My original post was a request for help in identifying those rules. (And for now, Rav Asher Weiss' explanation seems quite plausible.). Example: If the streets in my town are a reshus harabim, there's no way to carry on Shabbos without actual walls. If the streets are merely karmelis, then we can make a haarama to say that the area is surrounded by a series of doorways. But they have got to be real halachic doorways; if even one lechi has the string on the side instead of above, forget it. So too here. I don't mind being moser to beis din, if only I was clear on what it is that I'm giving them, and how that happens, and what it accomplishes. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:04:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:04:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911010426.GA12008@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 08:20:47PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I actually thought pruzbul only works because : ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan >>> : : Agreed. But there still has to be rules, logic, framework... I was mostly dismissing your mentioning the lack of qinyan sudar. We can make a shaliach without one, for a ha'aramah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:25:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:25:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> References: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150911012558.GA18449@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:37:41AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: :> The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without :> necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> : I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem's love for His people: "If you : sin, even if you're not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, : here's a "ticket" of sorts that I'm giving you now to show my love for : you, that if you 'remind' me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate : that you see yourselves as close to me, and I'll give you some measure : of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah." But spending time demonstracting our desire for or actual closeness to HQBH is itself arguably a measure of teshuvah. And in any case avoids my problem with ascribing power to a sequence of syllables in and of themselves. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:29:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:29:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:23:44PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job : 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and : 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). : R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs... He argues that it's an auroachs. Calling any identification of this sort a "demonstration" is overly confident. Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we can use mythical creatures as metaphors. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 20:00:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:00:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I was mostly dismissing your mentioning the lack of qinyan sudar. We can make a shaliach without one, for a ha'aramah. >>> I presume you mean like how I can make the rav my shaliach for mechiras chometz without any kinyan. (In practice we do make a kinyan, but only as a chumrah.) So I don't need a kinyan at pruzbul either, and I can make the beis din a shliach without any kinyan. Okay. But if so, then exactly what is it that I'm making the beis din my shaliach FOR? What are they doing on my behalf? If I am making them my shaliach to collect my loans on my behalf, then that sounds like Rav Asher Weiss' explanation. Sure, beis din is patur from lo yigos, but it was a big chidush to me that that's enough to exempt me from being m'shamet a loan that I still own. (But if one wants to go with the Collection Agency idea, then shlichus is irrelevant - beis din would need to own the loan.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 20:51:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:51:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: <1a9316.271c37fb.4323a9c7@aol.com> In a message dated 9/10/2015 9:29:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, micha at aishdas.org writes: Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. >>> That is a fascinating and insightful point! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 02:00:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:00:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha In-Reply-To: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> References: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > Please elaborate BTW The Jewish Action had a recent article on the popularity of MO neo-chassidut. I went to a wedding this week where the chatan learns in a yeshiva from Ofra. To my sight it looked like a Breslov Yeshiva. Big white kippot with extreme dancing. The boys mostly has long peyot. The Rosh Yeshiva/mesader kedushin put on a tallit for the chuppa which I had never seen. He stressed that the chatan's tallit had techelet and he should make a shecheyanu but no bracha on the tallit since it was night, etc However, this was a RZ wedding with a bracha for the soldiers etc. On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:02:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > : RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. > : I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear > as > : ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) > ... > > It's an intersting point, but relating it to RYBS's position just > confuses the matter. You're using the word "ceremony" in nearly > the opposite sense. And while you note that: > : I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview > it. > : Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not > : ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view > > This isnt' merely an answer, it's an indication that you're discussing > two different topics. There is no question, just a miscommunication. > > Anyway, the contrast between the usages of the word "ceremony" interested > me. > > You listed a number of cases where a halachic legality can be accomplished > through something the lay-person considers meaningless ritual: pruzbul, > mechiras chameitz, heter isqa, ha'aramos, etc.. > > RYBS made that statement about ceremony in the sense of ritual in which > the person finds meaning, but lacks halachic structure. > > The two examples that most readily leap to mind are (1) his disparaging > kiruv that focuses on white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos candelabra, > and (2) his modifying the minhagim of the Three Weeks and Nine Days > because leshitaso, the minhagim must follow the same forms as ones found > in hilkhos aveilus. I posted about this in Aug '08 at > . > > I also noted in 2011 that RYBS's position that minhag must mirror halachic > structure is in opposition to the Brisker Rav's (his uncle's) shitah. RYZS > holds that one makes berakhos on minhagim that have a cheftzah shel > mitzvah (eg lighting a Chanukah menorah in shul), and that the Rambam > and Rabbeinu Tam don't argue about that. What they do argue about is > whether Chatzi Hallel is close enough to Hallel to qualify for a berakhah. > > However, leshitas RYBS, there are no such minhagim that wouldn't require > a berakhah. If Chatzi Hallel didn't require a berakhah because it's not > close enough to the cheftzah shel mitzvah, it would be "ceremony", and not > a valid minhag. He therefore would have to reject his uncle's chiddush. > > Neo-Chassidus is basically a MO rebellion to this kind of Halakhic > Man approach to Yahadus. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, > micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just > http://www.aishdas.org beginning. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 09:03:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:03:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> I have been asking this question to various people, and several have suggested that the answer is somewhere in the range of "hefker bes din" and "amiraso legavoah kimsiraso lahedyot". IOW, beis din doesn't need to make a kinyan; its inherent power is sufficient to take possession of your loans as soon as you verbally relinquish them. -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 08:02:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:02:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony Message-ID: <> It would seem that RYBS's definition of a ceremony is almost a tautology. If it is anything of religious significance then its not a ceremony. Otherwise who cares. It is only modern customs that present a difficulty because we don't establish new categories. In the old days customs like lighting the menorah in shul or havdala in shul became invested with religious significance because they were public customs Question minyana d-yoma Is the custom of "simanim" on RH a ceremony? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:53:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:53:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911175305.GC18449@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 06:02:04PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : It would seem that RYBS's definition of a ceremony is almost a tautology. : If it is anything of religious significance then its not a ceremony. If a ritual is of halachic significance then it's not a ceremony (as RYBS used the word in coining the aphorism we're discussing). Now, to Halakhic Man, one can say there is no Yahadus except halakhah, and therefore ceremony is not part of Yahadus. So, RYBS's position on ceremony is a natural consequence of Halakhic Man, but they aren't a tautology according to other derakhim. To other hashkafos, white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos licht may not define Shabbos, but they can for many help foster the atmosphere hilkhos Shabbos create. Which is why I mentioned the spread of Chavaquq-like Judaism in YU. Because Chassidus is big on ritual. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 05:49:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:49:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. >>> R' Michael Poppers responded: <<< I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. >>> The lungs of a *dead* cow are easily accessible if one has a knife; no super-vision is needed there. It is only the lungs of a *living* cow where one would need super-vision (especially if I need the cow to stay alive for more milk next week). Hmmm... Do we consider the lungs of a living cow as visible like a large insect, or as nonexistent like beitzei kinim? The nafka mina is the kashrus of that cow's milk. I would *like* to say that the lungs are invisible and inconsequential. But IIRC we can drink the milk because of rov - most lungs are kosher. There is a real possibility that the lungs are treif, and we deal with that possibility in a manner *other* than "lo nitna Torah l'malachei hashareis". Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 09:47:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:47:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] asmachta Message-ID: see point 5 , on the idea that could asmachta be a talmudic example of , well let the reader decide http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/09/artscroll-and-more.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:23:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:23:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? Message-ID: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, but again whatever Hashem does is good.) Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 11:06:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:06:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150911180646.GE18449@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 01:23:04PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" : (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever : Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the : year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, : but again whatever Hashem does is good.) >From my blog post at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov :-)BBii! -Micha Shetir'u baTov The Bostoner Rebbe (of Boston) commented once on the expression "Shanah tovah umsuqah - a good and sweet new year", which is related to the famous custom of having apple and honey on Rosh haShanah.What does "umsuqah -- and sweet" add, beyond the notion of "tovah -- good"? As Rabbi Aqiva often said, "All that the All Merciful does, He does for the good". An echo of the words of one of his rabbeim, Nachum ish Gamzu, who would greet events that would disappoint or depress most of us with "Gam zu letovah -- this too is for the best." So actually, wishing one another a good year could be thought of as being redundant. Everything is good, how could this year be any different? However, not everything I was told was "for my own good" was particularly pleasant. Therefore, the rebbe teaches, we wish that the year not only be tovah, good, but also be mesuqah, sweet to our perception as well. Along the same lines, I had a thought about a phrase in Shabbos and Yom Tov davening : Our L-rd, and the L-rd of our fathers, sanctify us bemitzvosekha (through Your mitzvos), and put our portion beSorasekha (in Your Torah), satisfy us mituvekha (from Your Goodness), and make us (or: our souls qua living force) biyshuasekha (in Your salvation)... The predicate prefix has an oddity: it says bemitzvosekha, beSorasekha, and later, beyshu'asekha. But by goodness, the prefix is "mituvekha" -- "from", not "be-" ("in" or "through") like by the others. The reason, I believe, is because we are asking for something inherently different. We can ask G-d to make us more holy by allowing us to do more mitzvos, or give us the opportunity to learn more Torah, or make us happier by saving us more often. This is "be-", we are asking for more of a gift by asking for more of the vehicle He uses to give it to us. Since everything G-d does is good, we can't be asking for G-d to give us more good, and thereby make us more satisfied. There is no more good for us to get. Rather, we are asking for more satisfaction with the goodness He already provides. This is why the "mi-" prefix is used. This is also in contrast to Rebbe's words (Berakhos 50a) about benching, that a wise person says "uvtuvo chayinu -- and through His good we live", and a boor, "umituvo chayinu -- and from His good, we live". Rebbe says that "umituvo" is incorrect because it says that we live through some of His Good, implying that Hashem gives meagerly. Perhaps it's different here, when we ask for happiness, because the truth is that if we had a full realization of even a small part of His Good would be enough to satisfy. Like the piyut we sing at the seider. We list fifteen things Hashem did for us when taking us out of Egypt. But had He done any one of those 15 alone, "Dayeinu"! R Shelomo Wolbe^zt"l would part someone's company wishing him "shetir'u batov -- may you see the good!" Because the tense of "tir'u" is ambiguous, this is both a berakhah and a mussar shmuess. Taken in the future tense, "May you see", it becomes a blessing that Hashem allow him to see all that's good in his life. In the imperative, the same work becomes "Look", advice to the person to take the initiative and seek out the good of every situation. To aspire to the middah of Nachum ish Gamzu and Rabbi Aqiva of realizing the Hand of G-d in everything, and looking to see how even the tragedies in our lives are necessary steps to something bigger which He has in store for us. The two together yields a profound combined meaning. Live is the product of a partnership between myself and G-d. It is the sum of my free-willed decisions and the hand Hashem deals me. "Shetir'u beTov" addresses both at the same time, by praying that Hashem show the person good, and that the person look to find it. A greeting that recognizes the fundamental covenant by which man is redeemed. It's a beautiful greeting, one worth adopting. Wishing others could taste the sweetness. Shetir'u baTov! (With thanks to RYGB for helping me find the gemara.) Like this: Like Loading... Related You may also like... * [13]3 [14]The Devastating Power of Leitznus ? ???? ???? - December 28, 2006 * [15]0 [16]The Desire to Desire ?? ????? ???? - August 28, 2007 * [17]0 [18]Nine Qavim at the Buffet ?? ????? ???? - March 27, 2008 2 Responses * [19]Comments1 * [20]Pingbacks1 1. Anonymous says: [21]? ????? ???? - September 29, 2006 at 1:25pm Possibly related - stolen waters are described as sweet, which tells us something unpleasant about the human condition. Perhaps what we are requesting is not only an objectively good year, but the ability to appreciate that goodness, similar to the way in which we regrettably now enjoy the prohibited. - Moishe Potemkin [22]Reply 1. [23]Aspaqlaria ? Blog Archive ? ?? ???? ???"? ?? ????? ???? - September 5, 2007 [...] berakhos for a Shanah tovah umsuqah, as the Bostoner Rebbe put it, a year that is we not only conceptually know to be good, but has a sweetness we can taste and [...] And your thoughts...? [24]Cancel reply IFRAME: [25]jetpack_remote_comment Follow: * * * * * [26]Next story Sweet Charoses * [27]Previous story Nine Qavim at the Buffet ____________________ Subscribe Name: ____________________ email: ____________________ * [28]Entries * [29]Comments * [30]PodCast New & Popular * [31]Recent Posts * [32]Popular Posts * [33]Recent Comments * [34]My Life as a Pendulum ? ????? ???? - September 3, 2015 * [35]Copyright ?? ??? ???? - August 13, 2015 * [36]What does Hashem ask of you? ?? ??? ???? - August 7, 2015 * [37]?? ?????? ???? ? ??? ???? - July 23, 2015 * [38]Gratitude and Thankfulness ?? ????? ???? - July 16, 2015 * [39]Emunah Peshutah vs Machashavah ?? ????? ???? - November 30, 2004 * [40]Balancing Simplicity and Authenticity ? ????? ??? - July 1, 2010 * [41]The Kuzari Proof, part I ?? ???? ???? - December 22, 2004 * [42]What is Frumkeit? ? ???? ? ???? - February 9, 2014 * [43]The Curriculum at Volozhin ? ????? ???? - May 23, 2012 * David Zalkin says: [44]Regarding giving precedence to the Aruch HaShulchan over the MB, my... * Eliezer Eisenberg says: [45]Excellent. Thanks for sharing. * Ilana Sober Elzufon says: [46]Intriguing. I really value the all-women's spaces that Orthodox Judaism provides,... * micha says: [47]You're right. A poor choice of words. Correcting.Thank you. * Dr. Yitzchok Levine says: [48]You wrote, "Shul looks like a boy's club because it was... Aspaqlaria ? 2015. All Rights Reserved. Powered by [49]WordPress. Theme by [50]Alx. * * * * IFRAME: [51]likes-master %d bloggers like this: References Visible links 1. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/feed 2. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/comments/feed 3. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov/feed 4. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 5. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/sweet-charoses 6. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ 7. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/category/mussar/middos 8. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#comments 9. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/author/admin 10. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#stbt 11. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/01/vetaheir-libeinu.shtml 12. http://www.aishdas.org/rygb 13. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus#comments 14. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus 15. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire#comments 16. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire 17. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet#comments 18. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 19. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#commentlist-container 20. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#pinglist-container 21. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov/comment-page-1#comment-72 22. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov?replytocom=72#respond 23. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/09/%d7%9b%d7%92-%d7%90%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%9c-%d7%aa%d7%a9%d7%9e%d7%90.shtml 24. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#respond 25. http://jetpack.wordpress.com/jetpack-comment/?blogid=11004584&postid=134&comment_registration=0&require_name_email=1&stc_enabled=1&stb_enabled=1&show_avatars=1&avatar_default=identicon&greeting=And+your+thoughts...%3F&greeting_reply=Leave+a+Reply+to+%25s&color_scheme=light&lang=en-US&jetpack_version=3.7&sig=04e58004b358ee700890b798c328f7cfd8e7fee6#parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aishdas.org%2Fasp%2Ftireh-betov 26. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/sweet-charoses 27. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 28. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/feed 29. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/comments/feed 30. http://feeds.feedburner.com/AspPodCast 31. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-recent 32. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-popular 33. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-comments 34. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/my-life-as-pendulum 35. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/copyright 36. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask 37. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/%d7%91%d7%9f-%d7%97%d7%9e%d7%99%d7%a9%d7%99%d7%9d-%d7%9c%d7%a2%d7%a6%d7%94 38. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gratitude-thankfulness 39. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/emunah-peshutah-vs-machashavah 40. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/balancing-simplicity-and-authenticity 41. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/kuzari-proof-part-i 42. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-is-frumkeit 43. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-curriculum-at-volozhin 44. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/textualism-mb/comment-page-1#comment-60227 45. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask/comment-page-1#comment-60184 46. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60105 47. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60102 48. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60101 49. http://wordpress.org/ 50. http://alxmedia.se/ 51. http://widgets.wp.com/likes/master.html?ver=20141028#ver=20141028 Hidden links: 53. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus 54. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire 55. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 56. http://www.facebook.com/micha.berger 57. http://www.linkedin.com/in/rmsberger 58. https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MichaBerger 59. http://www.twitter.com/aishdas 60. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/textualism-mb/comment-page-1#comment-60227 61. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask/comment-page-1#comment-60184 62. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60105 63. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60102 64. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60101 65. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov 66. http://www.facebook.com/micha.berger 67. http://www.linkedin.com/in/rmsberger 68. https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MichaBerger 69. http://www.twitter.com/aishdas From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:01:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:01:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> Message-ID: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when shmitta is d'Orayta again? On 9/11/2015 7:03 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > I have been asking this question to various people, and several have > suggested that the answer is somewhere in the range of "hefker bes din" > and "amiraso legavoah kimsiraso lahedyot". IOW, beis din doesn't need > to make a kinyan; its inherent power is sufficient to take possession > of your loans as soon as you verbally relinquish them. > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:05:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:05:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F56682.4070005@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 04:01 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when > shmitta is d'Orayta again? Why wouldn't it? Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din declares it unethical. And I don't think that will happen, because such a declaration wouldn't stop it, it would just drive it to the disreputable batei din. Now that everyone knows about it you can't make people forget it; Hillel uncorked the idea and it can't be pushed back into the bottle. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:05:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:05:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> On 9/11/2015 4:29 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:23:44PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: > : According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job > : 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and > : 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). > > : R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs... > > He argues that it's an auroachs. Calling any identification of this sort a > "demonstration" is overly confident. Agreed. > Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever > sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim > who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we > can use mythical creatures as metaphors. How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty plural to me. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:02:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:02:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you won't experience that as a good thing. On 9/11/2015 8:23 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A > good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever > Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the > year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, > but again whatever Hashem does is good.) > > Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." > > Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. > > YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 02:22:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 05:22:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:02 AM 9/13/2015, you wrote: >On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But if >you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you won't >experience that as a good thing. Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries. If your injuries are not severe, and you collect a hefty sum from the driver's insurance company, then you may indeed view it as a good thing! All things have to be considered in context. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:57:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:57:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 05:22:08AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: :> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But :> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you :> won't experience that as a good thing. : Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries... We're getting off point. I believe Lisa's reponse was similar to my repeating the distinction between "shanah tovah" and "umsuqah", without leading to the problem of the "wrong" word being used in "Leshanah tovah tekhaseivu". We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- what ra? I thought there is no ra? It would seem we often speak of tov vara in terms of how they're experienced, rather than some abstract reality in which we know (or should know) "gam zu letovah". Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:57:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:57:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 05:22:08AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: :> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But :> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you :> won't experience that as a good thing. : Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries... We're getting off point. I believe Lisa's reponse was similar to my repeating the distinction between "shanah tovah" and "umsuqah", without leading to the problem of the "wrong" word being used in "Leshanah tovah tekhaseivu". We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- what ra? I thought there is no ra? It would seem we often speak of tov vara in terms of how they're experienced, rather than some abstract reality in which we know (or should know) "gam zu letovah". Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 06:39:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:39:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. In RM's opinion, shmitta won't be d'Orayata again until the Messiah comes. Ben On 9/13/2015 10:01 AM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when > shmitta is d'Orayta again? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:46:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:46:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: <<< Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din declares it unethical. >>> Perhaps. But I would think that the impropriety of using pruzbul in a d'Oraisa time was pretty implicit (perhaps even explicit) in how Hillel promoted it, and there is no need for a future beis din to point it out. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 06:41:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 09:41:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor Message-ID: <09a801d0ee29$ef34d030$cd9e7090$@com> The sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor is avail for free download at - http://hebrewbooks.org/53838 review of sefer - http://seforim.blogspot.ca/2015/09/review-of-dovid-bashevkins-sefer.html Review of Dovid Bashevkin's Sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor By Rabbi Yitzchok Oratz Rabbi Yitzchok Oratz, a musmach of Beth Medrash Govoha, is the Rabbi and Director of the Monmouth Torah Links community in Marlboro, NJ. God knows the nature of every generation, Rabbi Dovid Bashevkin has written a Sefer uniquely appropriate for the nature of ours[1]. Take a trip to your local Jewish bookseller during this time period, and you will find numerous seforim, old[2] and new[3], on the themes of sin and repentance. Although they certainly vary in style and quality, a common denominator among many is the heavy reliance on Rambam's Hilchos Teshuva and Sha'arey Teshuva of Rabbeinu Yonah of Gerondi[4]. And this is to be expected. Timeless classics, these works of the great Rishonim are unmatched in their systematic and detailed discussion of sin and punishment, free will[5] and repentance, and are a prerequisite study for any serious discussion of Teshuva. But therein lays the dilemma. For although Rabbeinu Yonah maps out the exalted levels of Teshuva that one should certainly strive for, they seem not to be for the faint of heart. Is our generation really up to the task of embracing the sorrow, suffering, and worry, the humbling and lowering oneself[6], without allowing for the concomitant sense of despair[7] and despondence[8]? And how many of us can honestly stand before the Creator, and proclaim that we will "never return" to our negative actions, to the extent that God Himself will testify that this is the case[9]? If confession without sincere commitment to change is worthless[10], does repeating last year's failed commitments not require choosing between giving up and fooling ourselves? This is where B'Rogez Rachem Tizkor comes in. Based heavily on the thought of Izbica in general, and Reb Tzadok ha-Kohen of Lublin in particular, it discusses the value of spiritual struggle, the interplay between determinism and free will, the redemptive potential of sin, and the status of those who have not yet arisen from their fall. Overall, the sefer is a good introduction to R' Tzadok for those who are not familiar with his thought, and offers many insightful and fascinating comments even for those who are. My main critiques are that some of the discussion of the more controversial statements of Izbica required more elaboration[14], the lack thereof leads to a seeming conflating of two similar, yet far from identical, concepts, and more contrasting and supporting texts (both from within Izbica and R' Tzadok's thought and without) would have made for a stronger case and deeper understanding. My hope is to fill in these gaps in some small measure. Hopefully it will further enlighten those whose appetite was whet by this fine work. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:05:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:05:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F59EAF.30104@sero.name> See Tanya chapter 26. There is really no such thing as bad; there is merely the good that we can see and the good that we can't see. But we'd much prefer the kind that we can see, and we ask Hashem to give us that kind of good rather than the other kind. http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7905/jewish/Chapter-26.htm -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:11:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:11:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F5A021.4040809@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 08:46 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The >> only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right >> to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when >> shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din >> declares it unethical. > > Perhaps. But I would think that the impropriety of using pruzbul in a > d'Oraisa time was pretty implicit (perhaps even explicit) in how > Hillel promoted it, and there is no need for a future beis din to > point it out. How so? He didn't say anything about it being improper when shmita is de'oraisa, he merely said here is a solution we can use. The question is why nobody did it before, and the answer is because batei din considered it unethical. Now when were these batei din considering it unethical? In the time of Bayit Rishon?! No, it was in Hillel's day, which is why he needed to make his takanah. And in his day it was already derabbanan. The only relevance of it being derabanan is that had it been deoraisa in Hillel's day, he would not have felt he had the right to promote a way around it, no matter how great the need he saw. But since it was derabanan, and he saw a problem that needed fixing, he was bold and publicised this trick, and declared that nobody should feel guilty about using it. There's no indication that he mentioned shmita's drabanan status at all. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 08:52:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:52:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In Avodah V33n123, RAkivaM responded to me: >> I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. << > The lungs of a *dead* cow are easily accessible if one has a knife; no super-vision is needed there. It is only the lungs of a *living* cow where one would need super-vision (especially if I need the cow to stay alive for more milk next week). < A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the human eye without opening it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 11:55:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:55:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150913185550.GC10636@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 08:57:35AM -0400, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: ::> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But ::> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you ::> won't experience that as a good thing. ... : We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- : what ra? I thought there is no ra? Addenda in response to private email: Well, I didn't mean to get all Izhbitz... I meant the evil we experience, the tragic, and not the evil that we do, the wrong.. But I did buy into more univeralistic models of hashgachah peratis, that at least every person's fate is subject to HP (pace the Rambam or Or haChaim), and thus the tragic has a point. If not itself tovsh, it is letovah. Which still leaves us with R/Prof Levine's original question sbout blessing others with shanah tovah. ... : Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be : experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even : that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) But even the evil that we do is more like a missed opposrtunity for good than a beryah. Much the way Yeshaiah pairs evil with darkness "yotzeir or uvorei choshekh ... uvorei es hara." Althouh it's possible that Yeshiah considered darkness to be a beryah, the way Chazal talk about the thick darkness of makas choshekh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 12:00:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:00:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:52:48AM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the : human eye without opening it. The sun is also an external tool. This is wh I think we need more nuance here. It might depend on whether a hollow inside the lung is judged as a lung that is defective in a way we can't see without a knife, or the hole is a mum that we could be able to see ourselves if the ourside of the lung weren't in the way. But in either case, I still csn't articulste what seems to me to be a obvious difference. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 07:07:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 10:07:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akeidah of the Mind Message-ID: <20150913140741.CE67A180E46@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from pages 588 - 590 of Rav Schwab on Chumash. Please note the words "Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave the human being a mind to understand Him. Whatever one studies in the world, be it science, history, economics, mathematics, or anything else, it is actually the study of the revelations of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Our mind is given to us to enable us to understand as much about C-d as is humanly possible. This is borne out in many places throughout Torah and Nach ... This means that we are not merely to accept that which our forefathers have taught us about C-d but we are to attempt to know, to understand as much as we can about Hashem ... The Rav (Rav Shimon Schwab, ZT"L) was firmly convinced that since Moshe emes v'Toraso emes, the Torah and our Rabbinic mesorah are inviolable and, one day, answers would be found answers these questions. He would say that sometimes one must offer his mind as an "akeidah" to Hakadosh Baruch Hu where human reasoning has not yet found answers to apparent contradictions between the inviolable eternal truth of the Torah, the truthful writing (Daniel 10:21), and historical or scientific finds which are subject to change. In his lectures on Iyov, he offered the following comments on this subject. "... By accepting C-d's command, Avraham Avinu had sacrificed his own mind to comply with the will of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. While Avraham attempts to understand C-d, nevertheless, when C-d1s command contradicts that understanding, Avraham sacrifices his mind to the will of C-d, just as one would forfeit his life if the halachah required it, rather than violate the three cardinal sins. "Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave the human being a mind to understand Him. Whatever one studies in the world, be it science, history, economics, mathematics, or anything else, it is actually the study of the revelations of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Our mind is given to us to enable us to understand as much about C-d as is humanly possible. This is borne out in many places throughout Torah and Nach ... This means that we are not merely to accept that which our forefathers have taught us about C-d but we are to attempt to know, to understand as much as we can about Hashem ... "... This is why the mitzvah of learning Torah is so important; in fact it is our most important mitzvah. When we learn Torah, we employ our mind in the service of Hakadosh Baruch Hu by studying C-d's will as revealed to us in the Torah. And if we have questions or contradictions, we must use our mind to the best of our capacity to attempt to resolve them within the parameters of Torah study. "... So, while we are encouraged to use our mind, as much as reason allows, to serve C-d, to understand Him, and to answer questions, nevertheless, when all reason fails us, and we cannot go any further with human understanding, when our mind is staggered, we must be prepared to I/sacrifice our mind/I to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. We must throw up our hands and say that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is right whether we understand it or not. One could call this 'the akeidah of the mind.' "When science poses questions which seemingly contradict our basic truths, we must make an effort to answer these questions. But if the answers are elusive, we must sacrifice our mind and subjugate it to the revealed truths of the Torah. Fortunately, baruch Hashem, as yet, I have not found any questions of this sort- for instance, regarding the age of the universe, evolution, ancient civilizations- for which I have not found possible answers. But it could happen, and one has to be ready for it. If suddenly a scientific discovery were to arise which clearly seems to contradict the Torah, we would then have to admit that the question is excellent but nevertheless, the Torah is right because it is the revealed wisdom of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. It is "Toras Emes, 11 absolute truth, all questions notwithstanding. Answers will no doubt eventually be found to such contradictions, but in the meantime, by accepting the veracity of the Torah without reservations, we will have offered our mind as an 'akeidah' to Hakadosh Baruch Hu.'' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 11:36:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:36:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? Message-ID: <1f9d87.3cc2b5a7.43271c34@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, but again whatever Hashem does is good.) Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. YL >>>>> When others wish you well you should wish them well too, mipnei darkei shalom. A long philosophical treatise about how even illness, accidents and financial losses are actually all good things will not endear you to anyone. Another answer to your question is: we wish our friends (and ourselves) brachos from the Ribono Shel Olam that are sweet and obvious even to our limited human eyes, and not the other kind. Certainly we appreciate that the dentist's drill or the surgeon's knife is doing us a favor and repairing what needs repairing, but we prefer not to have the cavity and not to need the surgery in the first place. However if you simply cannot bring yourself to utter a blessing that seems philosophically dubious to you, I would suggest that you overcome that feeling, bentsh your fellow Jews anyway, and may Hashem in turn overcome His philosophical doubts and bless you and all of us in kind. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 07:15:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (RCK via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 17:15:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty > plural to me. >Lisa Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book *Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew * [image: Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] [image: Academia.edu] [image: Google Scholar] [image: LinkedIN] [image: Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:00:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:00:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F59DB4.6080103@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 04:05 AM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >> Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever >> sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim >> who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we >> can use mythical creatures as metaphors. > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty > plural to me. Because Yosef is a shor, not a re'em, even if each of his horns is that of a re'em. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 12:29:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:29:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 10:15 AM, RCK via Avodah wrote: > Lisa wrote: >> How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty >> plural to me. > Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=11650&pgnum=227 I don't understand the Bachur's comment. Surely the Radak explicitly addressed his objection, so why does he still raise it? (Unless these notes were not written on the Shorashim at all, and some printer decided to mash them together at random.) -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 13:59:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 16:59:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> References: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha replied: > The sun is also an external tool. < Which is why I previously differentiated between the sun _or_ a substitute light source no brighter than it and between what I call "external tools." > This is wh I think we need more nuance here. < My theory is that anything we, a 6th-Day "creation", can see with the tools provided as part of the *b'riyah* (or, again, a fair substitute) is within our Halachic field of vision. Best wishes for a *shanah tovah umsuqah* from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:52:48AM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: > : A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the > : human eye without opening it. > > The sun is also an external tool. > > This is wh I think we need more nuance here. > > It might depend on whether a hollow inside the lung is judged as a lung > that is defective in a way we can't see without a knife, or the hole is > a mum that we could be able to see ourselves if the ourside of the lung > weren't in the way. > > But in either case, I still csn't articulste what seems to me to be > a obvious difference. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea > micha at aishdas.org of instincts. > http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter > Fax: (270) 514-1507 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 15 10:01:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (RCK via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:01:11 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> References: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> Message-ID: It's a good question, in fact, the Bayis HaGadol (also known as Biur) on Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer (end of ch. 19) asks this on HaBachur. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book *Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew * [image: Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] [image: Academia.edu] [image: Google Scholar] [image: LinkedIN] [image: Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/13/2015 10:15 AM, RCK via Avodah wrote: > >> Lisa wrote: >> > > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty >>> plural to me. >>> >> > Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. >> > > http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=11650&pgnum=227 > > I don't understand the Bachur's comment. Surely the Radak explicitly > addressed his objection, so why does he still raise it? (Unless these > notes were not written on the Shorashim at all, and some printer decided > to mash them together at random.) > > -- > Zev Sero KvChT > zev at sero.name > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 15 17:45:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:45:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150916004501.GA21666@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 04:59:29PM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: :> This is wh I think we need more nuance here. : My theory is that anything we, a 6th-Day "creation", can see with the tools : provided as part of the *b'riyah* (or, again, a fair substitute) is within : our Halachic field of vision. You mean, like a sharp rock? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 01:43:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:43:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: R' MYG wrote: "I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem?s love for His people: ?If you sin, even if you?re not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here?s a ?ticket? of sorts that I?m giving you _now_ to show my love for you, that if you ?remind? me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate that you see yourselves as close to me, and I?ll give you some measure of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah.? The best Mashal I could think of for this is a PBA placard ? you buy it and put it in your car, and when the cop pulls you over for speeding, you show it to him and he goes easy on you, because he sees that you?re really a friend of the police. NOT because you demonstrated regret for speeding, necessarily. Does that make sense?" Not really, Hashem is perfect and all knowing, you can't bribe him. Why should you need to remind him of anything? Hashem knows exactly who you are and how close you are to him. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 02:35:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:35:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916093543.GA10685@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:43:35AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Not really, Hashem is perfect and all knowing, you can't bribe him. Why : should you need to remind him of anything? Hashem knows exactly who you are : and how close you are to him. That's ust an inherent limitation in the mashal. (Any mashal where the nimshal is G-d, is going to be limited for the same reason you give.) Lemaaseh, He may Remember everything, but I don't. Going through the exercises keep my own beliefs more conscious and reinforces them. Setting up a pointless reminder to remind Him has function in that it reminds me. Which is how I understood RMYG's original answer: that reciting the 13 middoes is "more of a symbol of Hashem's love for His people: 'If you sin, even if you're not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here's a 'ticket' of sorts that I'm giving you _now_ to show my love for you...'" We need to remember the closeness, to keep it real in our minds, which then deepens our belief in it. Which is why I then said that this in itself is a minimal teshuvah, and not merely reciting words. IOW, if someone said the 13 Middos and didn't even think "these are G-d's 13 Middos of lovingkindness that He gave us", would they still be guaranteed not to leave empty-handed? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 01:58:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:58:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > There's no indication that he mentioned shmita's drabanan status at all. The simple reading of the Gemara in Gittin 36a-b which is the source of pruzbul says that pruzbul only works when shemitta is d'rabbanan and in fact this is how the Rambam understands the Gemara and how he paskens. The Gemara first states that Hillel was mesaken pruzbul and then asks how could Hillel be mesaken pruzbul and say that loans are not cancelled when the Torah says that they are? Abaye answers shemitta nowadays is derabban. The Gemara then asks how could the Chachamim be mesaken shemittas kesafim medrabban (and cancel loans) and Rava answers hefker beit din hefker. The simple reading of the Gemara is that the whole takana of pruzbul only works when shemitta is derabbanan. Rashi and the Raavad however understand the Gemara that Rava's answer also answers the first question of how could Hillel be mesaken pruzbul when the Torah cancels loans based on hefker beis din hefker and that pruzbul works even when shemmita is d'oraysa. [Email #2] R"n Lisa Liel asked: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when shmitta > is d'Orayta again? and R' Zev Sero asked why wouldn't it? Actually this is an explicit machlokes the Rambam and the Raavad and Rashi and Tosafos (Gittin 36a-b). The Rambam writes in Hilchos Shemitta V'Yovel (chapter 9) v'ein haprozbul moeel ela b'shmitas kesafim shehee midvrei sofrim aval shemitta shel torah ayn haprozbul moeel bo The Raavad there argues that prozbul will work even when shemmita is d'oraysa based on his understanding of Rava's answer of hefker beis din hefker (like Rashi in Gittin). From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 02:50:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:50:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916095007.GD14423@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:00:56PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : If I am making them my shaliach to collect my loans on my behalf, then that : sounds like Rav Asher Weiss' explanation. Sure, beis din is patur from lo : yigos, but it was a big chidush to me that that's enough to exempt me from : being m'shamet a loan that I still own. (But if one wants to go with the : Collection Agency idea, then shlichus is irrelevant - beis din would need : to own the loan.) The big problem is that the difference in sevaros may make a particular pruzbul text valid or not. For example, how does hefqer BD hefqer work today, when courts do not have a central Sanhedrin organizing them? I am giving the loan to three hedyotos. Which 3? The three I named? (Are we invoking Beis Shammai's notion that one can be mafqir only to a given person or set of people? [Ymi Pei'ah 6:1 19b]) Then how is it HBDH and not a simple matanah? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 03:09:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:09:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20150916100941.GE14423@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 03:39:14PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey : wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of : Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all : those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the : number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. : : In RM's opinion, shmitta won't be d'Orayata again until the Messiah comes. Also, the machloqes Rashi and Tosafos as to whether "kol yosheveha aleha" is by sheivet. I don't know what Tosafos do with the machloqes (Sanhedring 110b) about whether the lost shevatim will ever be restored. If they hold like R' Aqiva, this would have to refer to the descendents of those refugees from Malkhus Yisrael who fled to Malkhus Yehudah. Or, is that in itself enough reestablishment of the shevatim to contradict R' Aqiva? The masqanah of the gemara appears to be Rabba bb Chana (citing R' Yochanan) refuting R' Aqiva's position in favor of R' Eliezer -- that the missing shevatim will be restored (quoting Yirmiyahu 3:!2). Maybe they just consider the question closed. The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority of Benei Yisrael. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 05:08:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:08:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: from wikipedia Thus, if one would agree that shmita does not apply when Israelites are dispersed,[6] Hillel, great as he was, would not have changed a law of the Torah in order to fit the needs of his time. He and his beth din would have enacted a rabbinic exception to a rabbinic law. As the Rambam notes in Shmita V'Yovel chapter 9, when most Jews again live in the Land of Israel and the observance of the sabbatical and jubilee years are Toraitic commandments, the prozbul will no longer be able to be used. According to this theory, Prozbul, like `eruv , is a rabbinic exception to a rabbinic enactment. Prozbul cannot be used to get around the Torah commanded shmita and yovel, just as `eruv cannot be used to get around the fact that Torah prohibited carrying in the public domain. I recently saw the opposite question: There are many ways to avoid the problem of shmitta annulling laws without resorting to prozbul. One simple example is to make the loan end immediately after RH of this year. There are many other options. So the question is why the need for prozbul The only answer I saw was that the general population was not aware of the alternatives or else they were too cumbersome [Email #2] > In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench > that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the > true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people > who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is > much higher than we believe it to be. I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even for direct maternal descendants. i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. I would assume that a descendant of annusim would be Jewish since they kept their Jewish identification through various customs -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:40:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:40:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:36:20PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were :> exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on :> Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority :> of Benei Yisrael. : How do you know? (I assume you mean the reisha about yovel and therefore shemittah de'oraisa ending when eiver hayardein was conquered, not my last sentence.) Eirachin 32b Rambam, Hil Shemitah veYovel 10:8. GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 09:36:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:36:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> On 9/13/2015 4:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey > wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of > Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all > those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the > number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. On the contrary. The number of people who identify as "Jewish" in polls who are actually non-halakhic "converts" or children of non-Jewish mothers is vast, so the number of Jews is much *lower* than we believe it to be. [Email #2] On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were > exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on > Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority > of Benei Yisrael. How do you know? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:40:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:40:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F9A97D.2080405@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 08:08 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> >In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench >> >that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the >> >true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people >> >who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is >> >much higher than we believe it to be. > I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that > once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with > yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even > for direct maternal descendants. > > i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim > through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. That is an extreme daat yachid, with a very tenuous basis. Nobody else agrees with him, so there's no reason to expect R Melamed to take this view into account, or even to be aware of it. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:49:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:49:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Moderator Vacation Message-ID: <20150916174900.GC6146@aishdas.org> While Areivim has a team of mods, Avodah is still entirely dependent on me. Which makes me feel an obligation to forewarn y'all before I go on vacation. Tomorrow I will be leaving for 3 weeks in Yerushalayim ih"q. (Barring messianic intervention, to leave again the day after chutznik Simchas Torah.) I do not know what my internet access will be like, but it's quite likely moderation approval delays will increase. Please be patient. Yerushalayim crew: Avodah/Areivim Simchas Beis haSho'eivah anyone? Discussion on Areivim...) GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 11:30:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:30:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916183023.GD6146@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 03:08:53PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that : once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with : yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even : for direct maternal descendants. This was his famous teshuvah on the Brother Daniel case. That there are limits even on maternal descent. I found a nice summary by R/Dr Judah Goldberg : i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim : through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. >From there, RAL's meqoros in shas: In Yevamot 16b, Rav Assi states that if a gentile betroths a Jewess, we cannot dismiss the validity of the marriage, for perhaps he descends from one of the ten lost tribes. When Shmuel heard this ruling, however, he responded, "They did not move from that place until they made [the descendants of the lost tribes] into absolute gentiles, as it says, 'They have betrayed God, for they have begotten alien children' (Hoshea 5:7)" (17a). Similarly, Chullin 6a tells how Rav Ami and Rav Assi discovered that the Samaritan community, which had long been suspected of engaging in pagan worship, was no longer observing Jewish law at all. In response, They did not move from that place until they made [the Samaritans] into absolute gentiles. He cites three shitos from rishonim, although the Rambam's pesaq is as explacated by R' Chaim Brisker. 1- Rashba: The Samaritan's conversion was annulled, not that one can stop being a Jew. R Pinchas Horowitz (Sefer Ha-mikna) applies parallel reasoning to the 10 shevatim -- they didn't stop being Jews, they are just an ignorable mi'ut that only a derabbanan kept us from ignoring. And that was repealed. 2- A mi'ut hold that the geir who stops believing ceases being a geir, but we have to worry about what's really going on in his head, so lechumerah we have to acknowledge his marriage. 3- The Rambam as explained by RCB (contrasting Ishus 4:15 with peirush on Niddah 7:4, where he says a dead Samaritan is not metamei tum'as ohel) that someone who gives up his self-identity as a Jew and acts on it is But in either case, the hypothetical Ephramite is a machloqes amoraim. Unless you agree with the author of the Hafla'ah that it's just an issue of mi'ut, and therefore the one who could prove he is in the mi'ut would be Jewish. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless micha at aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 13:39:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:39:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Moderator Vacation In-Reply-To: <55F9B9EA.70600@sero.name> References: <20150916174900.GC6146@aishdas.org> <55F9B9EA.70600@sero.name> Message-ID: <43db8966934f6c727f16a67e6896f9cb@aishdas.org> It is much easier when my mechutan's work address is "1 Kotel Plaza" -- Yeshivat Netiv Aryeh. Thanks for the _berakhos_. _Gemar chasimah tovah_! On 2015-09-16 2:50 pm, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/16/2015 01:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > >> Tomorrow I will be leaving for 3 weeks in Yerushalayim ih"q. > > Mazal tov. Even if Moshiach doesn't come in the next week or so, > you can still fulfil a zecher to hakhel. I was there 14 years > ago at the "hakhel" rally at the kotel, but unfortunately I was > unable to be there 7 years ago, and barring either Moshiach (and > the real hakhel) or a lottery win I will not be able to be there > this year either. > > (Actually I'm not aware of any source that Moshiach will provide > transportation, so even if he comes today it may be impossible > for everyone to get there in time for hakhel.) _Tir'u baTov_! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 11:54:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:54:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> On 9/16/2015 8:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:36:20PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: > : On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were > :> exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on > :> Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority > :> of Benei Yisrael. > > : How do you know? > > (I assume you mean the reisha about yovel and therefore shemittah de'oraisa > ending when eiver hayardein was conquered, not my last sentence.) Actually, I meant your last sentence. How do you know that the area of the 2.5 shvatim didn't include a majority of Bnei Yisrael? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:47:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:47:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 09:54:59PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : Actually, I meant your last sentence. How do you know that the area : of the 2.5 shvatim didn't include a majority of Bnei Yisrael? Because the gemara has to explain why 2-1/2 shevatim needed as many arei miqlat as the rest of BY. And the answer is because those who settled for land on that side of the Yardein built a more careless culture. (See Rashi Bamidbar 35:14 which is based on Abayei Makos 10a, and the Maharal on the Rashi to explain that Rashi [and Abayei] assume that the number who need galus will be greater whent he number of murderers does.) Notice the answer was NOT "because HQBH knew there would be at least as many people Mei'eiver haYardein before bayis rishon ended". It would also take a notable statistical anomaly for the largest population to grow out of a small initial state, and yet never get a navi telling them anything, etc... GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your micha at aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender, Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:41:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:41:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question Message-ID: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: > Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking around at books and online. I see no > discussion whatsoever on whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, e.g. books > I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an > obligation to return a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? Thanks, Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:54:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:54:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F9E518.5090701@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 05:47 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Because the gemara has to explain why 2-1/2 shevatim needed as many arei > miqlat as the rest of BY. And the answer is because those who settled > for land on that side of the Yardein built a more careless culture. Do you understand that question and answer? How do the population *or* the number of manslaughterers affect the number of arei miklat needed? Surely the only determinant is geography. A manslaughterer has to cover the same distance regardless of how sparse the population, or how careful they are. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 12:37:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:37:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: I was asked to provide a list of (me-possible) mitzvaot which were considered kiyumit. Does anyone know of such a list? GCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 15:07:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:07:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 05:41 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: > >> Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking >> around at books and online. I see no discussion whatsoever on >> whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, >> e.g. books I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that >> addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an obligation to return >> a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? > I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? Shemita applies only to halva'ah, not to she'elah. English uses the same word, but they are very different transactions. It's actually strange that English, which is usually the most precise language, does not distinguish them. A book is a she'elah; the book remains her property, and she expects the borrower to return it. Thus it is not at all affected by shemita. It is also not subject to the prohibition on ribbis; not only is there absolutely nothing wrong with charging people to borrow your stuff, the Torah explicitly endorses it as one of the four forms of shemirah. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 15:29:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:29:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Li Nir'eh Message-ID: <20150916222914.GE26081@aishdas.org> In AhS YD 39:48, RYME draws a conclusion from the fact that the Rama in Darkhei Moshe says "nir'eh li" rather than "veli nir'eh". "Veli nir'eh" implies he is choleiq with the BY? Anyone hear before of a distinction between the two idioms? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 16:20:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:20:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:06:16AM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> I intend to write a post on the meaning of the word "mesorah" as developed :> in RYBS's and RHS's thought as the start of its own thread. See http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/what-does-masorah-mean : And this is where this slide from discussing one slice of the mesorah - what : to do in Yeshiva, to a much wider slice of the mesorah becomes problematic, : because of the implication you have just made which is that what is true of : the section applies to the whole... Well, that's sort of it, isn't it? You're making a distinction between learning in a semichah shiur and learning how to pasqen. I don't think RYBS would. IOW, his whole point about needing mesorah is because he denies your premise. Leshitaso, you pasqen more from lomdus than from codes; or to put it more clearly -- you need a Rashi and a Tosafos to teach you how to fill in between the data points of a Yad or SA. For that matter, this is clearly the AhS's approach to pesaq. And the entire school which runs from Gemara to Rambam vs Rosh (at al) to Tur, BY, SA, Rama, Shach, Taz (et al)... This is how pesaq comes to be. Not from deciding between codes but from using the flow of mesorah to decide between them. Otherwise, shu"t would read like surveys; and even ROY doesn't end with his survey. : RGS comments that he and his father tried to learn meseches Nedarim just : using the meforash, in the absence of Rashi, and were not able to do so : (they were then only able to do it using the Ran, a much later commentary) - : thus demonstrating the point of the post, which is, without Rashi, most of : the Talmud Bavli would be a closed book to most people of average, and even : above average, intelligence (like the Talmud Yerushalmi). Actually, RYBS said that. : This is unquestionably true. : : The Rambam was also aware of this problem (after all he learned all of : Talmud Bavli without Rashi and everybody he knew either did so or tried to : do so). His solution to RGS's problem was to tell RGS and his father, and : people like him, not to try and learn Talmud Bavli, but to learn his, the : Rambam's, Code instead... Not really. His code is mishnah, not gemara. He tells beginners to do their shelish bemiqra in his code. And then you should be able to graduate from it, and from the whole need to divide one's time into thirds. ... : Our mesorah is like Rashi in this regard and not the Rambam (except when it : comes to smicha students). We open up the Talmud Bavli even to children : using Rashi and hundreds of thousands are sitting in yeshiva following : Rashi. Huh? Rashi didn't expect kids to start with Tanakh? Where does this come into the whole discussion? : The problem is that people (it would appear including you) then generalise : from "how we learn" to "how we posken" - which is what really is involved in : the discussion regarding Open O and feminism. And they are not the same : thing at all. Indeed, the fact that smicha students (those that are being : set up to posken) are taught in a totally different way to the more general : way of learning in yeshiva, and one that owes far more to the Rambam than to : Rashi and Tosphos should alert you to that. I do not believe the closing sentence. RYBS was giving one shiur to cover both. But that's RYBS, not my own leanings. I do see lomdus, in which the goal is to justify every opinion, and pesaq, in which the goal is to decide which opinion is most justified, to be different. But again, one doesn't pasqen from codes without the tools learned from lomdus. For that matter, if it's a halakhah pesuqah, one isn't pasqening at all. : What Rashi did was to provide a clear and simple explanation of the words on : the page. : What Tosphos did ... And the Me'iri opened the gemara in a third way. That seems to be a pretty complete taxonomy of parshanim. Then there are codes. Then there is shu"t. And most recently, encyclopedias / collections. ... : On the other hand, RET is correct: :> Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against :> the concept. :> Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own :> interpretation and not rely or be bound by any text. : Although I would modify that statement not to say "and not be bound by any : text", as most at that point agreed that they should be bound by the gemora : (and the Tanach as understood by the mishna/gemora), just not beyond that. The Maharal's actual objection: To decide halakhic questions from the codes without knowing the logic of the ruling was not the intent of these authors [Rambam, Tur, SA, et al]. Had they known that their works would lead to the abandonment of Talmud, they would not have written them. It is better for one to decide on thebasis of the Talmud even though he might err, for a scholar must depend solely on his understanding. As such, he is beloved of God, and preferable tothe one who rules from a code but does not know thereason for the ruling; such a one walks like a blind person. See Nesivos Olam, Nesiv haTorah ch 15. (I invoked the above thought about shelish bemishnah only being for beginners [from Hil TT] and the MT only being a replacement for the hoi palloi to justify the Maharal's statement WRT the Rambam. See RMRabi's and my months-long discussion.) Actually, what I think won the day for the SA was that the SA stopped being a code when they started publishing everyone on the sides. That's what it seems from the Maharal. Presumably his brother, the Yam shel Shelomo, would agree. ... : And RMB replied: :> Actualy, it's only those who have an eye on common practice. After all, we :> discuss machloqesin between Rashi and the Rambam in halakhah lemasseh :> contexts all the time. And if Ashkenazim accepted Rashi's ruling, or one :> found in Tosafos, the Rama has no problem limiting his pesaq to that rather :> than that of the Rif, Rambam or Tur. And had there not been a Rama, then :> some shu"t or parshan could as well. : : But neither Rashi nor Tosphos gave us any method of limiting where psak : went, and indeed the Ri can hold one thing and Rabbanu Tam another within : the same Tosphos. The Codes are far less open... But they only cover specific cases. They don't teach how to extent beyond those cases. So in general, the codes are more open than Rashi, the Ri or Rabbeinu Tam who help you by providing a why that tells you how far to take the point. A code is way open except for the cases they covered. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 16:38:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:38:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: References: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150916233829.GA3601@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 08:01:11PM +0300, RCK via Avodah wrote: : It's a good question, in fact, the Bayis HaGadol (also known as Biur) on : Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer (end of ch. 19) asks this on HaBachur. Since you clearly saw it, and some of us are kind of busy (and about to take leave of my library), could you please summarize the discussion there? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 18:31:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:31:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55FA17E2.6020200@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 07:20 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > That's > what it seems from the Maharal. Presumably his brother, the Yam shel > Shelomo, would agree. The Maharshal was not a brother of the Maharal! AFAIK they were not related. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 19:19:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:19:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel quoted Wikipedia: > ...According to this theory, Prozbul, like > `eruv , is a rabbinic exception > to a rabbinic enactment. Prozbul cannot be used to get around the > Torah commanded shmita and yovel, just as `eruv cannot be used to get > around the fact that Torah prohibited carrying in the public domain. As few days ago, I was thinking about comparisons between Prozbul and Eruv, and it seems clear to me that while Eruv *is* an exception to an enactment, Prozbul is a whole 'nother thing. I think it makes no sense for Prozbul to be "an exception to an enactment", because "why bother?" If the agricultural Shemitta stops being d'Oraisa, then Chazal can certainly enact it on a d'rabanan level. But to do that for Shemitas Kesafim means to legislate the following three things simultaneously: 1) Enact a law requiring cancellation of loans 2) Loans are exempt from cancellation if Prozbul is done 3) For the benefit of both poor and wealthy, everyone should do a Prozbul Why enact such a set of laws? Wouldn't it be far simpler to just let Shmitas Kesafim lapse, and NOT be enacted on a d'rabanan level? Regardless of whether one holds Prozbul to work on a d'Oraisa level, I think everyone can agree that Prozbul was enacted specifically because (as the Torah feared) too many people refrained from lending money as Shmitta got near. Therefore, it seems clear to me that IF Shmitas Kesafim was enacted as a d'rabanan, THEN Prozbul was enacted LATER, and not at the same time. In sharp contrast, I understand that Eruvin was a real "exception to an enactment": Simultaneously to the new law which prohibited carrying in a karmelis, an exception was included exempting certain areas under certain condiitons, allowing the carrying there. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 20:25:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:25:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55FA328E.1080708@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 10:19 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > In sharp contrast, I understand that Eruvin was a real "exception to > an enactment": Simultaneously to the new law which prohibited > carrying in a karmelis, an exception was included exempting certain > areas under certain condiitons, allowing the carrying there. An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. I don't know who prohibited carrying in a karmelis, but there's no reason to suppose it was Shlomo. Shlomo prohibited carrying in a *reshus hayachid with multiple owners*, and instituted eruv as a way around that prohibition. (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 05:01:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:01:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and > thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. My language was not precise. I apologize. What I meant was that prior to the establishment of these d'rabanans, one was allowed to carry from an unwalled non-thoroughfare to either a walled area or to a major thoroughfare. But it was easy to get confused between the general outdoors and a main road, so the general outdoors was made into a Reshus Harabim D'rabanan, with the following exception: Whereas a Reshus Harabim d'Oraisa requires actual walls to allow carrying, for a Reshus Harabim d'Rabanan it is sufficient to surround an area with doorways (tzuras hapesach). > I don't know who prohibited carrying in a karmelis, > but there's no reason to suppose it was Shlomo. Shlomo > prohibited carrying in a *reshus hayachid with multiple > owners*, and instituted eruv as a way around that > prohibition. I'm fuzzy on the history too. The law as I described it above may or may not have been part of the same legislation that RZS described here. What we have here are two distinct - but easily and often confused - d'rabanans within the melacha of hotzaa. It doesn't really matter which came first, or if they came together. My point was that they are excellent examples of an exception being built into the law from the very beginning, as opposed to Prozbul, which (if shmitas kesafim is d'rabanan) was a separate enactment from shmitas kesafim (because if they were done at the same time, the goal of Prozbul could have been acheived even more easily by simply not enacting shmitas kesafim). > (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an > eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple > owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) I'm not sure if there is a rigorous definition of "loophole". (The wikipedia article is a great place to start.) I tend to think that it is a general pejorative to describe any leniency that one has an emotional objection to. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 05:17:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150917121734.GA8567@aishdas.org> Li nir'eh the difference is that by eruv, it was all done in one sitting of beis din -- when they assered a karmeelis, they also promulgated the idea of eruv. IOW, explicitly they only assured a karmelis that didn't have an eruv. (A conscious exemption more than a loophole, as I would use the terms.) Pruzbul was a loophole in an earlier taqanah and that was and promulgated by a later beis di GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 09:58:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:58:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55FAF148.5080904@sero.name> On 09/17/2015 08:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and >> thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. > My language was not precise. I apologize. > > What I meant was that prior to the establishment of these d'rabanans, > one was allowed to carry from an unwalled non-thoroughfare to either > a walled area or to a major thoroughfare. But it was easy to get > confused between the general outdoors and a main road, so the general > outdoors was made into a Reshus Harabim D'rabanan, with the following > exception: Whereas a Reshus Harabim d'Oraisa requires actual walls to > allow carrying, for a Reshus Harabim d'Rabanan it is sufficient to > surround an area with doorways (tzuras hapesach). Mid'oraisa a set of four tzuros hapesach works in reshus harabim too. It was the rabanan who said "ein me'arvim reshus harabim bekach", and only allowed it in a karmelis. Whether they did this at the same time that they forbade carrying in a karmelis, I don't know. My impression is that it was later, because the first we hear of it is in a braisa, and it's subject to machlokes, whereas the concept of karmelis is taken for granted by all. > My point was that they are excellent examples of an exception being > built into the law from the very beginning, as opposed to Prozbul, > which (if shmitas kesafim is d'rabanan) was a separate enactment from > shmitas kesafim Yes, this is clear. > (because if they were done at the same time, the goal of Prozbul > could have been acheived even more easily by simply not enacting > shmitas kesafim). You don't need to go there. It's obvious that shmitas kesafim midrabanan preceded Hillel, because if it hadn't then how could he have observed the problem that resulted? Clearly it long predated him, presumably all the way back to the end of shmita d'oraisa, or at least to the return from Bavel. But the *efficacy* of pruzbul is not Hillel's takana at all. It's de'oraisa (Sifri, quoted by Tosfos Gittin 36a dh Mi Ika Midi) >> (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an >> eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple >> owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) > I'm not sure if there is a rigorous definition of "loophole". > (The wikipedia article is a great place to start.) I tend to > think that it is a general pejorative to describe any leniency > that one has an emotional objection to. The WP article is seriously defective (WP:OR for one thing) and needs to extensive a rewrite for me to bother with. A loophole is built into a wall; it's *meant* to be there. There's nothing pejorative about it. An exception to a law is a case where the law doesn't apply; a loophole is where the law *does* apply, and this is how it applies. It's not that an eruv permits one to carry in a RHY with multiple owners, it's that an eruv turns it (for this purpose) into a RHY with a single owner. Similarly eruv techumin doesn't allow you to walk more than 2000 amos from your residence, it merely moves your residence. That's not an exception, it's a loophole. If you want an example of an exception, look to eruv tavshilin. The chachamim, whether because of kevod shabbos or kevod yomtov, forbade the ha'arama of cooking for guests whom you aren't really expecting, *unless* you make an eruv. The eruv is an exception built into the original takana. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 03:33:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 13:33:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "I think it makes no sense for Prozbul to be "an exception to an enactment", because "why bother?" If the agricultural Shemitta stops being d'Oraisa, then Chazal can certainly enact it on a d'rabanan level. But to do that for Shemitas Kesafim means to legislate the following three things simultaneously: 1) Enact a law requiring cancellation of loans 2) Loans are exempt from cancellation if Prozbul is done 3) For the benefit of both poor and wealthy, everyone should do a Prozbul Why enact such a set of laws? Wouldn't it be far simpler to just let Shmitas Kesafim lapse, and NOT be enacted on a d'rabanan level?" If you look at the sugya of pruzbul (Gittin 36a-b) these points are all addressed: The Gemara starts out with the fact that Hillel was mesaken pruzbul. Then the Gemara asks how could he do that if the Torah (shemitas kesafim) cancels the loan? Abaye answers that Hillel only made his takana of pruzbul when shemittas kesafim was derabbanon. The Gemara then asks how could the Chachamim be mesaken shemmitas kesafim derabbanon if min hatorah the lender has to pay back the loan? Rava answers hefker beis din hefker. We see clearly from the Gemara that the historical progression was 1. Shemmita ceased being min hatorah 2. Chachamim were mesaken shemitta miderabbonon including shemittas kesafim 3. After shemitta derabbonon was already established Hillel saw that people were not lending money and therefore was mesaken pruzbul In other words these things did not happen simultaneously, pruzbul was enacted after shemmitas kesafim was already established. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 06:03:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 09:03:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] An Important Clarification Regarding Some Relevant Halachos for Yom Kippur Message-ID: <20150921130412.485F3183A12@nexus.stevens.edu> [] Some Relevant Halachos for Yom Kippur: A Clarification The following is an excerpt from the article on selected halachos relative to Yom Kippur: "At the conclusion of Yom Kippur, one may not do melachah (labor prohibited on Shabbos/ Yom Kippur) until one recites (or hears) Havdalah over wine (or the equivalent) or recites A ttah Chonantanu in Ma'ariv, or says Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol. Although reciting any of these allows one to do melachah, one may not eat until after reciting (or hearing) Havdalah over wine (or the equivalent). Accordingly, married men should hurry home after Ma'ariv on Motza'ei Yom Kippur to recite Havdalah so that their wives will be able to eat." Clarification : Following the conclusion of Yom Kippur, after one recites Attah Chonantanu in Ma'ariv or says Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol, one may drink water even before reciting (or hearing) Havdalah. Thus (for example), a woman whose husband is delayed in coming home after Ma'ariv on Motza'ei Yom Kippur may recite Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol after nightfall and drink water before hearing Havdalah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 15:18:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 23:18:00 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> Message-ID: A summary of Pruzbul I have in front of me (written by Rabbi D Tugendhaft, London) says: "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" On 16 September 2015 at 23:07, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 09/16/2015 05:41 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > >> A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: >> >> Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking >>> around at books and online. I see no discussion whatsoever on >>> whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, >>> e.g. books I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that >>> addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an obligation to return >>> a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? >>> >> > I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? >> > > > Shemita applies only to halva'ah, not to she'elah. English uses the > same word, but they are very different transactions. It's actually > strange that English, which is usually the most precise language, does > not distinguish them. > > A book is a she'elah; the book remains her property, and she expects > the borrower to return it. Thus it is not at all affected by shemita. > It is also not subject to the prohibition on ribbis; not only is there > absolutely nothing wrong with charging people to borrow your stuff, > the Torah explicitly endorses it as one of the four forms of shemirah. > > -- > Zev Sero GChT > zev at sero.name > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 06:53:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:53:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Haqeil Message-ID: <55FC174B.6090900@zahav.net.il> Anyone here understand sound? Assuming best case scenarios (loud voices, no background noise, good hearing), how many people could possibly hear the king read at Haqeil? It would seem that there is no way the king could project his voice so that most could hear him (????). If few actually came to the tekes, OK, but if most people came how could it possibly work? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 07:57:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:57:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] From Medieval Ashkenaz Techinah Supplication to Iconic Segulah: The Chasidic Transformation of G-d of Abraham Message-ID: <20150918145828.8F30C183A9B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/pwg839c From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 10:20:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 20:20:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] vort on teshuvah Message-ID: 1) Rambam in hlichot teshuva (7:6) discusses the effect of teshuva yesterday (emesh) i was far from G-d hated ... and now I am beloved RYBS asks why the Rambam here uses such poetic language in particular using "emesh" instead of "etmol" . He asnwers that "etmol" indicates a 24 hour period while "emesh" can be a fraction of second between being hated by G-d and being loved by G-d 2) Someone who marries on a woman on condition that he is a Tzaddik the marriage is valid even if it is known that he is a rasha perhaps (shema) he did teshuva. Someone in the shiur noted that "shema" read backwards is "emesh" . Meaning that rasha who proposed marriage did teshuva a fraction of a second before the proposal -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 10:15:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 13:15:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reciting 100 Brochos Daily Message-ID: <20150918171648.24C57181A25@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/njmnbgn From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 15:12:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shmuel Weidberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:12:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? Message-ID: Hello everybody. I haven't been active on this list in a long time. I just had a look around the internet to see if there was anything new with the Kosher Switch, and I remembered an issue with it that I haven't seen discussed anywhere. The makers say that there is a certain amount of randomization involved in whether the light flashes into the detector and whether the detector detects the light. There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create random numbers. They create pseudo-random numbers which means they take a seed number and perform a complex calculation on it to get the next number, which looks like it bears no relation to the first number, but which in fact is completely determined by the first number. Computer can get real random numbers, by generating the seed by looking at actions that take place that the computer cannot predict such as when somebody presses a key on a keyboard, or when some other sensor is activated. Alternatively, they can get random numbers from a special piece of hardware that is designed to physically make random numbers. However, I believe such pieces of hardware are quite specialized and if there actually was one in the switch it would be advertised. In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. Regards, Shmuel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 10:59:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:59:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> Message-ID: <56004574.4040004@sero.name> On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour > because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in > its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to she'elah. Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 11:29:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:29:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. ------------------------------- Yes, much as a complete understanding of the physics involved would determine the roll of the dice as it left one?s hand. Yet we call this ?random? (and iirc statisticians can?t prove any set of numbers was truly random, only that they appear likely so. Gct 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 22:35:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 01:35:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <063901d0f4f8$8c2cd700$a4868500$@gmail.com> R? Shmuel Weidberg: The makers say that there is a certain amount of randomization involved in whether the light flashes into the detector and whether the detector detects the light. There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create random numbers. They create pseudo-random numbers which means they take a seed number and perform a complex calculation on it to get the next number, which looks like it bears no relation to the first number, but which in fact is completely determined by the first number. In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. --------------------------- Isn?t the lomdus of their approach that you, the person flicking the switch, doesn?t DO anything because you?re only covering a light pulse without knowing when it will come next? So it doesn?t really matter if it?s random, it matters that you don?t know when it will next illuminate. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 07:04:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:04:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56004574.4040004@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> Message-ID: <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. On 9/21/2015 8:59 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > >> "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour >> because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in >> its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" > > Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to > she'elah. > Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 11:00:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:00:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> Message-ID: <56019748.5060907@sero.name> On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 9/21/2015 8:59 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: >>> "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour >>> because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in >>> its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" >> Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to she'elah. >> Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. > But a book, you return the same one. Usually. Not usually, always. There are two utterly different kinds of transaction for which the English language uses the same words: loan, borrow, lend. This is surprising, since usually English is a more precise language than most, but it is so. She'elah: I give you my property, with permission to use it. It remains my property, and you must return it on the agreed-upon date, or when I ask for it, in reasonable shape given the time you had it and the use to which you put it. In other words, in slightly worse shape than when I gave it to you. I may do this as a favour, but there is no mitzvah for me to do so. I am entitled to charge you for it, in which case the transaction is called "sechirus", or in English, "rental". Shemitah does not apply to this transaction. Common examples: a book, a car, a tool, a pen. Halva'ah: I give you my property, and it becomes yours. I do not expect it back, ever. On the agreed-upon date, or when I ask, you must give me something exactly like what I gave you. Since you are a Jew, I have a mitzvah to do this as a favour for you, and am forbidden from charging you anything for it, and you are forbidden from paying me anything for it, in any form. Shemitah applies. Common examples: $100, a cup of sugar, a rubber band. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 12:48:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 22:48:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56019748.5060907@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> <56019748.5060907@sero.name> Message-ID: <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > >> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. > > Not usually, always. Several years ago, we borrowed a book from my brother-in-law. A while later, we wanted to return it, but we couldn't find it. So we bought another identical copy and returned that in its place. So I'm going to stick with "usually." Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 19:11:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 22:11:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> <56019748.5060907@sero.name> <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> Message-ID: <56035BCF.7000400@sero.name> On 09/23/2015 03:48 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> >>> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. >> >> Not usually, always. > > Several years ago, we borrowed a book from my brother-in-law. A while > later, we wanted to return it, but we couldn't find it. So we bought > another identical copy and returned that in its place. So I'm going > to stick with "usually." Your obligation was to return the exact same book. Once that became impossible, you became liable as a shomer; a shomer sachar and a socher are liable for geneiva va'aveida, so at that point you became liable to pay the value of the lost book, and that sum became a milveh, and thus subject to shemitah and ribbis. -- Zev Sero Gut Yomtov zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 12:09:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:09:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a > random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the > time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it > simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. Do you know whether the Star-K-certified "Sabbath mode" ovens use pseudo-random numbers or true random numbers? (Thermal noise would do fine; and many processors, even some embedded ones, have such a random number source.) --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 12:03:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 15:03:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150924190308.GA28981@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 06:12:07PM -0400, Shmuel Weidberg via Avodah wrote: : I just had a look around the internet to see if there was anything new with : the Kosher Switch... : There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't : computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create : random numbers... I don't think this particular distinction makes a halachic difference. The question is whether the person doing the action has a reasonable chance of predicting the outcome. Actual mathematical randomness might not be at issue. As long as I can't know what my flipping the switch would do, I would think it should all be the same. (Think of it as a first cousin to ignoring water bears and other zooplankton that can only be seen with a magnifying glass when drinking water.) ... : Computer can get real random numbers, by generating the seed by looking at : actions that take place that the computer cannot predict such as when : somebody presses a key on a keyboard, or when some other sensor is : activated... Actually, that's not really random, just less predictable because the seed generation is outside the machine. A specially designed can get truly random numbers by using quantum effects. Such as picking up on the brownian motion of molecules due to heat. But really, I don't think we have to worry about the difference between "random" and "not humanly predictable". Also a side note: I might point out that there are numerous hashkafos in which every event, or at least every event that impacts a human being, is subject to hashgachah peratis. And thus, nothing we ever experience is actually random. Or alternatively, that the word "random" needs a different translation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 14:20:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:20:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shemittah beyond Shemittah Message-ID: <20150924212050.B6B10182CED@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://cor.ca/view/720/shemittah_beyond_shemittah.html From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 14:37:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:37:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shemitta Sheilos: Using Arbah Minim of Sheviis - Parts I and II Message-ID: <20150924213723.28661183A0D@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://ohr.edu/6522 and http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6527 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 25 00:32:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:32:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Buying minim from a child Message-ID: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> When I was in yeshiva, we were told to refrain from buying any of the four minim from a child. If the product was stolen, a child can't take possession via shinu reshut or ma'aseh. Therefore the theft falls on the buyer and his minim are pasul. Thinking about during my jog, I had a few questions: 1) Is this a real chashash or simply are we trying to cover all halachik corners? Meaning, if I do buy from a child do I really have anything to worry about? And if it isn't a real concern, then why am I not being oveir on "chosheid b'kesheirim"? 2) If it is a real chashash (the presence of stolen minim in the market) than why buy from an adult? Buying stolen goods is also a sin. At the very least, one can only buy from a place with a heksher. 3) Or can one? Can we assume that the kashrut agencies really check were their minim come from? 4) Who determines if there is a significant presence of stolen goods in the market every year? I assume that the amount of stolen goods has to be above a certain minimum for there to be a real issue? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 21:44:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 00:44:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur Message-ID: In the case where an ill person is eating on Yom Kippur, the Magen Avraham 618:10 brings varying views on whether he needs Lechem Mishne, whether he includes Yaaleh V'yavo in bentching, and whether he must make Kiddush. Kaf Hachaim 618:60 repeats much of that, with some changes and additions, and in 618:61 he points out that the same would apply to children and women who have recently given birth. Similar things appear in the other nosei keilim on that se'if. I got the impression that the pros and cons on these questions were based mostly on practical and halachic concerns, such as whether or not these halachos were ever enacted for Yom Kippur. I'd like to know if the *historical* side is discussed anywhere. I'm focusing now specifically on Lechem Mishne, and I'm now ignoring Kiddush and Birkas Hamazon. Here are my questions of historical fact: During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the children eat? There are several possible answers I can think of: Perhaps mon fell on Yom Kippur, but only at the homes where where children or yoldos live. Perhaps mon did not fall on Yom Kippur, but those homes got a double portion on Erev Yom Kippur. Perhaps neither of the above happened, and the children and yoldos had to make do with whatever other food might have been available. (This possibility seems odd to me, as it throws a curve ball into the whole "40 years of miracles" idea: Exactly once each year, the children had no choice but to eat non-miraculous food, and the day for this chinuch was Yom Kippur.) I suppose I should also include another possibility, which is that everyone received their normal supply of mon on Yom Kippur just like on every other day, but that seems like quite a waste. Perhaps they ate it on Motzaei Yom Kippur. In which case I'd wonder if only a half-portion might have fallen that morning. I also question whether Hashem would have placed such a michshol at the doorways, leaving their mon in the reshus harabim. Does anyone know of any Midrashim or other sources that might talk about this? Akiva Miller (PS: I only asked about children and yoldos in the midbar, and I did not ask about other cholim. That's because I think that in the miraculous Midbar, no one was ever sick, and no one died except on the night of Tisha B'Av. If anyone wants to discuss this, please begin a new thread.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 20:33:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ken Bloom via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 23:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? Message-ID: Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in depth than Sefer HaToda'ah. Does anyone know of something analgous to how the Maharal's Gevurot Hashem explains Pesach, or have other recommendations about the holiday? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 22:19:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 01:19:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: : Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better : understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully : understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in : depth than Sefer HaToda'ah. Does anyone know of something analgous to how : the Maharal's Gevurot Hashem explains Pesach, or have other recommendations : about the holiday? RYHutner's Pachad Yitzchaq. (Although the volumes are arranged around Shabbos & YT, and thus would seem particular to those topics, I would consider it one of the canonical Jewish philoosphy works of the 20th cent. Not to be skipped by anyone serious about learning hashkafah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 30 12:53:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:53:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Whole Hallel on Sukkos Message-ID: <20150930195335.GA18194@aishdas.org> I just noticed something that is likely to be meaningful. We say whole Hallel every day of Sukkos because the qorban mussaf differs each day. The mussaf differs by the number of cows, which total 70 across the YT. The 70 cows are keneged the 70 nations. Among the things we would have otherwise skipped was "Lamah yomeru hagoyim..." So... Because we bring qorbanos on behalf of the 70 nations over the course of Sukkos, we pray for their abandonment of AZ on each day of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 30 13:03:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:03:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Buying minim from a child In-Reply-To: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> References: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <560C400E.6080206@sero.name> On 09/25/2015 03:32 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > When I was in yeshiva, we were told to refrain from buying any of the > four minim from a child. If the product was stolen, a child can't > take possession via shinu reshut or ma'aseh. Therefore the theft > falls on the buyer and his minim are pasul. > > Thinking about during my jog, I had a few questions: > > 1) Is this a real chashash or simply are we trying to cover all > halachik corners? Meaning, if I do buy from a child do I really have > anything to worry about? And if it isn't a real concern, then why am > I not being oveir on "chosheid b'kesheirim"? > > 2) If it is a real chashash (the presence of stolen minim in the > market) than why buy from an adult? Buying stolen goods is also a > sin. At the very least, one can only buy from a place with a heksher. > > 3) Or can one? Can we assume that the kashrut agencies really check > were their minim come from? > > 4) Who determines if there is a significant presence of stolen goods > in the market every year? I assume that the amount of stolen goods > has to be above a certain minimum for there to be a real issue? The chashash is not for actually stolen goods, but that the land on which the minim were grown was stolen hundreds or thousands of years ago, and since karka eina nigzeles it still belongs to the rightful heirs of the original owner. Thus the person who harvests the minim is technically the gazlan, ye'ush happened a long time ago, so we need a shinuy reshus, which happens when you buy from the "gazlan", but not if he's a katan. If he bought it from someone else then this problem doesn't exist, but there's another problem: it won't be shelachem, which it needs to be for the first day. This is also why one should not use minim one cut oneself, but rather sell those and buy ones that someone else cut. All of this only applies in countries where land title is uncertain; where it can be traced directly back to a valid kibush milchama, there is no problem. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 07:15:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 10:15:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <5593124A.2040905@sero.name> References: <20150630.152626.19374.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> <5593124A.2040905@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150701141526.GB24797@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 06:03:54PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/30/2015 03:26 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : >>From what I've seen, it is NOT said even if a minyan says Birkas Hamazon, : : Why would it? When a minyan says Birkhas haMazon, the zimun changes, it creates a minyan one may not break (by benching on their own or with a normal zimun), but no Qaddish. When a minyan says Pesuqei deZimra, nothing changes, there is no specific issur on leaving in the middle, and yet it is closed with Qaddish (even if you lose the minyan during PdZ). I think RAM's question why is quite fair. It would be nice to think the minhag follows some well-defined rule. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 05:35:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:35:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bio of RSRH Message-ID: <20150701123548.93E2D182CC3@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/p5h866u From this URL. When Rav Yisroel Salanter read a copy of The Nineteen Letters in 1873, he said that it should be translated into Russian and Hebrew. He also remarked, "Is there a Gan Eden big enough for Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch?" See the above URL for more. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 14:33:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:33:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakarat Hatov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 03:56:25PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Does Hakarat Hatov engender a measurable "liability" (e.g. require a : marginally greater action) between the recipient and the provider of the : "Tov", or is saying "Thank you, I appreciate it" the only requirement? Moshe isn't the trigger for the first makkos because he "owed" the Ye'or and the sand for saving him in the past. As Chazal put it (BQ 92b) WRT "velo sesaeiv Mitzri ki ger hayisa ve'artzo", it justified the common saying "bira deshasis mineih, lo tashdi beih kala" (into a well from which you once drank, don't throw clods of dirt). That said, I don't think reducing gratitude to *nothing more than* a favor-economics is healthy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness, micha at aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom. http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 14:37:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:37:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakarat Hatov In-Reply-To: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> References: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150701213753.GA24874@aishdas.org> PS: I started with the aggadic story and didn't say why I opened with a medrash rather than a gemara. The Nile and the sand wasn't actors. Moshe didn't really owe them anything. It's like "not embarassing" the challah by covering it. Apparently the notion of repaying a favor is so important, HQBH expects us to practice it for a middah exercise even when the other side isn't a real 2nd party. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 12:08:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 15:08:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish with mixed seating Message-ID: Following up upon my earlier post about the permissibility of saying the *kaddish *of a *siyyum* at a dinner with mixed seating. I spoke to RIETS RY last week and he said that we only require *mechitzah* in a *Shul*, based upon the *Gemara* in *Succos*, which requires separate seating at a *shul*. This is clear from the original textual source of mechitzah, the Gemara in the fifth perek of Succos, that the basis of *mechitzah* is the *Bais ha-Mikdash*. As our Synagogues are modeled after the Bais ha-Mikdash, we apply the principals underlying the *Gemara* in Succos to our Shuls. (Similarly, *Tosfos* justifies the practice of bringing children to Shul using the model of *Hakhel*.) As the Kaddish for a Siyyum has nothing do to with a Shul there is no need for separate seating. I also spoke to one of the Dayanim in our community he did not even think that saying *kaddish* with mixed seating was an issue as he thought that mixed seating was only an issue in a *Shul*. Others told me the same (i.e. that only a *shul* requires separation) in the name of Rav Schachter *shlit?a* . However, I saw Rav Herschel Schachter *shlit?a* at shacharis this week so I asked him my question. He responded that it would be better if they would have the *siyyum* before the dinner. I asked why and he responded ?*Davar She?bekedushah*?. I asked him so why do people recite *Kedushah* after a *siyyum* with mixed seating. And he responded, ?Nu, Nu?. (Which is a common response from Rav Schachter to questions of that sort.) Interestingly enough the Gemara in Succos brings a ?proof? for separation of men and women from a non-?*Davar She?bekedushah*? the funeral in *Zecharyah*. Of course we are not discussing whether a particular practice is good or bad or even ?best practices?, but rather whether it is required or not. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 08:32:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 11:32:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] From Succot to Moshiach Message-ID: Ma tovu ohalecha: ?Tents? are temporary and refer to olam hazeh ?.mishk?nosecha: ?Dwelling places? refers to olam haba. In other words, we are first in the antechamber, the temporary abode, which tents symbolize; then, once we leave our temporary homes, we hopefully ascend to our permanent ?dwelling place.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 14:44:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 17:44:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Historical Bil'am Message-ID: <20150703214448.GA32213@aishdas.org> H/T RYGB, see http://www.livius.org/source-content/deir-alla-inscription He asks on his blog: Why isn't this more widely known? The full article includes an image of the instription and a complete translation. This is just the opening. :-)BBii! -Micha Livius.org Articles on ancient history Deir 'Alla Inscription Deir 'Alla Inscription: inscription, found in the Iron Age town of Deir 'Alla, mentioning the Biblical prophet Balaam. Deir 'Alla is situated in western Jordan, about eight kilometers east of the river Jordan, and about a kilometer north of the Jabbok. The excavators found a very large Bronze Age sanctuary that had suffered in the period of wide-spread destruction in the thirteenth/twelfth centuries. Unlike other settlements, which were abandoned, Deir 'Alla remained in use well into the fifth century BCE. That is remarkable. Even more remarkable, however, was the discovery of a painted text that contained a prophecy by Balaam... (The site of Deir 'Alla is, technically, on the [11]Ammonite side of the river Jabbok.) The text refers to divine visions and signs of future destruction, in a language that is close to that of the Bible. For example, we read about the "Shaddai gods", an expression that is close to the Biblical El Shaddai, "God Almighty". On the other hand, the setting is not monotheistic: we read, for instance, about a gathering of a group of gods. The word elohim, which in the Bible (although plural) refers to one God, refers to more than one god in the Deir 'Alla text. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 15:16:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 18:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> In a recent blog post, R' Aryeh Klapper (Cc-ed) writes http://moderntoraleadership.wordpress.com/2015/07/03/chok-mishpat-and-obergefell Imagine pre-snake Adam and Eve walking into the Jewish camp. They would not praise the Jews for their modesty, and they would have no idea why the tents' openings did not face each other. For Bilaam to praise the Jews' virtue, even in the context of his deep and unremitting hatred, he had to be capable of understanding that modesty was a relevant evaluative category. What would it take for Bilaam to have this capacity? Unlike the prelapsarian original couple, he would have to be conscious of his own sexuality, and experientially aware that sexuality could be associated with shame. He might nonetheless choose exhibitionism for himself, and for his culture. He might decide that sexual shame is the root of neurosis and dedicate himself to its cultural eradication. But he would understand what he was eradicating. Perhaps there would even be moments when he regretted his victory. My tentative suggestion is that the Torah teaches us here that there is a value in making our moral premises intelligible even to our enemies; this is part of our mission to be the light of the nations. I want to be clear that this value is not pragmatic, and that we are not safer, or less likely to be hated, if we are understood. Like Bilaam, the world may use its understanding of our virtue to learn how best to undermine us. It is simply part of our job to enable as much as we can of humanity to make informed moral choices. I suggest further that perhaps we can understand the Seven Noachide Commandments as intended not to provide a formal code of behavior, but rather to identify a set of moral premises. Perhaps our mission is particularly to make those premises universally intelligible. Making premises intelligible is not accomplished through rational argumentation. Rational arguments depend on mutually intelligible premises. ... One core premise: let us identify it with the Noachide commandment against forbidden sexual relationships, or arayot -- that is no longer intelligible to many Americans is that sexuality can be evaluated in nonutilitarian terms, that a sexual act can be wrong even if no one gets hurt. We have replaced sexual morality with sexual ethics. Conversations on topics such as chastity, masturbation, and adultery are wholly changed from what they were even two decades ago, and tracts from back then can seem less contemporary than prehistoric cave art. There are many reasons that traditional rationales in the area of sexuality have moved rapidly from self-evident to unintelligible. Here are two: (1) Effective birth control and in vitro fertilization have broken the connection between intercourse and procreation. It is no longer self-evident to speak of intercourse as potential recreation, or as inevitably associated with the risk of pregnancy. (2) Many human beings with homosexual orientations have told compelling personal stories of pain and alienation. In the secular world, the natural reaction to a premise's social unintelligibility is the repeal of any laws that depend on it. In the Orthodox world, where immediate repeal is rarely a viable option, one reasonable reaction is what I call "chokification," or the declaration that laws that once depended on the now-unintelligible premise should be regarded as either beyond human comprehension or else as arbitrary rules intended to train us to obedience. Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. I utilized the following "Lonely Man of Faith" based idea to open "The Talk" with my sons.I wanted them to understand the sanctity of sex, so before getting into the mechanics of it, I tried to open by setting a religious context. As far as I can tell, the Torah gives two purposes for marriage: 1- In Genesis 1, the goal is to procreate and raise children. This is Adam I's drive "to fill the earth and conqure it", his place at the end of a sequence of creation -- above the animals, but more quatitatively than qualitatively. 2- In Genesis 2, the goal is to reunite the two halves, Adam and Eve, who were originally created as a single unit. Adam II seeks redemption through community. In this case, romantic love. Sex in its role of making a bond between people. And therefore a problem of premarital sex is that one thereby learns to minimize the bond thereby created. It weakens that function of sex, so it won't be as effective once you are married. Either alone -- procreation or the romantic reunification of the two halves of the original Adam (which again, I mean psychologically, not mystically) would be sufficient reason to justify sexual intimacy. But without either, it's the pursuit of our mamalian drives for insufficient reason. The objectification (or at least animalization) of the self. In order to buy into #2, one needs to believe that gender (as opposed to biological sex) is an innate set of existential and psychological differences, and not just a role imposed by convention. And therefore Adam and Eve are distinct and different halves of a whole. That this is an existential and deep-psychological truth, which will hold no matter how much society attempts to change those roles and bury gender differences. Notice that despite the social trends that brought the Supreme Court to conclude last week that traditional sexual morality (in contrast to sexual ethics) is irrational and thus prejudicial bias, the above implies that the Torah's ban on homosexuality can be explained in mishpat terms. On a different note, the shift from morality to ethics is typical for postmodernism. When all narratives are equally valid there is no way to insist there is an absolute moral code. Never mind determine what it contains. Therefore, one encourages a freedom to act as an end itself, rather than as a means to greatness. (Which is a logical progression from the American legal system, the concept of rights-based law taken to its extreme. It's notable that a society that values a "maavir al midosav" would not laud taking rights as far as all that. As a legal philosphy, though, it is the best we've come up with to avoid "ish es rei'eihu chaim bal'o", which is the central role of a secular gov't, no?) However, the lack of establishment of a common moral code is itself damaging to society. No one private violation of moral code, whatever the society holds it to be, will necessarily harm others. But living in a society that doesn't promote morality, that doesn't work toward aiming that autonomy toward some higher end, is harmful. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 15:20:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:20:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> References: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is the purpose to make things even worse? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 16:28:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 19:28:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> References: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150705232816.GA29598@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:20:08PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. : Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a : moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is : the purpose to make things even worse? As I quoted from RAK, because they classically were not considered chuqim. Until our contemporaries took the issue from sexual morality to sexual ethics, these truths were considered self-evident. It's the choqification of dinei arayos that's inauthentic. In any case, since one doesn't pasqen from taamei hamitzvos, the din is the same either way. Nothhing in such exploration can "make things even worse". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 15:57:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:57:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon Message-ID: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> In Pirkei Avot, Hillel HaZaken says: "Be among the talmidim of Aharon, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them close to the Torah." I don't get it. I honestly don't. If we see a bunch of Jews who don't know anything about Judaism, shouldn't we try and get them to keep the mitzvot? If you know that they're more likely to violate the mitzvot if they don't know, it's it our responsibility to teach them what God wants of them? The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this subject. I look at gay people and I see them overwhelmingly part of the nihilism of the left, but I don't think being gay automatically makes people like that. But what else are Jews supposed to do when they're being pushed away from the Torah? Jews have neshamas that were at Sinai. A Jew who was raised without Torah has an empty space inside that's just *begging* to be filled with Torah. But because of the wrongheaded idea that gay people have to either pretend they aren't gay, or they must be ostracized from the Torah community, they wind up filling that empty space with the even emptier slogans of the left. Because of the belief held by so many frum Jews that gay people who acknowledge themselves to be gay are simply *incapable* or unwilling to keep mitzvot, we, as a community *deliberately* withhold the Torah from them. It makes no sense to me. I mean, worst case, you tell someone gay, "There are things you aren't allowed to do according to Jewish law. Are you willing to abide by that?" But we aren't even doing that. We're assuming that the answer is going to be no, and by so assuming, we're *making that happen*. At 120, when you're standing before the Kisei HaKavod and you're asked why you pushed so many Jews away from His Torah, I wonder what you'll answer. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 17:34:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 20:34:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon In-Reply-To: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> References: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150706003423.GB14365@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:57:04PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: : In Pirkei Avot, Hillel HaZaken says: "Be among the talmidim of Aharon, : loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them close : to the Torah." : : I don't get it. I honestly don't. If we see a bunch of Jews who don't : know anything about Judaism, shouldn't we try and get them to keep the : mitzvot?... First, a minor correction. Hillel says "berios", or as in the tradition "loving people and bringing them..." IOW, not only kiruv, but bringing non-Jews to NNoachidism. : The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since : the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of : the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't : get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so : many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this : subject. I'm not so sure. The SCOTUS ruled in favor of a right that is based on the idea that believing the Torah's position about homosexuality is bigotry. But in any case, it's like any other rule of tochachah... You need to tell them what they're doing is wrong n a way that gets constructive change. The usual rule for when you should shut up is "mutav sheyihyu shogegim", but here nearly everyone involved know what we pasqen it's assur. So, you're not turning anyone into meizidim. : It makes no sense to me. I mean, worst case, you tell someone gay, : "There are things you aren't allowed to do according to Jewish law. : Are you willing to abide by that?" But we aren't even doing that. : We're assuming that the answer is going to be no, and by so assuming, : we're *making that happen*. But the US law in question is itself to permit something you aren't allowed to do in Jewish law, and in the Minchas Chinukh's opinion -- nor in Noachide law. The general problem of people hating the sinner rather than the sin isn't limited to this one. Perhaps here things are more extreme because the accusers do not attempt to separate an instinctive loathing from actual halachic concerns. Either we should be getting similar bile when discussing business cheats, or we should be getting quiet on both fronts. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 18:46:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 01:46:19 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Alternate texts for the Prayer for the Government Message-ID: <20150705.214619.1506.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> R' Mordechai Harris wrote: > Here's the one I shard last time from the De Sola Pool Siddur. > www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/deSolaPoolPrayerForGovernment.pdf R' Simon Montagu asked: > Can you also share the publication details and/or title page of > this siddur? What I know as the De Sola Pool Siddur is not the > same as in this link. I have ... RMH's link was for "The Traditional Prayer Book for Sabbath and Festivals", the official siddur of the RCA, published in 1960. A very different, longer version appears in many other siddurim, with rather minor differences: The Hirsch Siddur, published by Feldheim The Authorized Daily Prayer Book by Chief Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz The Daily Prayer Book by Philip Birnbaum The Koren Siddur by Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks and in the new Nehalel beShabbat by Michael Haruni (website and free sample at nehalel.com) I was going to remark that I have found this prayer only in siddurim that have an English translation, but is not correct. First, it would seem to appear in whichever siddur the Hirsch was adapted from. But moreover, this same tefila also appears in my copy of "Siddur Eishei Yisrael al pi daas Maran HaGra." (I know there are many siddurim with similar names; all I can tell about this is that the title page lists no publisher, only "Yerushalayim 5735".) The Nehalel siddur is worth noting for this thread. I have not seen this siddur to be too widespread or popular (yet - it's only from 2013), but I'd like to point out that it has TWO versions of this prayer. The version which is very similar to the others is on a page marked "In the United States of America:". But the following page is marked "In the United Kingdom and Commonwealth:", and is markedly different -- but not nearly as different as the De Sola Pool version. This makes me stop, and wonder, and consider the fact that although my Hertz siddur and my Sacks siddur are both of British authorship, they both used American publishers (Bloch and OU Press respectively), and were possibly designed for an American audience. Which leads me to ask those of the chevra who currently reside in the Commonwealth: What version (if any) is said in your shuls? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5599de50e59b55e504270st04vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 06:29:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:29:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VBM-SICHOT75 - 41: The Philosophical Principles of Inheritance Message-ID: <20150706132902.GB31051@aishdas.org> Just because taamei hamitzvos is supposed to be one of the core topics of this email group's host organization.... BTW, my grandfather a"h was named Pinechas after this week's sedra, his bar mitzvah parashah. When it was time to name my oldest, I checked with my uncle how his name appeared on their kesuvah, as their mesader qiddushin was a key rav in my grandfather's life. (R/Dr Mirsky zt"l met two teenage boys coming off the boat and took them under his wing. My grandfather and great-uncle then earned enough to bribe the rest of the family's way out of Litta before the Nazis came to power.) Anyway, it seems R/Dr Mirsky held my grandfather's name was Pinechas, pei-yud-nun-ches-samekh, as it is spelled in the chumash (ignoring the size of the yud as usually written in the beginning of the parashah). And thus the sheva is na, Pinechas - not Pinchas. If you want to make a derashah out of a Mitzri name, it's Pi Nachas, not Pen Chas. Reason for this tangent... I would have expected "Gushies" to get the sheva in the parashah name right. After all, they have the patach under the reish in Parashat. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov VBM-SICHOT75 - 41: Parashat Pinchas Sicha of HaRav Mosheh Lichtenstein Adapted by Motti Guttman Translated by David Strauss Yeshivat Har Etzion "In Place of Your Fathers Shall Be Your Children": The Philosophical Principles of Inheritance The concept of inheritance arises in a number of contexts in the Torah, most prominently in Parashat Pinchas. It is also the central topic of the eighth chapter of Massekhet Bava Batra, Yesh Nochalin. Naturally, the discussion of the laws of inheritance focuses largely on the financial matters at issue among the heirs, leading to the discussion and clarification of a number of fundamental questions regarding monetary law. For that reason, chapter Yesh Nochalin has an important place in the world of Choshen Mishpat. However, the issue of inheritance is not merely monetary. The yerusha (inheritance) is not simply money that we have to decide what to do with. Of course, it is preferable to award the estate of the deceased to his surviving relatives, and not to the state or the income tax authorities; the gemara itself notes, "Should the town collector be the heir?" (Bava Batra 110b). This, however, is not the essence of the laws of inheritance. Inheritance -- Breaching the Boundaries of the Present At the heart of the concept of inheritance lies a significant principle: that of permanence and continuity. When Avraham Avinu entered the Land, he was forced to pitch his tent in different places and live the life of a wanderer. In contrast, the idea of inheritance establishes that a person should not live a life of impermanence. Moshe expresses the desire for a state of permanence in his words to Israel at the plains of Moav: "For you are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance" (Devarim 12:9). This verse was also expounded as referring to the Temple. The idea of inheritance, in this context, creates existential permanence, which is reflected in Halakha. From the time that Jerusalem was selected, it became the permanent site of the Temple, and from that point on, offering sacrifices on bamot was forbidden due to the damage that this would cause to the idea of the Temple as the chosen inheritance. Inheritance constitutes permanence and it creates continuity because it allows the individual to breach the boundaries of the present. From the time of creation, reality dictates that "One generation passes away and another generation comes, but the earth abides forever" (Kohelet 1:4). Man's days are numbered, and sooner or later he will disappear from the world. By his very definition, he is temporary -- like the flower that fades, the shadow that passes, the dust that floats, and the dream that flies away. He is here today and in the grave tomorrow. In contrast, his inheritance remains and affords him continuity. From parent to child and from child to grandchild and great-grandchild, the chain continues and death does not sever it. To a certain extent, this allows one to overcome death and oblivion. Ownership of property and land in itself does not preventing transience or create continuity; it is the identification of inheritance with the family and its heritage in the past and the present that creates the permanence and continuity. A central concept in Jewish law is the concept of the "house," which denotes a family that constitutes a unit of common heritage -- "After their families, by the house of their fathers." We are familiar with this concept from various realms of Halakha. For example, a man whose brother died without children marries the widow through yibum, levirate marriage, in order to continue the family, and he is thereby able to perpetuate the name of the deceased, since they belong to a common "house." Because of the great importance that the Torah attributes to perpetuating the name of the deceased and continuing his legacy, it established the mechanism of levirate marriage despite the personal, familial and halakhic difficulties entailed in marriage to one's brother's wife. Indeed, the mitzva of yibum takes precedence over the mitzva of chalitza because of the mission of perpetuating the brother's name.[1] The language of the text itself creates a connection between yibum and inheritance, as the purpose of the mitzva is defined as "to perpetuate the name of the deceased on his inheritance." The principle of continuity and its importance in a person's life is further reflected in the statement of Chazal (Nedarim 64b) that includes one who does not have any children among those who are considered as if they were dead. While continuity expresses itself on the concrete level through the transmission of property, much more important, of course, is ensuring continuity on the level of values, goals, and existential aspirations, which constitute the true heritage that a person leaves behind. The prophet Yeshaya emphasized how a person's eternal heritage endures: For thus says the Lord to the eunuchs who keep My Sabbath, and choose the things that please Me, and take hold of My covenant. And to them will I give in My house and within My walls a memorial better that sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. (Yeshaya 56:4-5) Indeed, there is more than one plane on which a person achieves inheritance and continuity. Inheritance is part of the system that turns the transition between generations into something permanent and stable, allowing family identity to be transmitted across the generations. In this light, we can understand Chazal's critique of a person who leaves no inheritance. As we read in a mishna in Yesh Nochalin (Bava Batra 133b): If a person gives his estate in writing to strangers and leaves out his children, his arrangements are legally valid, but the spirit of the Sages finds no delight in him. The reference here is not to a person who did not leave an inheritance due to poverty or distress, but rather to a person who decided to give away his estate for other purposes, as positive as they may be,[2] or based on the perception that his children should fend for themselves. The idea behind this mishna is the need to leave a legacy for future generations. The principle of passing down to the next generation is of central importance. Know From Whence You Come! This perception of inheritance is rooted in a general and comprehensive idea that pervades all of Jewish life -- namely, that we do not live only in the present. Judaism rejects a horizontal perspective on man, according to which man is connected only to his current environment. Our relationship is not only with this generation. Rather, our sights are at all times directed at "the one who stands here with us this day before the Lord our God, and also with the one who is not here with us this day" (Devarim 29:14). The hope is to establish a relationship of shared destiny with the past, on both the national and the personal level. This is why we mourn to this day various historical events that happened to our ancestors. We do not say, "What happened, happened." The sense of pain and tragedy that Jewish law demands of a person indicates that it expects one to experience these things in unmediated fashion, as if they occurred to people he knows, and not only that he relate to them as events of the distant past for the purpose of learning a lesson from history. "In every generation one must see himself as if he went out from Egypt." Just as a Jew is expected to feel the pain of his Jewish brothers injured in terrorist attacks in Argentina, Turkey, Paris, or Afula, regardless of the geographical distance between them, because all of Israel are responsible for and close to one another, he is similarly expected to feel pain over events that took place a long time ago. The ability to draw from our heritage and know what happened to our ancestors is important in itself. The actions of our forefathers interest us, regardless of the spiritual insights that can be derived from them, because of the feeling of existential partnership between us and our ancestors. Avraham and Sara, Yitzchak and Rivka, Yaakov, Rachel and Leah, are not only the nation's patriarchs and matriarchs, but also our forefathers. They are not only lofty figures, but also Grandpa and Grandma -- and for this reason the Torah shared their lives with us. Just as a grandson is interested in hearing from his grandfather or his grandmother about life in Eastern Europe or North Africa a century ago, we want to know what happened in Mesopotamia during the time of Avraham and Sara. A person's life in the present is intertwined with the history of his forefathers in the past. One is intricately connected to his past; one does not grow up in a vacuum. Models of Inheritance The first mishna in Yesh Nochalin presents us with a number of possible models for those who inherit and those who transmit inheritance: Some [relatives] inherit [from] and transmit [to each other]; some inherit but do not transmit; some transmit but do not inherit; some neither inherit nor transmit. Clearly, the ideal is that a person should inherit and transmit inheritance, that he should be numbered among those who are "nochalin u-manchilin." As stated above, the inheritance is not simply property for the heir, but rather constitutes a familial plot filled with existential significance. He inherits -- deciding to connect himself to his past and to his heritage. And he is interested in transmitting inheritance -- adding his contribution to the heritage, the personal layer that he adds to the inheritance and passes down to the next generation. In contrast, there are those who inherit but do not transmit, "nochalin ve-lo manchilin" -- who draw from the past and connect to it, but are not capable of passing their heritage on. Perhaps this is because they do not consider this stage important, or perhaps they lack the capacity to give their heritage over to others and to connect to the next generation. Such a person does not know how to take from the past and interpret it for his children in the future. He is familiar with the world of the past, but he lacks the tools to apply the past and its heritage to the challenges of the present and the future. The reverse case also exists -- "yesh manchilin ve-einam nochalin," there are those who transmit but who do not inherit. They wish to pass on their personal legacy, but they are cut off from the past, or so they imagine. In their eyes, everything began in their generation. Previous generations erred or were weak; there is no need to receive their inheritance, laden with the outdated baggage of Diaspora life. This heir is not prepared to connect to the past or to recognize that he is dependent upon it. Blinded by his present achievements, he is alienated from the past and the weight of tradition. The most tragic group neither inherits nor transmits inheritance, "lo nochalin ve-lo manchilin." They are cut off from every bit of the past. They live only in the present and are utterly devoid of worry about the future -- "After me, the deluge." The concept of inheritance serves as a bridge between the past and the future. In this context, the individual is merely another link in a chain. If we consider the chain of tradition recorded by the Rambam in his introduction to the Mishneh Torah, more important than any particular Sage is the very chain of tradition itself. The value of each link lies in the fact that it allows the chain to continue. This is the connection and bridge between all the generations, from Avraham Avinu until the Mashiach. Spiritual Heritage through Physical Means As noted above, the transmission takes place through tangible means as well. It is obvious to us that it is values and ideas, Torah and mitzvot, that constitute the heritage that passes from one generation to the next. It is easy to understand the statement: "Moshe commanded us the Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov" (Devarim 33:4). It is more difficult to grasp that the Torah also attaches great importance to tangible inheritance, to the transmission of physical property. Chazal teach us that "monuments are not built for the righteous; their words are their memorials" (Bereishit Rabba 82). We do not set up statues or tombstones for the righteous, for it is their spiritual legacy that serves as their memorial. Nevertheless, the ability to touch the past by way of some object bestows additional meaning on that heritage. Touching the physical possession of a deceased relative gives a person the sense of an unmediated encounter with the past. One generation passes away and another generation comes, but an object that remains provides a connection to the earlier period. Man is a physical creature, and contact with material objects is meaningful to him as a reminder of and bridge to the past. Not only is it meaningful to transmit the life story of the deceased to future generations and to talk about his values, but it is also important to be able to connect with him on the most basic level. When a person comes across an object that belonged to his relative, it is important to him even if it lacks monetary value or is in no way unique. The tangible item turns the past into something immediate on a level that cannot be achieved by any other means. A number of years ago, a Torah scroll that belonged to the Ran and a seal that was reportedly that of the Ramban were displayed in an exhibition devoted to Spanish Jewry before the expulsion. It is difficult to describe the thrill that I felt when I understood that this seal was once held by the Ramban himself and that the Ran had once used this Torah scroll. I also remember the feeling of immediacy that I felt when someone showed me an etrog box that had once belonged to R. Akiva Eiger. We are physical beings who come from the dust, and physical things therefore speak to us. Paradoxically, it is precisely material objects, which are essentially transient, that maintain their permanence for centuries, creating a bridge between the past and the future. The need for connection through objects, which is natural and self-evident given that we are humans of flesh and blood, also underlies the Torah and the practical mitzvot. Judaism is not built exclusively on vague and abstract values. In response to the human need for concreteness, a system of practical commandments was created in order to express a system of ideas. The performance of mitzvot creates a channel for religious experience and opens the way for a connection between man and God. The experience associated with taking a lulav or eating matza reflects how much an object plays a role in the human religious experience. In a person's private life, intimate family connections are not based exclusively on profound conversations about noble values, but are rather manifest in shared day-to-day experiences, including the trivial problems that engage an ordinary family in everyday conduct, such as who will wash the dishes or fold the laundry. Similarly, this component of activity that is ongoing but not uplifting plays a role in our observance of the mitzvot. Just as a family lives closely together and creates connections even through banal activities, the mitzvot create a common religious experience with God among all those observing them. Thus, objects can provide existential meaning, but this depends upon the eye of the beholder. A person who relates to an inheritance merely as a set of objects and not as a means to continue the past will not see any unique significance in those objects. The Uniqueness of the Firstborn Thus far, we have discussed the idea of heirs and inheritance in general, the concept of personal and national heritage in the sense of "You are the children of the Lord your God" (Devarim 14:1). We have not discussed any unique status of any of the heirs. This indeed follows the model of the first half of Yesh Nochalin. At this point, we must move on to the second half of the chapter and to the concept of the birthright, the special privileges bestowed upon a firstborn. In addition to the passage dealing with inheritance in Sefer Bamidbar, a passage in Sefer Devarim assigns special status to a firstborn son. The concept of the bechora, primogeniture, is not merely factual but rather value-laden. This is reflected in the gemara's emphasis on the idea of "recognizing" the firstborn (based on the word "yakir" in the verse). The birthright expresses an interpersonal relationship unique to the parent and firstborn; it assumes a certain connection between them. Therefore, a firstborn only inherits a double portion if he was alive during his father's lifetime (Bava Batra 142b) and the father recognizes him as his firstborn son (127a).[3] For this reason, we also maintain that "the Torah calls it [the firstborn's double portion] a gift." In Halakha, a gift is not merely a certain type of acquisition, but rather an expression of intimacy. The firstborn inherits as one who receives a gift, directly from the father and not through the house or family. All of a person's strengths are reflected first and foremost in his firstborn. A father is supposed to feel a partnership with his sons, and the firstborn is the first child with whom this closeness is created. The Concept of Birthright in the Bible The birthright is referred to prominently in three contexts in the Bible: the struggle over the birthright between Yaakov and Esav; the story of Yaakov's two firstborn sons, Reuven and Yosef; and the description of Israel as "My son, My firstborn" (Shemot 4:22). These models point to the importance attached to the firstborn, as well as to the dangers that this status creates. Concerning the opportunity and the danger posed by the birthright, it is appropriate to cite two midrashim from Avot De-Rabbi Natan: Israel were called "sons," as it is stated: "You are the sons of the Lord your God" (Devarim 14:1), and the ministering angels are called "sons," as it is stated: "The sons of God came" (Iyov 1:6), and you do not know which are more loved. When it says: "Israel is My son, My firstborn," [it makes clear that] you are more precious to me than the ministering angels. (44a) The firstborn is perceived here as a clear expression of endearment and special closeness. Another midrash in Avot De-Rabbi Natan speaks in a different tone, recognizing that not every firstborn is dearly loved: Israel is precious, for in His time of anger they are called "sons." In His time of anger they are called sons, and even at a time when the verse says: "Not His is the corruption, but the blemish of His sons" (Devarim 32:5) -- sons in whom I have no trust, corrupt sons. Therefore, the Sages taught that they are called sons of God... But not every firstborn is precious and dear. There is a firstborn who is precious and dear, and there is also a firstborn who is not precious and dear. (8a) This midrash points to the problematic nature of the firstborn. It is simple to speak of the beauty and loftiness of the idea of Israel being "My son, My firstborn." But this does not necessarily reflect reality, as we find in the stories dealing with the birthright in the book of Bereishit. Yaakov vs. Esav -- Values vs. Money Esav views inheritance as a way to acquire property: "Behold, I am at the point of death, and what profit shall this birthright be to me?" (Bereishit 25:32). Ostensibly, the opposite is actually true! It is precisely at the point of death that the birthright acquires greater importance, for through it Esav could be counted as part of the line of the house of Avraham and as a link that transmits the heritage of the past to the coming generations. In this way, his memory would be preserved for generations, even after he dies. But Esav understands that he will derive no monetary gain from the inheritance, as he is about to die, and he is therefore prepared to sell his birthright for a pot of lentils. The commentators discuss the manner in which Yaakov took the birthright from Esav, and the Rishonim deal with the legal question of how Yaakov could acquire the birthright even though it was something that had not yet come into existence ("davar she-lo ba le-olam"). Many explanations have been offered, but it is possible to suggest one very simple answer. Esav did not sell the birthright to Yaakov; he lost it because his actions proved that he was not worthy of it. His very readiness to sell his birthright for a pot of lentils attested to his attitude toward the birthright and to his alienation from the world of Yitzchak. Anyone who scorns the birthright demonstrates that he does not understand its significance, and thus forfeits it. Sometimes, a child relates to his parents as an infinite source of rights. He wishes only to receive benefits and service from his parents; he is not prepared to accept the burden of transferring the legacy of previous generations. It is not for naught that the midrash (Bereishit Rabba 67:8; 75:9) describes Esav as ready to arrange for the murder of Yaakov and Yishmael in order to inherit the entire inheritance of Avraham. When the birthright is perceived not as a responsibility and sacred mission, but as an opportunity to profit at the expense of others, when the attitude toward inheritance is like that toward any monetary matter, it is not surprising to find that a violent man would be prepared to kill the other heirs and to employ a variety of schemes in order to inherit more assets. Yaakov, in contrast, views the birthright not only as a right, but as a mission. He wants to perpetuate Avraham's blessing in the world, and he sees the birthright as a destiny that will confer that mission upon him. It is not by chance that Chazal saw the pot of lentils as a dish denoting mourning over Avraham's passing, for it is around this event that the debate focuses. The test is whether to view this as an opportunity for profit -- on the tangible level, through the eating of the beans, and on the symbolic level, through benefit from the property of the deceased -- or as a call to assume responsibility and accept the authority of the firstborn. Reuven vs. Yosef -- Competition vs. Continuity Another pair of brothers who compete over the birthright presents us with a different model that is problematic for a different reason. On the one hand, "Reuven, you are my firstborn, my might and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity and the excellency of power" (Bereishit 49:3). It is upon Reuven that Yaakov pins his entire future and all of his hopes. On the other hand, "Unstable as water, you shall not excel; because you went up to your father's bed; then you did defile it: he went up to my couch" (ibid. 49:4), and in Divrei Ha-Yamim: "Now the sons of Reuven the firstborn of Israel -- for he was the firstborn, but since he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Yosef the son of Yisrael" (I Divrei Ha-Yamim 5:1). Because he defiled his father's bed, the birthright was taken away from Reuven. Esav was indifferent to the birthright and to the past; he sought in his inheritance only monetary gain. Reuven suffers from the opposite problem -- he sees himself as competing with his father and contending against him. No matter how we understand the specifics of Reuven's sin when he defiled his father's bed, the implication is the same -- it was an attempt to push his father aside and take his place during his lifetime. Reuven challenged his father's standing as head of the family. He rejected Yaakov's authority, and by doing so he impaired his own standing. The way of the world is that at some stage in a person's life, there is a reversal of roles. The strong parent, the firm rock, turns into a frail old man, at which point the sons must help the parent. Sometimes, they are even compelled to make decisions for the parent. Indeed, at the end of Yaakov's life, when he arrived in Egypt a broken and ill man, Yosef made various decisions for him. All this is possible and appropriate when the father is old and weak, when there is no other way, but not when the father is at the height of his strength and is fit to stand on his own two feet. The firstborn is meant to be the continuation of his father, but not his replacement who is in competition with him. The father bestows the birthright -- "The Torah calls it a gift." A son may not take the birthright by force. The similarity between Reuven and Yaakov could have prepared Reuven to be his father's successor. However, when that similarity is interpreted as competition, the firstborn's reward is cancelled out by his loss. Yosef was also similar to Yaakov, but he knew how to actualize that similarity at the proper time and not to replace him while he was still alive. The birthright was thus taken from Reuven, as from Esav, because he was unsuited for it. The transfer of property from an unfit son is the subject of a dispute between the Sages and R. Shimon ben Gamliel (133b), and we rule that property should not be transferred even from a wicked son to a good son. But in such a case, we are not dealing with an impairment in the firstborn's functioning as a firstborn, but rather with a general problem, and we therefore do not want to cancel the birthright. However, when the son sets himself in competition with his father, when he defiles his father's bed, the birthright is removed from him. The Actions of the Fathers are a Sign for the Sons The relationship between God and Israel should be examined in a similar manner. As stated to Moshe, Israel is "My son, My firstborn" (Shemot 22:4). What this means is that on a certain level, all the nations are God's children; the birthright does not negate the standing of the other brothers, but rather bestows a certain advantage on the firstborn while recognizing the others as sons.[4] But how are we to understand our relationship to God as His firstborn? Are we more precious to God than the ministering angels, as is stated in the first midrash cited above? Or are we perhaps like the firstborn who is not cherished and dear, as he appears in the second midrash? Will we be alienated from God? Will we be like a firstborn who is first among his brothers, but aware of his place? Or perhaps, God forbid, we will view ourselves in competition with God? Of course, the desired model is a permanent and meaningful relationship in which the individual feels the presence of the Shekhina, one in which he does not view the relationship between man and God as an interesting idea but nothing more. A child feels the presence of his parent and maintains a strong relationship with him, despite the differences in standing between them; this is also true of the relationship between Israel and their Father in Heaven. This is the challenge with which we are faced. A person who feels the responsibility of being a fitting firstborn to God justifies his birthright, but also assumes responsibility. The greater and deeper the responsibility and purpose, the greater the spiritual achievement. However, the spiritual danger is also greater. The same things that create obstacles in the relationship between a son and his parents are liable to ruin the relationship between man and his Maker. One can encounter a problem in the form of what we saw regarding Esav; a person recognizes the existence of God, but views the connection between him and his Father in Heaven as a means of satisfying his own pleasures and fulfilling his needs. In such a case, his heritage interests him only for the purpose of generating profits, and nothing more. He does not see his heritage as an obligation or mission, but rather as "a spade for digging," a source of personal gain. Alternatively, there is the situation of Reuven, which is reflected in the feeling that God is "strangling" him, leaving him with insufficient leeway due to the Shekhina's presence in the world. Just like a child rebels when he feels constrained by a parent or when he senses that the parent with his power and status overshadows him and his capabilities, a person's feelings about God may be similar. The proper situation, both with respect to the parent-child relationship and with respect to the relationship between man and God, is that man should find his place within a framework of existing laws and recognize that there are factors above him. Within these boundaries, he will be able to find his uniqueness and express his personal development. A firstborn like Reuven, who feels that he cannot exercise his strengths together with the strengths of God, is a firstborn who lacks the appropriate "recognition." Let us move from the People of Israel to the Land of Israel. The Land was also given to us as an inheritance and a heritage. Here, too, the aim is to see it as God's inheritance and to reach the realization of "You shall bring them in and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance" (Shemot 15:17), with the physical land serving as an expression of the spiritual connection and relationship between God and His people. Here, too, however, there is the danger of being caught up in the perspective of profitability and materialism, which views the Land exclusively as a place of leisure and profits. As opposed to "the mountain of Your inheritance," Datan and Aviram view the Land as "an inheritance of fields and vineyards" (Bamidbar 16:14), and nothing more. The children of Reuven and Gad preferred to receive their inheritance on the east bank of the Jordan, as that was advantageous for their animals and business. They did not ask themselves about the effect that their step would have on their inheritance as a sacred place or as the land of their forefathers. In opposition to "an inheritance of fields and vineyards" stands "the mountain of Your inheritance." Furthermore, since the inheritance is not land but rather a heritage, it exists, under certain condition, even without land. Not only is there the mountain of Your inheritance, but God is also the inheritance of the priests and Levites, substituting for the inheritance of land. We not only have God's intention "to give it to you for a heritage" (Shemot 6:8), but also "Moshe commanded us the Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov" (Devarim 33:4). Needless to say, the fitting situation for the ordinary person is the realization of the two inheritances, both of the Land and of the Torah. At times, however, it is one heritage that sustains us, while the other is missing. This was the case throughout the long years of exile, when the heritage of the Torah allowed Israel to survive in the lands of their dispersion. Similarly, in recent generations, the secular Zionist movement adopted for itself the heritage of the Land without a Torah heritage. Indeed, the core challenge facing secular Zionism and the State of Israel in this regard is viewing the country's heritage as an ancestral heritage and an expression of Jewish identity that is connected to the people of Israel throughout the generations, and not only as an inheritance of fields and vineyards. "A Ladder Set upon the Earth, and the Top of it Reached to Heaven" The chapter of Yesh Nochalin presents a sublime model of a system of inheritance that depends on the values that we have discussed. Very often, however, reality slaps us in the face. Inheritance disputes are a common and painful phenomenon. Unfortunately, these struggles are widespread and they destroy families. Values and ideals of great importance are shattered against the rocks of family disputes; instead of attaining achievements, they engage in conflict. Instead of the past serving as an inspiration and guide for the future, a person can destroy his future and fill it with conflicts from the past. Instead of the "house" inheriting the deceased and passing the family heritage down to the other members of the house, the house is split and destroyed in the storms of dispute. One should not make the mistake of thinking that such disputes are driven solely by profits. Often, the conflicts are grounded in what appears to be holiness. Struggles arise around the question of who will be a better successor, who will more faithfully represent the heritage and values of the deceased. Each side is convinced that he alone can express the family truth, while the other side will betray it. He therefore enters into battle against his brothers and sisters, without realizing that he is thereby destroying the family and defying the wishes of the deceased. These "holy fights" create the antithesis of the concept of inheritance. The challenge of inheritance and creating a heritage is indeed great, and it therefore often leads to tension. Nevertheless, Yesh Nochalin presents us with a meaningful model on the existential level, both with respect to the family and the past and with respect to our lives with God. May we merit to meet these challenges. (This sicha was delivered in summer 5767 [2007]. The original Hebrew adaptation was reviewed by Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein.) -- [1] This is true on the fundamental level, as is stated in the mishna in Bekhorot. In this context, we will not consider the dispute between Abba Shaul and the Sages. [2] Most authorities are uncomfortable even with one who donates all of his property to charity. [3] As a result, someone whose status is in doubt is excluded from the law of the birthright: "A son and not a tumtum [a person of undetermined gender]; a firstborn, and not a doubtful firstborn." This is also the basis for the law of "recognition," which according to many authorities is not based on credibility, but on the creation of a connection between father and son, credibility being the byproduct. [4] See the commentators ad loc., especially Ibn Ezra and Seforno. Rashi apparently understood differently and deliberately chose to deviate from the plain meaning of the birthright. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 13:31:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:31:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Defining Tzeis Message-ID: <20150706203135.GA12889@aishdas.org> I wrote the following to FB. If anyone can add or make corrections before the thread there dies, I would appreciate it. I think I summed up the highlights of the sugya as I understood it from previous conversations here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha [Someone asked what the sources in question were, so I replied:] Shabbos 34b-35a, 35b; Pesachim 94a. As Tosafos on Pesachim note, in Shabbos (34b) R' Yehudah is quoted as saying bein hashemashot (sunset to the stars coming out) is 3/4 mil (or 2/3 mil, depending on which amora's version of R' Yehudah you're using, but we hold 3/4), but in Pesachim he says a person can walk 4 mil after sunset before the stars emerge. Rabbeinu Tam notes a slight difference in language. It takes 4 mil "misheqi'as hachamah," in Pesachim, but 3/4 mil from "mishetishqeh hachamah." RT therefore resolves the two gemaros by saying sunset takes 3-1/4 mil. So, 4 mil from the beginning of sunset will take you to 3/4 mil after sunset, which is R' Yehudah's tzeis. The Vilna Gaon's resolution of the confliciting gemaros (OC 235 and 261) is not to split sunset into a beginning an end, but to split tzeis. The halachic tzeis is 3/4 mil after sunset. The gemara in Pesachim is using the term colloquially, not halachically, and simply refers to "all the stars" rather the standard 3. The Re'eim (R' Eliezer of Metz, Seifer Yerei'im, written in the 1170s) splits both -- the two gemaras are discussing different sunsets AND different tzeis. To him, the gemara in Shabbos is saying sheqi'ah (which we usually translate "sunset") is 3/4 mil BEFORE the sun hits the horizon, and tzeis is when the sun is at the horizon. Whereas the gemara in Pesachim then measures how much after the sun is below the horizon that the sky is fully dark. Note that both the Vilna Gaon and the Re'eim assume the gemara in Pesachim is using at least one of the idioms differently than the gemara in Shabbos, and therefore it has no bearing on halakhah. ... [Material in response to what someone else wrote, ellided.] BUT... The Vilna Gaon understands the defining feature to be the emergence of stars, not the fixed time R' Yehudah gives. And therefore inflates the 3/4 mil to adjust from Usha (R' Yehudah's home town) to Vilna. Which brings us to the third topic, on the other side of the page on Shabbos (35b). Again it's R' Yehudah, quoting Shemu'el's prescription of which stars to watch for: [If you see] 1 star, it is day; 2 -- bein hashemashos; 3 -- night. Rabbi Yosi said, "Not large stars that are visible in the day, nor small stars that are only visible at night, but medium stars..." 35b cannot describe 3/4 mil after sunset. Even in Usha or Nehardaa (Shemuel's home town, today's Anbar, central Iraq, on the Euphrates), you will not see 3 middle sized stars 18 min after sunset. R Michl Tukaczinsky and R' Dovid Spitzer did the observations in Jerusalem, and found it takes 31-43 min or 28-40 min, respectively. (Use the smaller end of the range for rabbinic fasts, like the OP, and the larger for Torah laws like Shabbos. Jerusalem is closer to the equator than either city, not that I think it's by enough to matter much.) Rav Moshe Feinstein similarly gave 50 min for Shabbos, 31 for rabbinic fasts -- but then, NY's days vary more in length, so a "never later than" will be more minutes after sunset. With a computer, we could translate all these numbers into degrees below the horizon, as that would tell us how dark it would be outside, and therefore how many stars could be seen, if we weren't bathed in artificial lighting. And even then you get into questions about which stars. The western horizon (the side with the glow of sunset) will show stars well after the east. Three stars seen at once (near each-other) or total when scanning the whole sky? Etc... Rather than decide whether we follow Shabbos 34a or 35a, even those who do not use Pesachim to shed light on 34a pad the 3/4 mil to plausibly allow for people to see three medium sized stars. Given the fact that it's this measure which actually gives the landmark on our clock its name, assuming it is less definitional than a fixed time delay is difficult. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 13:39:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:39:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dan leKaf Zekhus Message-ID: <20150706203931.GB12889@aishdas.org> When I got on the subway this morning, there was a pregnant woman already standing holding on to the poll nearest the door I just came in through. So, feeling all heroic, I asked her quite loudly and pointedly, "Do you need me to embarass someone into getting up for you?" She replied, "No, thank you. A number of people offered when I just got on, but I was more comfortable standing than on the train's benches." I blushed, and sheepishly muttered apologies to those around us. As I said: Dan lekaf zekhus. Not just the law, a good idea. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 14:45:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 17:45:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah and Poverty In-Reply-To: <20150706202632.A741518370D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150706202632.A741518370D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150706214552.GE12889@aishdas.org> On 7/3/2015 3:16 AM, RnTK wrote to Areivim: : But our mishna does describe this as the "way of the Torah." : True Torah scholars will live contentedly under conditions of : denial and poverty. The beraisa (Avos "6":4) says that darkah shel Torah is not to quit learning even if you have to live off bread, salt and water you have to ration, sleep on the ground and otherwise suffer. Not that this is their normal condition, or even one they should desire. There is still the take on the chatas of someone ending nezirus (Rabbeinu Bachya, in contrast to the Ramban) that it's for forgoing permissable pleasure while a nazir. And the Y-mi (Qiddushin 4:12, vilna 48b, the end of the mesechta) in which Rav is quoted as saying "A person will have to give a din vecheshbon on anything his eye saw but he didn't eat. R' Leizer [Elazar? Eliezer?] was chosheish for this, and would use Shabbos to enjoy one such pleasure. This is on the mishnah where R' Nera'i promises to only teach his son Torah, to the exclusion of a profession. But the Y-mi understands this to mean that keeping the Torah (not learning in particular) will provide wealth. Whereas a profession leaves you stuck in your old age, or if one otherwise become unable to work. But it's "vekhein atah motzei be'avinu Avraham *sheshimer* es haTorah" and was wealthy. However, the Bavli famously reports that this was tried experimentally and it generally doesn't work. Okay for a R' Shimon bar Yochai, but not R' Yishmael and the like. (Which could be a difference in kind or quantitative.) No one today would qualify as either a Rashbi or a R' Yishmael, so I don't think the Y-mi's promise should be counted on. And neither gemara lauds poverty. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 17:12:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 20:12:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon Message-ID: From: Lisa Liel via Avodah The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this subject. Lisa >>>> I have seen none of that "vitriol" or "viciousness," either in the past few days or in the last few years, or ever. On the contrary, all I see is an almost desperate attempt to be conciliatory, a desperate if hopeless wish not to be the *victims* of liberal, anti-religious vitriol. See for example "A Letter by Reb Ahron Feldman to a Gay Baal Teshuva" https://guardyoureyes.com/resources/ssa/item/a-letter-by-reb-ahron-feldman-to-a-gay-baal-teshuva Also see Agudath Israel's statement on the recent Supreme Court gay-marriage decision http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2015/06/28/agudath-israel-statement-o n-supreme-court-marriage-ruling/ It reads, in part, "we are deeply concerned that, as a result of today?s ruling, and as the dissenting Justices have pointed out, members and institutions of traditional communities like the Orthodox Jewish community we represent may incur moral opprobrium and risk tangible negative consequence if they refuse to transgress their beliefs, and even if they simply teach and express their religious views publicly." I might add that Lisa's post, being an emotional cri de coeur, really belongs on Areivim. However, since she has posted it to Avodah, I will add my own comments previously posted on Cross-Currents: Here, for the record, is what our ancient Torah heritage has to say about homosexual marriage: The nations are allowed to continue in existence only because they keep a minimum of three mitzvos. These are: not writing marriage documents for the union of two males, not selling human flesh in the market place, and giving honor to the Torah?which in practice means, not persecuting the people of the Torah, the Jewish people. In one of his prophetic visions, the Navi (prophet) Zechariah took thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the Temple treasury in Jerusalem (Zechariah 11:13). The Rabbis of the Talmud had varying interpretations of what this vision symbolized. According to Rabbi Ulla (Talmud Chullin 92B), the thirty pieces of silver symbolized the thirty mitzvos that the Bnei Noach accepted upon themselves. These thirty mitzvos include not worshipping idols, not consulting witchcraft and sorcery, refraining from illicit sexual relationships, and so on. (Bnei Noach are the Sons of Noah, also called Noahides? i.e., the nations of the world.) Rabbi Ulla says that the world continues to exist because the nations accepted these thirty mitzvos. However, he adds, the nations do not keep all the mitzvos they accepted. They keep only three, and one of the three is: ? They do not write a marriage contract for males.? Rashi comments that the nations do engage in forbidden homosexual relations, but they at least acknowledge that such relations are illicit by not formalizing those relations in legal documents. The other two commandments that they keep are that they do not sell human flesh in the market place, and that they give honor to the Torah (Talmud Chullin 92B). Elsewhere the Rabbis of old stated that the final decree of destruction, the Great Flood, was sealed against the generation of Noach because they wrote marriage documents for males. ?Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Yosef, ?The generation of the Flood was not wiped out until they wrote marriage documents for the union of a man to a male or to an animal ? ? (Genesis Rabbah 26:5; Leviticus Rabbah 23:9). Implicit is the assumption that if the nations do not abide by at least the aforementioned three mitzvos, they may forfeit the very right to exist. Hence, these three?not writing marriage documents for males, not selling human flesh in the marketplace, and honoring the Torah?may be considered the Three Conditions for the continued existence of mankind. So you see, the idea of gay marriage is not new, not a fresh idea that represents the ultimate development, enlightenment and evolution of mankind. No, the formal marriage of two men is a very ancient idea that represents the degradation of mankind. http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2011/07/28/4524/ I will add a further point to what I wrote in 2011: The reason the gay pride movement adopted rainbow colors as their symbol is that the rainbow is the sign of Hashem?s promise not to wipe out the entire world again in one big flood. They wave the rainbow flag in defiance of Him, as if to say, ?Ha ha, You can?t touch us!? The message of the rainbow flag is, ?We are major sinners, like the generation of the Flood.? But they are whistling in the dark if they think there won?t be consequences. May Hashem protect His people, those who are chassidei umos ha?olam as well as us, Klal Yisrael. Read more: http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2015/06/29/scotus-on-same-gender-what-it-means-what-it-doesnt/#ixzz3f9x0mazM --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 18:14:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 01:14:59 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> I noted about Kaddish Yasom > From what I've seen, it is NOT said even if a minyan says Birkas > Hamazon, R' Zev Sero asked: > Why would it? Well, I guess my original post should have had a longer introduction. I know that Kaddish Tiskabel has a very clear rule, namely that it follows every Amidah, and the only exception is that it also follows Selichos. Kaddish D'rabanan always follows group learning (though I've never figured out exactly what learning counts and what doesn't). And now I'm trying to figure out the rule for Kaddish Yasom. It SEEMS to be a sort of "congregational prayer", where "prayer" is something *other* than the Amidah, but I can't define it any more precisely than that. For a long time I thought it was connected to Tehillim, but when I noticed it after the megilos on Yom Tov, someone suggested that it's not specifically Sefer Tehillim, but *any* part of Kesuvim, not that we had any idea why Kesuvim would get this distinction over Neviim or Torah. I wrote: > but it IS said when a minyan says Kiddush Levana. RZS suggested: > Probably because people are used to saying it after Alenu. Maybe, and maybe not. I have a suspicion that Alenu was added *because of* the Kaddish, and not the other way around. Here are some data points: The Hirsch siddur has Tehillim 67 as the last paragraph of Kiddush Levana, with nothing at all after it. My Minchas Yerushalayim, and Birnbaum too, end with Tehillim 67 which is then followed by Kaddish Yasom, without Alenu. Is it possible that Alenu is a recent addition to the Kiddush Levana? I wrote: > It is NOT said when a minyan says Tehillim even as an organized > group, RZS asked: > Where have you seen it not being said then? I'm surprised that > this is your experience. In my current community, and also from my memories of yeshiva. When there was some sort of tzara that we said Tehillim for -- whether for a choleh, or some military or political problem -- we would say the Tehillim deemed appropriate by the leaders, and this would be followed by tefillos such as Acheinu and/or Mi Sheberach(s). I don't recall Kaddish ever being part of this. I have to admit that a big part of my asking this question is a pet peeve that I've been nursing, regarding Kiddush Levana in particular. It seems to me that Kiddush Levana -- the way it is done in just about every situation I've ever seen -- cannot be called a Tefilas Tzibur in any sense. It is a group of yechidim who happen to be saying the same thing, but in a totally disorganized fashion. The first one out of shul begins as soon as he finds a good location, and the last one out of shul also begins when he finds a good location. No attempt whatsoever is made to get this group to be on the same page, let alone in the same paragraph. There is no leader (like we have in Hallel and Pesukei Dzimra and everywhere else) who lets everyone know what the group is up to, so that they might end in unison. Rather, one person ends Alenu out loud, and that's when the yesomim say kaddish, regardless of whether they are only halfway though, or already finished before. So that's one of the reasons why I'm wondering why Kiddush Levana gets a kaddish. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/559b2834173228336fdfst03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 23:16:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 02:16:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kiddush levana In-Reply-To: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <559B6EB4.3010400@sero.name> On 07/06/2015 09:14 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: > So that's one of the reasons why I'm wondering why Kiddush Levana gets a kaddish. Well, I found what may be the source for this kaddish. The Shelah says "There is a nice minhag in the kingdom of EY and its surroundings, to say various pesukim and maamarim after kiddush levana, and then say kaddish derabanan [...] and the meaning of this kaddish is that [the Name] should be magnified and sanctified, a Great Name, a full Name, and then the moon's light will be as the sun's light". http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=45685&pgnum=287 > I have a suspicion that Alenu was added > *because of* the Kaddish, and not the other way around. Here are > some data points: The Hirsch siddur has Tehillim 67 as the last > paragraph of Kiddush Levana, with nothing at all after it. My Minchas > Yerushalayim, and Birnbaum too, end with Tehillim 67 which is then > followed by Kaddish Yasom, without Alenu. Is it possible that Alenu > is a recent addition to the Kiddush Levana? Taamei Haminhagim gives a reason for saying Alenu, because it was written by Yehoshua, whose face is compared to the moon (Bava Basra 75a). According to this reason there would seem to be no reason to say it after birkas hachama. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=216 But the footnote to Kuntres Acharon on the next page gives a different reason: Because kiddush levana looks like a pagan ritual, we say Alenu to declare that we worship only Hashem, and this is the same reason that after Hoshanos, which also seems a bit pagan, we declare "Lema'an daas kol amei ha'aretz ki Hashem hu haElokim, ein od". This reason applies equally to birkas hachama. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=217 I remember hearing that the same reason is why we say Alenu after a bris, but I can't find a source for this. Taamei Haminhagim cites Yaavetz that the reason is to include the baby among the "us" who are declaring our loyalty to Hashem. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=404 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 03:41:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 13:41:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Pinechas vs Pinchas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> R' Micha points out that his grandfather's name was Pinechas. He proves it first by the yud after the pei which, by the rules of dikduk, makes the following sheva a na'. In addition, the name is an Egyptian one, Pi-nechas, pi being a common prefix in Egyptian names. In case you haven't been convinced yet, there is a meteg in the pei which, by the rules, makes the chirik malei and the sheva na' There is, however, one small point that makes me wonder. R' Aharon ben Asher who, for the last thousand years, has been called the accepted decision maker on correct spelling in Tana"kh seems to disagree. In perek 11 of his book Dikdukei Hat'amim he describes the sh'vaim before the otyot g'roniot inside a word, when they are na' and when nach. Included in his list of words where they are nach are laqkhu, barchu, Pinchas, zar'u, etc. IIRC, not all manuscripts have all the words and Pinchas might be omitted in some. It is possible that copiers of the words lists added or omitted. On the Mesorah sub-list it is known that I am anti-dikduk because it opens the way to change the fine points on Torah pronunciation to match its rules. Among these "improvements" was the changing of many internal sh'vaim in words from nach to na'. What enabled this to happen was the brilliant invention by R' Yosef Kimchi of the ten vowel, five pairs of malei and chaseir. This led to the rule that after malei the sh'va is na' and after chaseir it is nach. Ben Asher, in perek 10 notes that there are seven vowels in Hebrew. All of the masoretes also state this. If there aren't pairs of malei and chaseir, we've just lost the rule about the following sh'vaim. All this is not something new. Heidenheim in his comments on the Ein Hakorei of RYHB"Y (Shemini, just before sh'lishi) states that in the times of the kadmonim many sh'vaim that are now na'im were then nachim. He quotes (from Ibn Ezra?) that kol sh'va b'ot rafah shekadam lo echad mishiv'at ham'lakhim hu nach ki halashon ha-ivrit kasha la r'difat shalosh t'nu'ot...except for double letters and some words with groniot. So how should I lein on Shabbos? Oh, no problem, I'm not the bal-koire. bivrakha, David From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 05:21:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:21:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kesher Message-ID: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little farfetched 1) knot 2) connection 3) conspiracy -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 06:18:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 09:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> In various places in dovening, kaddish etc we find the loshon - ..v'imru amen. Simply understood this is something only said by a sh'ztibur, as an announcement by the sh'ztibur that the congregation sh answer amen. In some cases, a yachid says it (ie Kiddush hachodesh, etc) probably bc we are saying something that originally was said by the sh'ztibur. What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? Who are we saying v'imru amen to? And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). Because the silent SE is not a carbon copy of the sh'ztibur version (for instance - no elokai netzor, SE of fast days are diff, etc) Mordechai Cohen mcohen at touchlogic.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:09:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 10:09:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper : connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little : farfetched : 1) knot : 2) connection : 3) conspiracy Interestingly, the noun doesn't show in chumash. As an adjective, we have hamuqsharos/im, to describe which of the tzon Yaaqov received (30:41-42). Rashi quotes the Targum, "habechiros" and cites two pesuqim in Shemuel II pereq 15. To round out the list: About Yaaqov (again) and Yoseif, "venafsho qesurah benafsho." Also the string tied on Zarach's hand, and tefillin (x2). Those are all the occurances of the shoresh. BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. Conspiracy comes up in #2, "league together, conspire". It would seem they conjecture the word comes from the collaboration, and less so what they're connecting to eachother to plan against something. They also cite "vatiqasheir kol-hachimah" in Nechemiah 3:35, where one would not readily picture "tying together" parts as a metaphor. I understand why Rashi thought the translation in Bereishis 30 is unique enough to require comment, but not how it fits altogether. (Rashi says it does, not how.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:08:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 14:08:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Pinechas vs Pinchas In-Reply-To: <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> References: , <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1436278092269.69769@ou.org> It should be noted that how Pinechas was read according to the Masorah is not really relevant to the way it was pronounced as a name. Pinchas is a Yiddish name (to be sure, with its roots in Hebrew), and is pronounced without a het and without a sh'wa. Its pronunciation in Hebrew is no more relevant than is the proper pronunciation of the word gannav (theif) in the T'NaKh to the pronunciation of the Yiddish word ganef. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union 11 Broadway, New York, NY 10004 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:22:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 17:22:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> References: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper >: connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little >: farfetched >: 1) knot >: 2) connection >: 3) conspiracy ... > BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary > meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. and what is the connection to a knot (the origin of the question was a dvar torah on the knots of tsizit) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 09:03:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:03:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: References: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150707160302.GA10745@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 05:22:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :>: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings... : ... :> BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary :> meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. : and what is the connection to a knot : (the origin of the question was a dvar torah on the knots of tsizit) Well, tzitzis knots less so, but knots generally bind two strings or two ends of a string together, no? Tzitzis knots are somewhat more like the example from Nechemiah. If qesher includes "batiqashar kol-hachomah", perhaps it also it includes binding pesilim into a gedil. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 14:44:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 17:44:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam, Moreh Nevuchim (2:29), A Strange Passage about Miracles Message-ID: <559C4830.9030705@gmail.com> In Moreh Nevuchim, 2:29, the Rambam seems to disparage a talmudical position about miracles that he had endorsed in his prior works (Commentary on Avos 5:6 and Shmoneh Perakim chapter 8). This, despite the fact that in the Moreh, he refers the reader to these former works to understand his position about miracles. And to further confuse matters, in the Moreh itself, within just a few sentences, he goes on to laud the proponent of that very positionfor maintaining it! The position is that already during the Creation week, G-d instilled, in objects and forces of nature, the potential for the aberrant behaviors that He would unleash when appropriate. (I.e. the aberrant behaviors were not changes G-d first decided upon, created and imposed upon things at the time the miracles were witnessed.) The Moreh Nevuchim introduces the concept with the words: "Our Sages said things zarrim m'od as regards miracles." "zarrim m'od" is Ibn Tibbon's Hebrew translation. Narboni and Schwartz use the similar "muzarrim, and likewise, Friedlander and Pines, in their English translations, translate, "very strange." KPCH translates, "temuhim" (astonishing). They all seem to indicate that the Rambam shunned the idea. Yet, as I noted, just a few sentences later, the Rambam lauds the Tanna who expressed the thought: [T]his text...demonstrates the [high] level of the speaker, and its being very difficult in his eyes that Nature could change after Creation, or that G-d's Will would change after it had been established. He therefore reasons, for example, that G-d instilled, in the nature of Water, the [property of] sticking together and always flowing in a downward direction, except for that time in which the Egyptians would drown in them; those specific waters would split. I have already enlightened you as to the main idea of the [talmudic] statement [KPCH in a footnote sees this as a reference to the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah and Shemoneh Perakim], and that it is all meant to flee from [the idea that, after Creation, G-d would bring about] the new creation of anything. It says there: R. Yonathan said, G-d placed stipulations on the sea, that it should divide before the Israelites. Thus it says, "And the sea returned, when the morning appeared, l'ay-sa-no [to its strength, or to its stipulated nature]"(Sh'mos 14:27). R. Yiremiyah ben Elazar said: Not only with the sea did the Holy One, blessed be He, place stipulations, but with all that has been created in the six days of Creation. "My hands stretched out the heavens, and all their hosts I commanded" (Yishayahu 45:12): I commanded the sea that it will divide, the fire that it should not harm Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, and the lions that they should not harm Daniel, and the fish that it should spit out Jonah." The same is to be applied to all the other miracles. The surprising solution to this problem is really quite simple. I noticed that in Moreh 1:70 (p. 106 in the classic version, line 2), Pines translates a certain phrase as "strange but true."But both Ibn Tibbon and Schwartz translate it, "ha-inyanim ha-mufla-os ha-n'chonos, ("matters wondrous but true/correct"). Hmmm. One Arabic scholar translates a word as "strange," while others translate it as "wondrous." I began to sense how the same word could be used both ways, and I suspected it might also be the same word as in our passage in 2:29. Without mentioning my problem about the Rambam's self-contradiction (to keep the issue unbiased), I asked R. Yakov Wincelberg, translator of Avraham ben HaRambam's Sefer HaMaspik from Arabic to English, what the actual Arabic word there is, and if it's the same word in our passage in 2:29. Here is his reply: In both cases, the word griva is used. It doesn't mean specifically "weird," but something that stands out. It could be: extraordinary, wondrous, amazing, rare, peculiar, uncommon, obscure, etc. It even is used for emigrating from one's country, as one is separating from the people. In other words, the word means "outstanding." So, true, one tends to understand the translation "zar" or "strange" to be meant in the sense of "weird," or "foreign," indicating that in the Moreh the Rambam considered the "front-loaded" miracle an idea to be shunned--contra the Gemora, his Avos commentary, and his Shemoneh Perakim. But the simpler truth is that the Rambam consistently endorsed this view, and considered it to be an outstanding one. One need only realize that Ibn Tibbon titles his dictionary of unfamiliar philosophical terms,appended to his Moreh Nevuchim translation, "Payrush Me'Hamillot Zarot," The word Zar indicates something unfamiliar, but not necessarily "strange" in the sense of "weird." And it can also mean something that is wondrous and true. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 17:01:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 20:01:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher Message-ID: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little farfetched 1) knot 2) connection 3) conspiracy -- Eli Turkel >>>> The deeper connection is -- connection! All the words formed from this shoresh are words that have "connecting" as their basic meaning. In Edward Horowitz's fascinating and entertaining book, "How the Hebrew Language Grew," he has a chapter on how sounds made in the same part of the mouth sometimes interchange to form words with similar or closely related meanings. One example he gives is the word kesher, and the related word gesher -- a bridge, which connects two places, two sides of a river, two sides of a road and so on. Keshes, a rainbow, is something like a bridge connecting two parts of the sky. Another example of these interconnected words (this one I've also seen in the Hirsch commentary on Chumash) is the word "tsachak" to laugh, to which a number of other words are related in a phonetic way: Change the ches to an ayin and you get "tsa'ak." Both tsachak and tsa'ak involve emitting loud sounds -- sounds of mirth or of alarm or distress. (Ches and ayin are both formed in the back of the throat.) Change the tsadi to a sin and instead of "tsachak" to laugh you get "sachak" to be happy, to rejoice. (Tsadi and sin are both sibilants.) Going back to the word tsa'ak, if you now change the tsadi to a zayin you again get a closely related word, "za'ak." And if you take the word "tsa'ir" (young) and change the tsadi to a zayin you get "za'ir" small. Change the sin of saraf to a tsadi and instead of burning (saraf) you get refining (tsaraf) gold or silver -- which is done through heat. Change the zayin of "zahav" to a tsadi and instead of gold you get "tzahov," the color yellow. Horowitz points out that these kinds of phonetic relationships can also be found in English, Latin and other languages, but nevertheless I find it especially fascinating to trace these connections in Lashon Hakodesh. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 02:42:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 09:42:27 GMT Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen Message-ID: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. > Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? > Who are we saying v'imru amen to? > > And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the > same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end of Birkas Hamazon. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett???s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren???t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/559cf0b42988970b45addst03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 02:09:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 02:09:57 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:18 AM, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: > In various places in dovening, kaddish etc we find the loshon - ..v'imru > amen. .. > What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. > Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? > Who are we saying v'imru amen to? I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish. SE took on the whole paragraph "Oseh Shalom ... ve'imru amen" from the end of Kaddish, and Kaddish took on the three steps backwards from the end of SE (which makes sense for the STz's Kaddish Titkabbal at the end of the repetition, but not so much in all other kaddishim) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 06:30:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 09:30:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <559D2610.8060803@sero.name> On 07/08/2015 05:42 AM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > >> What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. >> Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? >> Who are we saying v'imru amen to? >> >> And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the >> same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). > > The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end of Birkas Hamazon. Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even when there's a zimun. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 08:04:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:04:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> References: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150708150424.GA8908@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 08:01:24PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : In Edward Horowitz's fascinating and entertaining book, "How the Hebrew : Language Grew," he has a chapter on how sounds made in the same part of the : mouth sometimes interchange to form words with similar or closely related : meanings... Also in RSRH's fascinating and entertaining commentary on the Pentateuch and a couple of places in CW and elsewhere. : Another example of these interconnected words (this one I've also seen in : the Hirsch commentary on Chumash)... See https://books.google.com/books?id=eVAAfn6Itb4C (The real one; the google preview skips all of your examples.) Etymological Dictionary of Biblcal Hebrew: Based on the Commentaries of Samson Raphael Hirsch by Matityahu Clark This is a central part of RSRH's exegesis. I once went through much of Bereishis and Shemos documenting which letters RSRH considers related enough to qualify as likely to be part of the same phonetic meta-root. I ended up with the following chart (readable only in fixed-width-font, eg Courier): geroniot velar dental dento-lingual labial h,ch q | s,sh tes | alef k | tz tav | b ayin g | z d | p n ------------- m r --------------------------------- l y ------------------------------------- v Letters in the same column are phonetically related (eg hei and aleg) Vertical lines separate into pairs (eg zayin and dalet, but not dalet and pei nor tzadi and dalet [paired coumns, different rows]). The pairs are lingual/velar (use tongue) vs not. Horizontal lines connect the nasals (mem and nun), the approximants (lamd and reish) and the semivowels (yud and vav). The unvoiced letters are all in the top two rows. Notice how hei-ches and shin/sin-samech fall into parallel positions, and bege"d kefe"t into the same two rows. I stopped my analysis when I had gone dozens of peraqim without needing to change the chart any. Lost interest. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 08:12:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:12:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> Message-ID: <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:09:57AM -0700, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, : but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence : between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish... You might have seen it on-list in Apr or Dec 2006, offered by RPMinden. RSBA offered a different explanation: > Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, Likutei Maharich, RS Schwab, Boruch She'omar all > say that we are whispering to the Malochim - that accompany a person all > the time. [Maybe 'oseh sholom BIMEROMOV' indicates this?] The earliest > source seems to be Mateh Moshe - which some cite. > The OH also brings a nusach - IIRC - Machzor [or Siddur] Roma - that > indeed does not include the 'Ve'imru Omein' at the end of SE. RPM believes it was a post-facto explanation, giving meaning to a pratice that really originated in error. See the subject line at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=T#TO%20WHOM%20ARE%20WE%20WHISPERING%20 and the 3 starting with http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=V#VIMRU%20AMEN in the archive index. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 11:33:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 14:33:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: In Avodah V33n96, RAM referred repeatedly to "Kaddish Yasom" -- I think at least some of his questions might be answered once we understand that (a) what he called "Kaddish Yasom" is actually the Qaddish (Shaleim, but without the "tisqaba[i]l" phrase) said by the SHaTZ at the end of davening, at some point in our history given over to children (eventually/or to *y'somim*) who could not be SHaTZ (see http://www.beureihatefila.com/files/Introduction_to_Mourners_Kaddish.pdf); and that (b) Qaddish is said after the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim or other K'suvim. As for Kiddush L'vana (KL), indeed Minhag Ashk'naz did not include "Aleinu" -- as was noted, the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim at the end of KL (similar to doing so after Shacharis and after [Mincha/]Ma'ariv, and similar to when a *seifer* from K'suvim was read) was followed by Qaddish (in the Roedelheim, those chapters are 121, 150, and 67, not just 67) -- and KL not being a *t'filas tzibbur* does not impact upon the saying of Qaddish (although obviously, a *minyan* is required for any *davar shebiq'dusha*). HTH :). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 02:40:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 02:40:50 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:09:57AM -0700, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > : I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, > : but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence > : between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish... > > You might have seen it on-list in Apr or Dec 2006, offered by RPMinden. > My memory was correct as to the attribution, though I garbled the content a bit. It's on page 48 of the Birnbaum siddur, in the notes to the Kaddish deRabbanan after Korbanot: "/Oseh Shalom/, which repeats in Hebrew the thought expressed in the preceding Aramaic paragraph, seems to have been added from the meditation recited at the end of the /Shemoneh Esreh/. The same sentence is also added at the end of the grace recited after meals. The three steps backwards, which formed the respectful manner of retiring from a superior, were likewise transferred from the concluding sentence of the /Shemoneh Esreh/. On the other hand, the phrase "and say Amen", added at the end of the silent meditation after the /Shemoneh Esreh/, must have been borrowed from the Kaddish which is always recited in the hearing of no fewer than ten men." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 08:53:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:53:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reciting a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time Message-ID: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> http://tinyurl.com/o6rxcdf according to those that say you do NOT recite a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time (ie bar mitzvah), why is it different than all the places where we DO recite a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah not done in a long time? (ie lulav, shofar, megila, etc) Thanks, mc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 13:27:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 20:27:55 GMT Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen Message-ID: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> I wrote: > The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end > of Birkas Hamazon. R' Zev Sero responded: > Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, > with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively > recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even > when there's a zimun. But we've *always* benched as individuals when there *isn't* a zimun. But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that originally, Oseh Shalom was part of benching only when a zimun was present, and then for some reason came to be said even by individuals. If that is indeed what happened, I can't help but speculate that there was an even earlier time, when benching with a zimun would include Oseh Shalom at that point, but benching with a *minyan* would include Kaddish at that point! Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55a02add2581a2add0f3dst01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 16:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <55A05668.1080404@sero.name> On 07/10/2015 04:27 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: >> >Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, >> >with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively >> >recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even >> >when there's a zimun. > But we've*always* benched as individuals when there*isn't* a zimun. Benching is designed for a zimun. It's normal to eat in a group. But even when there were only two eating, or when a family ate together, I think the usual thing was for one person to bench and the other person (or the wife and children) to listen and say amen. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 08:42:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush L'vana (was "Kaddish Yasom") Message-ID: In Avodah v33n97, I wrote: > As for Kiddush L'vana (KL), indeed Minhag Ashk'naz did not include "Aleinu" -- as was noted, the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim at the end of KL...was followed by Qaddish...-- and KL not being a *t'filas tzibbur* does not impact upon the saying of Qaddish.... < Just wanted to add that (a) For the record, I don't recall Qaddish being said at the end of KL at KAJ/"Breuer's" (and the MMA Siddur Tefilas Yeshurun instructs not to say either "Aleinu" or Qaddish at the end of Bircas haL'vana), even when there was evidently more than a quorum of men (gathered to be *m'qabeil p'nei haShchina b'rov-am*) on the front steps or sidewalk of the Shul -- whether or not Qaddish should be said (and what the precise parameters are) in that circumstance (not a *t'filas tzibbur*; not in a *maqom t'fila*) was not central to the overall points I was trying to make; and (b) for consistency, it's QL, not KL :). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 11:30:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:30:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pinchas Message-ID: > > > BTW, my grandfather a"h was named Pinechas after this week's sedra, > his bar mitzvah parashah. When it was time to name my oldest, I checked > with my uncle how his name appeared on their kesuvah, as their mesader > qiddushin was a key rav in my grandfather's life. (R/Dr Mirsky zt"l met > two teenage boys coming off the boat and took them under his wing. My > grandfather and great-uncle then earned enough to bribe the rest of the > family's way out of Litta before the Nazis came to power.) > > Anyway, it seems R/Dr Mirsky held my grandfather's name was Pinechas, > pei-yud-nun-ches-samekh, as it is spelled in the chumash (ignoring the > size of the yud as usually written in the beginning of the parashah). > And thus the sheva is na, Pinechas - not Pinchas. > > If you want to make a derashah out of a Mitzri name, it's Pi Nachas, > not Pen Chas. > > Reason for this tangent... I would have expected "Gushies" to get the > sheva in the parashah name right. After all, they have the patach under > the reish in Parashat. > > Way behind in reading. However, Aharon Ben Asher, in Dikduke Hate'amim, specifically lists the sheva in Pinchas (with a yud) as being a sheva nach, so the "Gushies" have on whom to rely.. Meir Shinnar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 11:39:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:39:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: > On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:20:08PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: > : On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. > > : Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a > : moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is > : the purpose to make things even worse? > > As I quoted from RAK, because they classically were not considered > chuqim. Until our contemporaries took the issue from sexual morality > to sexual ethics, these truths were considered self-evident. It's the > choqification of dinei arayos that's inauthentic. > > In any case, since one doesn't pasqen from taamei hamitzvos, the din > is the same either way. Nothhing in such exploration can "make things > even worse". > > In Shmona prakim, the rambam seems to take the opposite view - trying to reconcile the view that having a desire to sin is a sign of moral failing, and that the overcoming of desire is a sign o f greatness - he argues that to desire to sin is problematic in hamefursamot - but NOT in those forbidden only for religious reasons - and he specifically applies that to arayot - and needs to apply it to arayot, because the sugyot that deal with kol hagadol mechavero yitzro gadol mimenu - specifically apply to arayot. One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT self evident or even mefursamot Meir Shinnar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 11:10:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 20:10:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out Message-ID: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> In SA OH 272:1 the Mechabeir writes that one shouldn't use wine left out for kiddush (or any type of mitzvah adds the Aruch HaShulchan). The problem isn't gi'loi'im but the pasuk in Malachi 1:8 which teaches us not to use Grade B products for mitzvot. The assumption is that wine left out goes bad (or gets worse) and therefore it can't be used for qiddush. My question is what does one do if you thinking allowing wine to breath for hours improves the taste? That's been my experience for years. If I open a bottle Friday evening, the wine definitely tastes better Saturday morning. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 12:14:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 15:14:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> On 07/13/2015 02:10 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > In SA OH 272:1 the Mechabeir writes that one shouldn't use wine left out for kiddush (or any type of mitzvah adds the Aruch HaShulchan). The problem isn't gi'loi'im but the pasuk in Malachi 1:8 which teaches us not to use Grade B products for mitzvot. The assumption is that wine left out goes bad (or gets worse) and therefore it can't be used for qiddush. > > My question is what does one do if you thinking allowing wine to breath for hours improves the taste? That's been my experience for years. If I open a bottle Friday evening, the wine definitely tastes better Saturday morning. It depends what kind of wine. Some wines definitely improve with a few hours' breathing. The criterion is "hakriveihu no lefechasecho"; *would* you serve this to an honoured guest who is used to drinking quality wine? If it's a wine that needs the time to aerate then you certainly would, and in fact you wouldn't think of serving it to him *without* that time. OTOH this would preclude making kiddush at all on Manishewitz, no matter how "fresh" it is. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 20:18:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 05:18:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> Message-ID: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? Did they not know that allowing wine to breath improves the taste, at least for a decent red wine (which is the type of wine they think we should be drinking)? Ben On 7/13/2015 9:14 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > It depends what kind of wine. Some wines definitely improve with a > few hours' breathing. The criterion is "hakriveihu no lefechasecho"; > *would* you serve this to an honoured guest who is used to drinking > quality wine? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 19:34:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 22:34:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20150714023419.GA18963@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 05:18:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and : others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? Because Shapiro's wine is "So thick you could cut it with a knife" as that billboard we'd pass driving to Boro Park used to advertise. Whereas you're talkng about a finer wine as vitners and frenchmen measure. Different products with totally different definitions of what is "good". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 21:48:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:48:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55A4949B.8090308@sero.name> On 07/13/2015 11:18 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and > others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? > Did they not know that allowing wine to breath improves the taste, at > least for a decent red wine (which is the type of wine they think we > should be drinking)? First of all, most good wines shouldn't breathe for very long. Second, their wine was generally pretty awful by our standards; bad enough that it needed watering to make it palatable. They used wild yeast, they had no pasteurization, and it was all they could do to stop it all turning into vinegar. I wonder how much damage could exposure possibly do to wine that bad, but I seriously doubt it could improve it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 14:11:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 17:11:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Timely Notes for the Summer Message-ID: <20150714211025.9203118356A@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from an article by Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer, ZT"L, that appeared in the Mitteilungen, Vol. 2, June 1941 Timely Notes for the Summer Can the heat of summer be termed ?oppressive?? That is surely something that is individual. If we think of the terribly oppressive times a large number of our brethren are going through, we will gladly tolerate the discomforts of summer and rather bless our good fortune to be spared such pain. Many of our newly immigrated brothers and sisters are struggling with heavy economic burdens, and only the few can afford the much desired relaxing rest. We are pleased for those who can afford a vacation and expect that they will carefully select, as far as the trustworthiness of its kashrus, the place where they plan to spend their vacation. Obviously, they will not want to take a vacation from the ?yoke of the Law.? They want to return home, hale and hearty, and not with a feeling of unease for having risked their moral values in exchange for physical wellbeing. The heat of summer calls for changes in clothing and appearance. The conscientious Jew will carefully keep to certain limits, which he will not overstep. Our Divine Law cautions us to have a sense of shame, and that applies to summer as well. The Jewish custom ?according to the Talmud ?requires men and boys to cover their heads outdoors. God gave the first garment to man when he forfeited his special standing by disregarding the Will of God.Modest covering of his body is to be a steady reminder of the higher calling of man. Jewish men were given the adornment of tzitzis to admonish them to wear their clothes as proper Jews. Even in the summer heat, our requirements for covering can easily be heeded with lighter clothing. Comfort will not cause us to shirk our duty. A soldier?s helmet is uncomfortably heavy, but he wears it because it is required; God?s requirement should not be heeded? As for the Jewish woman, Jewish law requires her to cover her hair. The true Jewish woman will proudly do so, for it is a sign of her willingness to adhere to God?s Will as the guide in her life. A woman unworthy of this sign will have it removed forcibly by the priest (Bemidbar 5:18). Covering one?s hair is merely a sign if a woman does not conduct herself otherwise in the properly Jewish manner. Similarly, there are Jewish men who bear the Milah-sign on their bodies but sully their bodies in other ways. Not covering one?s hair is probably ? we are sorry to say ? a matter of ignorance, and perhaps such a Jewish woman was not brought up to understand the importance of covering her hair. Many women may carefully observe their Jewish duties in other areas, and we would so much like to adorn them with this special crown also. For the fact remains: covering of the hair for the Jewish woman is a must. The proud Jewish woman will conduct herself Jewishly in her clothing and in covering her hair. The word Tznius is a Jewish concept that is hard to translate exactly. It does not only denote a ?quietly humble way of living? (Michah 6:8), but everything else that our people has so valued and esteemed in their Jewish women at all times. ?quietly humble way of living? (Michah 6:8), but everything else that our people has so valued and esteemed in their Jewish women at all times. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 02:01:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 05:01:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Star-K on the Heter Mechira Message-ID: <20150715090047.2F7EB1824C9@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-shmitta-5775.htm Who Owns The Land? There is a difference of opinion among the poskim as to whether produce grown on land owned by a non-Jew living in the Land of Israel is considered produce of sheviis. The custom in Yerushalayim is not to consider it produce of sheviis, while the custom in Bnei Brak is to consider it produce of sheviis. Selling The Land: The Heter Mechira was formulated and instituted by many very prominent rabbanim (including the Gadol Hador, Harav Yitzchok Elchanan Spector) in the year 1887. There was a great deal of controversy among other prominent rabbanim surrounding the heter, the foremost of whom was the Netziv (Harav Naftoli Zvi Yehuda Berlin) of Volozin. Most of the controversy centered around the problem regarding the Torah prohibition of selling any part of the Land of Israel to non-Jews. Those who proposed the heter claimed that the situation in the Land of Israel was so precarious that not working the land for an entire year would put the entire Jewish settlement in danger, thus warranting this drastic measure. Others claimed that the prohibition of selling the land was worse than the prohibition of working the land. Since then, every Shmitta there have been rabbanim who have sold the land. Harav Avraham Yitzchok Kook institutionalized the sale (although he, too, agreed it was to be done only under grave duress). Since it's inception, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel has sold the land every Shmitta. However, there are presently many rabbanim who question whether the current situation in Israel warrants this type of sale. Furthermore, there is another more serious problem the consumer faces. The produce that is sold in the regular stores during the year of Shmitta predominantly comes from non-religious kibbutzim and moshavim, who would never agree to sell their land. This is compounded by the fact that the non-religious kibbutzim do not observe those prohibitions which Harav Kook instituted, and Harav Kook never permitted their current practices. Certainly, a tourist who is not knowledgeable concerning the dinim of Shmitta should buy produce only from stores that do not rely upon the heter mechira. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 03:18:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 06:18:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. Whether MZ is well known or not aside, even "kemaaseh Eretz Mitzrayim" (at least the male half of it) is described in the gemara as pretty well known -- it's on Ulla's list of 3 dinim of the 30 mitzvos Benei Noach (which rishonim map to subcategories of the usual 7) that Benei Noach generally observe -- "she'in kosevin kesuvah lezekharim". In any case, I will leave the Rambam as a tzarikh iyun that only affects the lives of those who agree with him that understanding theology and/or metaphysics is the perfection we strive for in life, above perfection of virtue. (Moreh, conclusion, worthy of its own thread.) For that matter, most of us also diagree with the Rambam on whether a person is judged by the level reached or by the distance covered. Without agreeing on either of those two points, it's likely one wouldn't agree with the Rambam's pesaq here. His view of the role of of bringing one's desire in line with a mitzvah will necessarily come from a different place. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 03:32:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 06:32:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Herzl In-Reply-To: <17e71f.7a1031b7.42d6e65d@aol.com> References: <17e71f.7a1031b7.42d6e65d@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150715103208.GD4654@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 06:25:33PM -0400, RnTK wrote on Areivim: : My comment was facetious -- a little dig at those MO who apparently do : believe that Herzl, Golda Meir and Ben Gurion were gedolim. R' AE Kaplan wrote very highly of Theodore Herzl. RAEK predeceased the accompilshments of the other two. To quote RYGB's translation (from BeIqvos haYir'ah pg 85): He [Herzl] did not teach us Torah... because he was never taught Torah... He taught us, rather, to say two words [four words in English] on occasions that until he came we had neither dared nor been able to utter: "I am a Jew [Ivri]!" We were always able to recite these words in the Beis Medrash next to our shtenders, we were even capable of reading and writing them... We could declare ourselves a nation in any place we wanted, except in that one place where the nations of the world were... to be found - in the international political arena. There we were seen as wandering sheep, like one Telzer (Yehuda Leib Gordon [22]) once put it: "Not a nation, not a congregation, rather a flock." Not like sheep that are petted and fed, but like those that are shorn or slaughtered. When a European ruler asked a Jew: "Who are you?" Would he respond simply: "I am a Jew" - without any qualifications or explanations? He would answer: I am a Jew - but also German, also French, also English, etc. Along came Herzl, the first from among us to reach that international political arena that serves as a world court, and responded, openly, freely, effortlessly and guilelessly: "I am a Jew." Moreover: "I was stolen from the land of the Jews [Eretz HaIvrim], and here I have done nothing, for they placed me in the pit" [Bereishis 40:15]. The Jewish nation is a nation unto itself, like all other nations, indeed, it is special, and it possesses a unique life force that sustains it... Do you not sense the hidden workings of divine providence? I know that just as the rejuvenation of Jewish national spirit had to come, so will finally come, in the unseen future, the rejuvenation of our Torah spirit... We do not see the paths, we do not see the footsteps, but I know... that I must strive toward this. And G-d who returns to Tziyon [Zion] will return us also to Torah MiTziyon... [23] [22] The most prominent Hebrew poet of the nineteenth century and a notorious Maskil, Gordon was generally known by his acronym, YaLaG, that, in a play on words, would be pronounced by Orthodox Jews as "yil'ag," the Hebrew word for "scoffer." [23] Besides his essays on Hashkafa, Reb Avraham Elya also left many "Reshimos," short notes on topics in Mussar, Machashava, and Avodas Hashem, some of which are beautiful vignettes of life lived in a Torah true and Mussar suffused way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 02:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 05:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Secular Studies: Are They for Everyone? Message-ID: <20150715092755.A05BB1824E7@nexus.stevens.edu> From the article by Rabbi Mordechai Willig at http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/%2FTU1_Willig.pdf Are secular studies permissible for everyone when they are necessary to provide for a livelihood? The answer is: for almost everyone. To summarize, then, for purpose of parnasah, secular studies are allowed for almost everyone. If it is not for parnasah, it is permissible, and sometimes even a mitzvah to learn various disciplines, providing that such study is considered of secondary importance, both in terms of time and value for, above all, Torah must always be the Ekir. Please see the above URL for the entire article. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 07:56:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:56:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Confronting sexual abuse in the Jewish community Message-ID: <> Can you give a place in shas or SA where the punishment of a crime accounts for the pain to the family If someone deserves the death penalty (there is no jail in halacha) as far as I know the bet din does not take into account that the family who are innocent will also be punished. If someone is sent to "ir miklat" the yeshiva goes with him, we don't remove the punishment because it affects the whole community -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:33:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian Message-ID: During a recent discussion with a friend the following two questions came up and I am curious what the fellows of Avodah think. 1) Can one count someone who denies the historicity of *matan torah* and *yetzias mitzrayim* but is other completely *shomer torah u-mitzvos* for a *minyan*? There is an halakhic category of *mumar l?hachis* who cannot count for a *minyan* according to many *poskim*. But that is on the assumption that they are violating *halakhah*. If they are not violating halakhah, can they be counted in a *minyan*? 2) Does one fulfill their shofer blowing from hearing the shofar be blown by someone denies the historicity of *matan torah* and *yetzias mitzrayim*? We assume that *mitzvos tzerichos kavvanah*. So this individual intends to fulfill the mitzvah of blowing the shofar on Rosh ha-Shanah. However, his conception of the nature of *mitzvos* and commandedness is extremely untraditional. Personally, I am inclined to include this individual in a minyan and assume that one fulfills the mitzvah of shofar with his blowing. But my conception of halakha flows from R. Dr. Walter Wurzburger?s *zy?a* belief that halakhah is a floor and not a ceiling. In other words, we do not make the bar for basic fulfillment of halakhah obligations higher if one could avoid it. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:32:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:32:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> References: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 6:18 AM Micha Berger wrote: > Lo zakhisi lehavin: > It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss > aren't mefursamot. > > Whether MZ is well known or not aside, even "kemaaseh Eretz Mitzrayim"... > In any case, I will leave the Rambam as a tzarikh iyun that only affects > the lives of those who agree with him that understanding theology and/or > metaphysics is the perfection we strive for in life, above perfection > of virtue. (Moreh, conclusion, worthy of its own thread.) ... You are assuming the shmona prakim see relevant only to those who fully accept Rambam's philosophy -- and that is a very unique position. I think shmona prakim is studied by those who would never open the moreh Rambam argues that a lust to steal or murder is a character flaw -- the should be overcome -- but a lust for hazir or arayot is not a character flaw -- although it too should be overcome. Why that is dependent on his notions of the ultimate good, effort versus achievement, or mitzvot bne noach I don't see -- nor do I think most others me that connection.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:55:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:55:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150715155517.GC31352@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 03:32:08PM +0000, Meir Shinnar wrote: : You are assuming the shmona prakim see relevant only to those who fully : accept Rambam's philosophy -- and that is a very unique position... Nah, I'm just surmising that the two may be linked. If your notion of redemption revolves around ideas and the thirst for knowledge, then developing something like like-vs-dislike is a different topic than if your notion of personal redemption is "sheyehei adir cheftzeinu leheitiv im zulaseinu... bedemus haBorei, keveyakhol." (Bonus points for the first person to identify the reference. ) So not that 8 Peraqim are only relevent to followers of the Rambam's point, just that this particular point, and perhaps a couple to a few others, may be of limited utility to the rest of us. (8 Peraqim, BTW, is one of my more heavily used resources when teaching for The Mussar Institute.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 12:49:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:49:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55A6B95E.6090302@starways.net> On 7/15/2015 10:33 AM, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: > 1)Can one count someone who denies the historicity of /matan > torah/ and /yetzias mitzrayim/ but is other completely /shomer > torah u-mitzvos/ for a /minyan/? I think there's a difference between someone who denies Matan Torah and someone who expresses doubts. The former, I'd treat no differently than someone who denies God, because for the purposes of Judaism, they're not separable. We asked our mesader kiddushin (years ago) what we should do about those family members who didn't believe in God. He said that if they'd openly denied God's existence, we could not give them sheva brachot, because we couldn't be yotzei on a bracha by someone who doesn't believe in God. He didn't say anything at all about observance. A lot of people focus on Rambam's ikkarim, and whether or not we're bound by them, but the concept of being kofer ba-ikkar predates Rambam by centuries. The existence of God and the historical fact of Matan Torah are, by any reasonable assessment, the most basic ikkarim of Judaism. Absent either of these, what's left isn't Judaism. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 19:47:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:47:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150716024705.GE13610@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:33:13AM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : 1) Can one count someone who denies the historicity of *matan torah* : and *yetzias mitzrayim* but is other completely *shomer torah u-mitzvos* : for a *minyan*? : : There is an halakhic category of *mumar l'hachis* who cannot count for a : *minyan* according to many *poskim*. But that is on the assumption that : they are violating *halakhah*. If they are not violating halakhah, can they : be counted in a *minyan*? I don't know if we hold like the Rambam, but Hil' Teshuvah ch. 3 is the only discussion of the categories of heresy I know of. A min is an atheist or polytheist, a trinitarian, etc... (3:7) An apiqoreis, the category in the title, is defined with a list of theological errors. It's someone who, like Epicurus, denies that Hashem runs the world. A Deist, someone who denies prophecy, or that He doesn't know man's actions. (3:8) Leshitaso, someone who doesn't believe in the historicity of Torah miSinai would be a kofer baTorah. (ibid) A mumar is a consistent sinner (ledavar achas, lekhol haTorah kulah), not a heretic. {3.9) Then the machti'ei rabbim (10), poreish midarkei hatzibur (11), moserim (12), and one who terrorizes the community -- not lehsim shamayim (13). That list -- 3 kinds of heretic and 5 kinds of sinners -- lose their olam haba, if they die without teshuvah (3:14). And then he says there are also smaller ones that still carry a similar price. Anyway, R' Aharon Soloveitchik held that "nebich an apiqoreis" (not using the term in the Rambam's technical sense) can be counted for a minyan. As long as his beliefs include those ideas that make tefillah meaningful. So a min couldn't, nor an apiqoreis who believes G-d doesn't know every little thing going on down here. (This was a common idea among Artistotilian, although obviosuly not among ours. Since facts change with time, and the Creator does not, how could the Creator know such facts? Would that mean His knowledge changes?) But a tinoq shenishba (by which RAL intentionally includes Jews not raised O) who doesn't believe in Sinai, but does believe that there is One G-d Who Listens to prayer and is Mashgiach, should be countable. Not because their heresy makes them heretics and thus michutz lamachaneh. But because they are incapable of prayer. RAS didn't discuss the person who isn't a tinoq shenishba, but also not a rebal. Someone who grew up in a Torah setting, but in his studies reached the wrong conclusion. The Tashbetz and the Radbaz (eearly 16th cent CE, not the Ridbaz who wrote on the Y-mi) famously hold that such people are not heetics even if they believe heresy. (As least on the list list it's famous, anyeay.) I just can't assume RAS agrees without proof. RAL also doesn't discuss a Deist who believes G-d Hears prayers, but won't act any differently. Can he make a brikhas hoda'ah, but not a baqashah? Since prayer is not al menas leqabel peras, do we even make baqashos for the sake of gettin a "yes", or just to have a moment with Him talking about what is bothering you? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 16 07:01:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:01:37 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Confronting sexual abuse in the Jewish community Message-ID: <20150716.100137.31633.0@webmail13.vgs.untd.com> I wrote on Areivim: > Of course it is important to protect future victims, but that is > not the only consideration here. What about the fallout to the > family of the victim, to the family of the perpetrator, and to > the community as a whole? (For those who have not been following on Areivim: Personally, I am all in favor of protecting the victims, but I know that my opinions might be heavily influenced by the society in which I live. My suggestion is that our chachamim are the only ones qualified to decide on any particular case, whether it might be better to whitewash an incident, so that the family and/or community are not hurt by the publicity.) R' Eli Turkel responded here on Avodah: > Can you give a place in shas or SA where the punishment of a > crime accounts for the pain to the family > If someone deserves the death penalty (there is no jail in > halacha) as far as I know the bet din does not take into > account that the family who are innocent will also be > punished. > If someone is sent to "ir miklat" the yeshiva goes with him, > we don't remove the punishment because it affects the whole > community These are excellent points. But then I must ask: Haven't there been times and situations when legitimate gedolim have paskened to hush things up because of other considerations? Would someone say that all such cases come from gedolim whose outlook is NOT Torah-based? I wish I could cite specific examples for discussion. Unfortunately, my knowledge of such things is far too limited. But surely this attitude must have come from somewhere, and did not materialize from nothingness. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett???s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren???t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55a7b984d1f883984538est04vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 18 13:49:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 22:49:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on Exercise Message-ID: <55AABBF3.2070100@zahav.net.il> Rav Kook's opinion about exercise and sport had been brought up here before. I quoted him as saying that physical activity helps the tzaddikim in their avodah. In the class I go to on Orot, we discussed the following piece by R Kook, which goes way further than that. Keep in mind that this was written before there was an IDF, so he isn't talking about any sort of physical protection. Orot, Orot Hatechiya, 34: Exercise, (which young Israel is getting involved in, in Eretz Yisrael, to strengthen their bodies in order to be vigorous for the nation), improves the spiritual strength of the greatest tzaddikim, those who involve themselves in "the unification of God's names" (my translation of a phrase which I admit I don't get), and increases the transmission of God's light in the world, because there is no revelation at all of light without all components being present. Turns out that (according to Rav Kook) not only does Talmud Torah increase the merits to the army/state/people, but just having people trying to be healthy, active, in shape, improves Talmud Torah, as long as both sides are doing this for the nation. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 18 17:09:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 03:09:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tefach Thick Soft Spongy Matza Message-ID: Many mistakenly think that we now have an accepted Halachic tradition, recorded in the Shulchan Aruch [460:5] to no longer bake Tefach thick Matza [10 - 12 cm] as in Talmudic times. This is untrue. The ShAruch records that Tefach thick Matza must not be Pesach. There is no problem whatsoever to produce such Matza Pesach and eat them during Pesach. The reason for this is quite simple; if one makes Chamets during Pesach, no matter that it was unintentional, one has transgressed the very serious violation of having Chamets - Bal YeRaEh and Bal YeMaTzeh. When making Tefach thick Matza the risk of inadvertently making Chamets because some dough in the Matza will remain unbaked, is [became] intolerable. However, baking the same thickness Matza before Pesach poses no concern. If it is Chamets, as can be discerned by tearing the Matza and checking for doughy stringy threads, then either eat it before Pesach or get rid of it. Whatever is fully baked however, is fine for Pesach. Compare the Mechabers expression, Seif 4 and 5, not to make images on the Matza; and not to make thick Matza - it is not done - ??? ?????; to his expression Seif 6, not to make dough filled with meat and veg - one ought not be lenient - ??? ????. One ought not be lenient - ??? ???? sounds more strict, as is supported by the MBerurah [18] suggesting that it is prohibited even after the fact, - whereas it is not done - ??? ????? implies it should not be done but after the fact, if it not Chamets it is Kosher and may be eaten during Pesach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 17 07:19:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 10:19:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Guten Chodesh (Though sad, still hope...) Message-ID: <0F8B8D71-82A7-4DB7-AFF4-740FDDA46D37@cox.net> The gematria for ?Rosh Chodesh" is 813. (reish:200, aleph:1, shin:300; ches:8, dalet:4, shin:300 ? Total=813) In the whole of tanach there is only one verse with the gematria of 813 which occurs in B?reishis, Chapter 1, verse 3: ?Vayomer Elohim ohr; vay?hi ohr? ?And God said: Let there be light and there was light.? May our mourning be turned into dancing (Ps.30:12) and may we live to see the light. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 00:55:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 10:55:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: heter mechira In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <> There are many inaccuracies in their statement and much is outdated. "The produce that is sold in the regular stores during the year of Shmitta predominantly comes from non-religious kibbutzim and moshavim, who would never agree to sell their land. " I have no idea what this statement means. They in fact do sell their land. The current situation in Israel is that the chief rabbinate sends people to each of these kibbutzim etc to explain to them what the heter mechira means and what are the other options. No one is forced to participate. "However, there are presently many rabbanim who question whether the current situation in Israel warrants this type of sale" The figures I have heard is that 85% of Israeli produce is exported (mainly to Europe). Without the heter mechira one would have to close down almost the entire agricultural development in Israel. In addition one is forbidden to sell produce with kedushat sheviit to nonJews. That would mean having guards at supermarkets checking that only Jews buy the produce "This is compounded by the fact that the non-religious kibbutzim do not observe those prohibitions which Harav Kook instituted, and Harav Kook never permitted their current practices." The current chief rabbinate tries to enforce whatever Rav Kook instituted. In fact most agricultural workers in Israel regardless of shemita are Arabs. -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 18:33:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:33:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish with mixed seating In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720013343.GC4548@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 03:08:58PM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : Interestingly enough the Gemara in Succos brings a "proof" for separation : of men and women from a non-"Davar She'bekedushah" the funeral in : Zecharyah. The other example is Simchas Beis haSho'eivah. Notice that one is extreme joy, and the other extreme sadness. Neither was tefillah betzibbur. Should the fact that chazal thought it was natural to apply these precedents to tefillah be taken to mean that -- "thanks to my knees for bowing at modim" aside -- Chazal found such extremes of emotion common during davening? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 18:57:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:57:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150720015718.GD4548@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 01:14:59AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : Well, I guess my original post should have had a longer introduction. I : know that Kaddish Tiskabel has a very clear rule, namely that it : follows every Amidah, and the only exception is that it also follows : Selichos. Kaddish D'rabanan always follows group learning (though I've : never figured out exactly what learning counts and what doesn't). Qaddish Tisqabel is said after zelosehon (the Amidah) uVa'us-hon (tachanun or selichos. That the request that they be accepted. : And now I'm trying to figure out the rule for Kaddish Yasom. It SEEMS : to be a sort of "congregational prayer", where "prayer" is something : *other* than the Amidah, but I can't define it any more precisely than : that. For a long time I thought it was connected to Tehillim, but when : I noticed it after the megilos on Yom Tov, someone suggested that it's : not specifically Sefer Tehillim, but *any* part of Kesuvim, not that we : had any idea why Kesuvim would get this distinction over Neviim or Torah. Accordng to R' de Sola Pool's monograph "Kaddish", Qaddish originated as being post-derashah -- the role Qaddish deRabbanan still serves. So perhaps non-concidentally, the format for sermons through the geonic era was to start with a pasuq from one of the sidrei EMa"S (Iyov, Mishlei, Tefillim) and wrap up by applying the resulting an idea to a pasuq from he sedra. ... : I have to admit that a big part of my asking this question is a pet : peeve that I've been nursing, regarding Kiddush Levana in particular. It : seems to me that Kiddush Levana -- the way it is done in just about : every situation I've ever seen -- cannot be called a Tefilas Tzibur in : any sense. It is a group of yechidim who happen to be saying the same : thing, but in a totally disorganized fashion... Perhaps that's it exactly. Like "Shalom Aleikhem", we make a cpoint of socially unifying those yechidim as part of qiddush levanah. Perhaps not in the sense of tefillah betzibbur or tefillas hatzibur, but then, neither is a shiur. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 09:45:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:45:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reciting a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time In-Reply-To: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> References: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> Message-ID: <20150720164528.GA10632@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:53:34AM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : http://tinyurl.com/o6rxcdf : according to those that say you do NOT recite a shehechiyanu when performing : a mitzvah for the first time (ie bar mitzvah), Who are they? All I know of is the Chasam Sofer (OC 55) -- well I guess I also know of the Peri To'ar, his maqor -- who says that the berakhah when putting on tefillin on one's bar mitzvah is supposed to be made with all the rest of the mitzvos in mind. The Radvaz says a ger says shehechiyanu when they emerge from the miqvah. I am less clear when a girl becoming a bas mitzvah would make her shechiyanu. The Ben Ish Chai says the girl should have in mind ol mitzvos when making shehechiyanu on her celebratory dress. Paralleling what we do by eating a new fruit on the 2nd evening of RH. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 09:51:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefach Thick Soft Spongy Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720165119.GB10632@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 03:09:13AM +0300, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Many mistakenly think that we now have an accepted Halachic tradition, : recorded in the Shulchan Aruch [460:5] to no longer bake Tefach thick Matza : [10 - 12 cm] as in Talmudic times. This is untrue... Unless we are holding like the "veyeish la'asos" in the Rama se'if 4. Neither the se'if nor the explanation "ki ein hareqiqin memaharin lehachmitz" make a distinction about when the matzah was made. -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:19:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on Exercise In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720211930.2A235182421@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:53 PM 7/20/2015, R. Ben Waxman wrote: >Orot, Orot Hatechiya, 34: > >Exercise, (which young Israel is getting involved in, in Eretz Yisrael, >to strengthen their bodies in order to be vigorous for the nation), >improves the spiritual strength of the greatest tzaddikim, those who >involve themselves in "the unification of God's names" (my translation >of a phrase which I admit I don't get), and increases the transmission >of God's light in the world, because there is no revelation at all of >light without all components being present. > >Turns out that (according to Rav Kook) not only does Talmud Torah >increase the merits to the army/state/people, but just having people >trying to be healthy, active, in shape, improves Talmud Torah, as long >as both sides are doing this for the nation. See "Exercise, Torah Learning and the Chofetz Chaim" http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/exercise_torah_cc_v2.pdf Reb Yaakov Kamenetsky was an avid swimmer all of his life. I recall when he came to Monroe to spend a Shabbos with his son Avraham. He was in his 80s I believe. Well, he put on his bathing suit, a robe and went to the pool. He then proceeded to jump into the pool and swim laps. This spread like wildfire in the 3 colonies in Monroe. People could not stop talking about it. It eventually got back to Reb Yaakov who quipped, "I wish they are as excited about my learning as they are about my swimming!" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 15:03:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> Re: Micha's questioning kadish yasom(KY) after kidush levana, the Vilna Gaon has a shortened version(doesn't he always?) that starts with the bracha and ends with siman tov. There is no Aleinu, hence no KY. He also holds that "sh'ain l'harbos b'k'dashim shelo l'tzorech, hence,there is only once KY per tefila. After the Yom by shachris and after Aleinu by mincha & maariv. Minhag Ashkenaz is not to say kadish d'rabonan during/after tefila but only after limud agada. The chasidim adopted the custom of saying it from the Seforadim and that's how it entered their ritual. I remember davening once at the Boro Park nusach HaGra k'vosikin minyan way back and was struck by the number of KYs that were said. The gabbai's answer was that it was too difficult to stop the "kadish zogers" from having their way. B"H, at our Flatbush Nusach HaGra k'vosikin minyan (Young Israel of Ave K, East 29th and K) under Rav Aryeh Ralbag guidance, we are have not had to compromise the Nusach HaGra way of davening. Shachris is 45 minutes before HaNetz every shabos and YT. -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com http://www.schnurassociates.com/joels-corner/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 15:46:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:46:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> References: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> Message-ID: <20150720224608.GB21161@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 06:03:46PM -0400, Joel Schnur via Avodah wrote: : I remember davening once at the Boro Park nusach HaGra k'vosikin : minyan way back and was struck by the number of KYs that were said. : The gabbai's answer was that it was too difficult to stop the : "kadish zogers" from having their way... REMT said something that makes me wonder... He suggested that our (non-Yekke) current practice of every avel saying qaddish is to make it condusive for aveilim to feel they're discharging their duty. Many men first started attending minyan regularly during aveileus and kept on doing so for the rest of their lives. Do you really want to discourage that with "Ah, why bother, I probably wouldn't get a turn this time anyway!"? A similar argument would change the priorities the Gra assumes about making extraneous opportunities for Qaddish. The AhS OC 55:4 gives this explanation for the creation of a 2nd opportunity for Qaddish Yasom at the end of Shacharis. He also writes that the Qadmonim only said 7 qaddeisim a day: Shacharis, after each of Yishtabach, Tachanun and UVa leTzion Minchah, after Ashrei and Tachanuun, and Arvis -- before and after Shemoneh Esrei. He quotes the Roqeiach invoking the pasuq "sheva bayom haleltikha" to explain that 7 was an intentional, significant, number. The AhS continues that three more were added when Aleinu was appended to the end of each tefillah. For the sake of yesomim who didn't get the amud. And significance was found for that, by reading Tzadi"q as an acronym, and each letter a gematria. Each day a tzadiq would say 90 times amein, (tzadi) 4 qedushos, (dalet) 10 qadeihim, and (yud) 100 berakhos (quf). (Citing the NMA.) Then he discusses leining adding one. "Veyoseir ein maqom laqadeishim", and still we added after Shir shel Yom because there were more yesomim, but more than that -- the AhS does not permit. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot RMB responded: Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. ============= My two cents: Adultery (eishis ish) is technically taking from another man that which belongs exclusively to him. So that itself puts it within the category of issurim that are mefursamos. The Rambam (MN 2:49) describes all sexuality as something that even when natural, should be limited. Homosexuality and bestiality, however, he describes as obvious deviations from the natural order that should be abhorred. I think that would place these two activities, as well, in the mefursamos category. The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely forbidden. Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: MN 3:49 As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure alone be eschewed. All illicit unions with females have one thing in common: namely, that in the majority of cases these females are constantly in the company of the male in his house, and that they are easy of access for him, and can be easily controlled by him - there being no difficulty in making them come into his presence; and no judge could blame the male I for their being with him. Consequently if the status of the women with whom union is illicit were that of any unmarried woman, I mean to say that if it were possible to marry them and that the prohibition with regard to them were only due to their not being the man's wives, most people would have constantly succumbed and fornicated with them. However, as it is absolutely forbidden to have intercourse with them, the strongest deterrents making us avoid this - I mean by this a sentence of death by order of a court of law and the threat of being cut off--so that there is no way to have intercourse with these women, men are safe from seeking to approach them and their thoughts are turned away from them. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot RMB responded: > Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate > family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. My two cents: Adultery (eishis ish) should be categorized under issurim mefursomos simply on the basis that it involves taking lves taking liberties with another man's wife, an intimacy that belongs to the husband. A form of theft! So that itself puts it within the category of issurim that are mefursamos. The Rambam (MN 2:49) describes all sexuality as something that even when natural, should be limited. Homosexuality and bestiality, however, he describes as obvious deviations from the natural order that should be abhorred. I think that would place these two activities, as well, in the mefursamos category. The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely forbidden. Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: MN 3:49 As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure alone be eschewed. All illicit unions with females have one thing in common: namely, that in the majority of cases these females are constantly in the company of the male in his house, and that they are easy of access for him, and can be easily controlled by him - there being no difficulty in making them come into his presence; and no judge could blame the male I for their being with him. Consequently if the status of the women with whom union is illicit were that of any unmarried woman, I mean to say that if it were possible to marry them and that the prohibition with regard to them were only due to their not being the man's wives, most people would have constantly succumbed and fornicated with them. However, as it is absolutely forbidden to have intercourse with them, the strongest deterrents making us avoid this - I mean by this a sentence of death by order of a court of law and the threat of being cut off--so that there is no way to have intercourse with these women, men are safe from seeking to approach them and their thoughts are turned away from them. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 16:02:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:02:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: (Sorry for approving both versions of that post! It was a quick typo in what was until-then going so smoothly! -micha) On 2015-07-20 5:34 pm, RZ Lampel wrote: > RMB responded: "Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest > within > the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot." > Adultery (eishis ish) is technically taking from another man that > which > belongs exclusively to him. So that itself puts it within the > category of > issurim that are mefursamos. > The Rambam (MN 2:49) ... Yes. But our problem is with Shemoneh Peraqim, where the Rambam distinguishes between mitzvos mefusamot, for which a person should develop a desire that is in line with the mitzvah (or a distaste in line with the issur), and other mitzvos where one should simply refrain out of submission to ol mitzvos. And among his mitzvos which are NOT mefursamos are arayos. R/Dr Meir Shinnar writes: > he specifically applies that > to > arayot - and needs to apply it to arayot, because the sugyot that > deal with > kol hagadol mechavero yitzro gadol mimenu - specifically apply to > arayot. > One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all > dine > arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not > sure > on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are > NOT > self evident or even mefursamot So regardless of how he categorizes them in the Moreh, the chiluq the Rambam makes in 8P requires our considering these issurim to not be self-evident. (Which I still don't get.) -micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 20:09:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 23:09:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah REMT said something that makes me wonder... He suggested that our (non-Yekke) current practice of every avel saying qaddish is to make it condusive for aveilim to feel they're discharging their duty. Micha Berger >>>> You are mainly talking about adults saying kaddish, but I remember one tragic year when there were seven yesomim under bar mitzva age saying kaddish, from three different families. Two families had lost their mothers, one family their father. Who was going to tell these children, who came to shul faithfully every day, sometimes getting to school late or skipping outings with their friends, "You can't say kaddish for your Ima or your Abba today, someone else has kadima"? Correct me if I am mistaken but my impression is that kaddish yasom is really mainly for genuine yesomim, i.e., those who lose their parents while they are still children. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 23:56:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:56:00 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Dr Shapiro's book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I found the most disturbing part of Dr Shapiro's book the last chapter. This is a halachid discussion of lying. My conclusion from this is that lying is perfectly permissible if there is a good reason. Basically the ends justifies the means. We are not talking about white lies as praising the bride for her beauty. In particular it is permissible to quote a psak from a gadol even though he never said it as long as you are sure that it is correct and he probably would have said it. There is no problem with making up stories about a gadol as long as the intention is to either glorify the gadol or else show why some idea is important. He claims that there are groups that actively make up stories about CI. The Chatam Sofer says that in order to prevent sins one can make the problem appear to be more serious than it really is such as turning a rabbinic prohibition into a biblical one. The problem with false attribution (besides the seemingly moral one) is that the result one cannot believe anything that is not written by the gadol himself. One never knows if the citation of the gadol was deliberately changed, However as seen in the rest of the book even the written words of the author are not always authoritative as in many cases they are tampered with to protect some "higher interest". Even the SA has been tampered with for this purpose. One can lie in order to avoid embarrassment to oneself. R Papa seems to have issued an incorrect halacha to avoid shame. A poor man can make believe he is blind or crippled in order to get more charity. One can claim that the monet is going for a poor bride when in fact it will be used for some other charity. Finally there is the heter of mental reservation or reinterpreting ones words made famous by the story of Yaakov "lying" To Isaac that he is Esav. Shapiro gives the example of Clinton making all sorts of "false" statements about Lewinsky and later justified it by saying that his words had another meaning than what people thought. Note this is sometimes permitted even in monetary cases. As stated about one can lie for educational purposes "Noble Lie" of Plato. Rav Dessler defines "truth" as the value that gives a positive result and is independent of observation and evidence. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 19:10:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 21:10:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: > Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: > MN 3:49 > As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are > directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling > disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The > reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against > intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is > natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more > should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure > alone be eschewed. So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 21:55:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:55:23 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9105E0A4-E59B-4E23-ADAA-7FCACD74F424@gmail.com> This is tangentially related only, but may be of interest in the context. I asked Rav Hershel Schachter, Shlita, what to do if someone who acts as a functionary at a Shira Chadasha (partnership) style service wants to do likewise in a mainstream Orthodox Congregation. His answer was, that such a person can be counted towards a Minyan, but no Kibbudim should be afforded to them. We have one here in Melbourne, which isn't like the one in Israel, but the strong word is that one of Rabbi Avi Weiss's Maharatos (Rabba/Rabbis) will be hired to lead that congregation. She was recently interviewed and claimed she was non denominational because she wanted to break down boundaries. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 03:08:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:08:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] thick matza Message-ID: For those interested a thorough discussion on thick matazot see the article of Ari Zivotofsky in Hakirah www.hakirah.org/Vol17Zivotofsky.pdf -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 06:54:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 06:54:49 -- 0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> Message-ID: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> On 7/20/2015 7:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > ... our problem is with Shemoneh Peraqim, where the Rambam distinguishes > between mitzvos mefusamot, for which a person should develop a desire > that is in line with the mitzvah (or a distaste in line with the issur), > and other mitzvos where one should simply refrain out of submission to > ol mitzvos. > And among his mitzvos which are NOT mefursamos are arayos....the chiluq > the Rambam makes in 8P requires our considering these issurim to not > be self-evident. And that's precisely what I addressed in my 3rd paragraph. After citing the Moreh Nevuchim's description of homosexuality and bestiality as obviously deviant practices (i.e. mefursamos), I cited its description of arayos (outside of eishis ish) as being not mefursomos, but issurim Hashem instituted as a preventative, a gedder, against unrestrained licentiousness in a situation (viz. family) where the temptation for it would otherwise be too hard to control. To repeat what I wrote: >> The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and >> commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because >> allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than >> his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would >> lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest >> intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, >> it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound >> to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely >> forbidden." Perhaps the mention of "commanded that it, too, be considered >> abhorrent" causes confusion. This would seem to put incest back into >> the category of mefursomos, along with murder and stealing, etc., about >> which a normal person is expected to harbor revulsion. So Rambam would be >> self-contradicting. But the elephant in the room is that the Torah itself >> commands us to treat eating non-kosher creatures with disgust. So how >> can Chazal tell us the right attitude is "efshi"? Evidently, Chazal and, >> naturally, Rambam, do not consider "efshi" to be at odds with "shekketz >> yih'yu lachem/teshak'tsu."My surmise is that they understand the Torah's >> command to treat with disgust the eating of non-kosher creatures and >> other acts that are not intrinsically objectionable (such as, per Rambam, >> incest, vs. murder, stealing, homosexuality and bestiality), as an imposed >> artificial behavior/attitude for these non-mefusamos issurim. Regarding >> your definition of issurim mefursamim, the Shemoneh Perakim does not >> say a tsaddik should /develop/ a revulsion, but that such revulsion is >> natural in born in all people. The tsaddik retains these feelings and >> does not allow them to be tainted. [Email #2.] On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: >> MN 3:49 >> As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are >> directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling >> disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom... On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and > should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of > Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what > possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 07:36:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:36:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Dr Shapiro's book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AE5907.7010503@optimum.net> RET: << A poor man can make believe he is blind or crippled in order to get more charity. >> How does this fit with Peah 8:9? Which book are we talking about? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 17:48:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 20:48:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> Message-ID: <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> I think one has to be careful, as I find it difficult to reconcile the position of the MN and that of the SP, and think they represent two distinct aspects (?stages) in the rambam Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions I) in hazal -- that continued desire for some forbidden actions is compatible with a high spiritual state -- issue is control of the desire -- NOT its presence II) Aristotelian ethics -- a high spiritual state does not desire for forbidden -- the desire is a sign of a flaw. SP resolves by differentiating between mefursamot -- whose desire is problematic and a flaw -- and religious law -- where desire is not a flaw -- and applies this specifically to arayot -- as examples in Talmud of Rabbanit with desire are of arayot, It is difficult for me to reconcile this position with the MN -- if our proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is " to instil disgust" -- how can desire still remaining not be a flaw???? In the MN, there is a conceptual framework to distinguish homosexuality and bestiality from regular sexuality -- but they are ALL viewed as things that should repulse us -- just some more than others. It is by no means clear that this framework and distinction can be read into the SP, and would think that One would need good evidence .hat it does not include ALL arayot... Meir Shinnar > It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah > attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress > during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan > Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a > marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. > Zvi Lampel > On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and >> should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of >> Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what >> possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? >> On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: >>> Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: >>> MN 3:49 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 08:06:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:06:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Message-ID: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why ? What changed in the afternoon? (especially since some pple fast both the 9th and 10th( Mordechai cohen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 06:18:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:18:26 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150722.091826.10442.1@webmail10.vgs.untd.com> The Moreh Nevuchim was quoted: > As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are > directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling > disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. R"n Lisa Liel wrote what I had wanted to write: > So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty > and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something > out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, > but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? R' Zvi Lampel answered: > It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah > attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt > duress during the marital process (you can find this in the > Kitzur Shulchan Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the > Rambam when it comes to a marital setting. I was taught we hold > like the Ramban. My guess is that you're referring to R' Eliezer from Nedarim 20b, referenced at the end of Kitzur 150:1. But from what I have seen, not for nothing is it called "Kitzur Shulchan Aruch", because this seems to be the attitude of all the standard poskim. The Kitzur is not a standalone machmir here; from what I can tell, he's merely quoting the Mechaber in Orach Chayim 240:8. Mishneh Brurah 240:35 (who refers us to Magen Avraham 240:21), Aruch Hashulchan 240:14, and Kaf Hachaim 240:59 all seem to advocate a strong reluctance towards intercourse, which is not quite as extreme as the Rambam's "disgust", but that might merely reflect their choice of words. For purposes of Talmud Torah, where is this Ramban who "strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting"? And for purposes of Halacha, which Acharonim hold like the Ramban, over the Mechaber, KSA, MB, and KH? (I recall hearing that the Siddur HaYaavetz might be the answer here, but there seem to be several different versions. If anyone can post a link to a specific version on SeforimOnline or HebrewBooks.org, and a page citation, I'd appreciate that very much.) Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett?s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren?t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55af9846b9a261846362est02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 07:13:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:13:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel asked: "The idea that sex is something dirty and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude?" See the Gemara in Nedarim (20a) about kafuhu shed. Also see RAL's article OF MARRIAGE: RELATIONSHIP AND RELATIONS ( http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf ) where he discusses this question and brings many of the sources. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:25:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:25:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 06:54:49AM +0000, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: :> So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and :> should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of :> Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what :> possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? : It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah : attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress : during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan : Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to : a marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. But the most famous Ramban does speak of perushim tihyu and how perishus is the key to holiness. (R' Shimon Shkop explains the Ramban as saying it is a primary means to hoiness, because "qedoshim tihyu qi Qadosh Ani" would be absurd if referring to Hashem practicing perishus. What temptations would He need to avoid?) And his first example is yema'eit bemishgal, like (Berakhos 22) "that TC not be found by their wives like roosters" and that tashmish should be limited to "kefi hatzeikh beqiyum hamitzvah mimenu". I presume, in an unXian sense, the Rambam refers to onah, not "only" piryah verivyah. Perishus and neqi'us come up a lot in lower-case-m mussar literature, even among anti-Maimonidians like Rabbeinu Yonah. To quote Mesilas Yesharim ch 13 (tr. from http://www.shechem.org/torah/mesyesh/13.htm I think it's the old Feldheim ed, by R' Shraga Simmons): There is no question as to the permissibility of cohabitation with one's wife, but still, ablutions were instituted for those who had had seminal emissions, so that Scholars should not be steadily with their wives, like roosters. Even though the act itself is permissible it implants in a person a lust for it which might draw him on to what is forbidden; as our Sages of blessed memory have said (Sukkah 526), "There is a small organ in a man which, when it is satiated, hungers and which, when it is made to hunger, is sated." And they said about R. Eleazar (Nedarim 20b) that even in the proper hour and the correct time he would expose a handbreadth and conceal two hand-breadths and imagine that a demon was compelling him, in order to cancel out the feeling of pleasure. And ch. 14: THERE ARE THREE principal divisions of Separation, involving pleasures, laws, and conduct respectively. Separation in relation to pleasures, which we spoke of in the previous chapter, consists in one's taking from the world only what is essential to him. This type of Separation encompasses anything which provides pleasure to any one of the senses, whether the pleasure be gained through food, cohabitation, clothing, strolls, conversation or similar means, exceptions obtaining only at such times when deriving pleasure through these means is a mitzvah. Separation in relation to laws ... Separation in relation to conduct ... Which also limits marital intimacy to what is necessary to fulfill piryah verivyah and onah. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:36:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:36:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55AFD49B.4070904@gmail.com> On 7/21/2015 8:48 PM, Meir Shinnar wrote: > Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions > I) in hazal - that continued desire for some forbidden actions is > compatible with a high spiritual state - issue is control of the > desire - NOT its presence > I) Aristotelian ethics - a high spiritual state does not desire for > forbidden - the desire is a sign of a flaw. > SP resolves by differentiating between mefursamot - whose desire is > problematic and a flaw - and religious law - where desire is not a > flaw - and applies this specifically to arayot - as examples in Talmud > of Rabbanit with desire are of arayot, > It is difficult for me to reconcile this position with the MN - if our > proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is " to instil > disgust" - how can desire still remaining not be a flaw???? > In the MN, there is a conceptual framework to distinguish > homosexuality and bestiality from regular sexuality - but they are ALL > viewed as things that should repulse us - just some more than others. > It is by no means clear that this framework and distinction can be > read into the SP, and would think that One would need good evidence > that it does not include ALL arayot... The Moreh Nevuchim III:35 explicitly states that his view about this matter is the same as his view in Shemoneh Perakim: The fourteenth class comprises the commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain sexual unions. They are those that we have enumerated in the Book of Women [/Sepher Nashim/] and in Laws concerning Prohibited Sexual Relations [/Hilkhoth Issurei Bi'ah/. The interbreeding of beasts belongs to this class. The purpose of this ... is to bring about a decrease of sexual intercourse and to diminish the desire for mating as far as possible, so that it should not be taken as an end, as is done by the ignorant, *according to what we have explained in the Commentary on the Tractate Aboth.* (All commentators agree this is a reference to the introduction to the commentary, the Shemoneh Perakim, just as the Moreh stated regarding the thirteenth class.) Your kushya is good: if [as per MN] our proper relationship to even permitted sexualityis "to instill disgust" - how can desire still remaining not be a flaw [as per ShP]???? But I think the solution I offered is reasonable. To wit: What do you do with the elephant in the room I mentioned? The Torah commands /t'shaktsu/ concerning the eating of non-kosher creatures (which is certainly as much in the category of non-mefursomos as bassar b'chalav and arayos); yet Chazal (and naturally, then, Rambam) say that when it comes to basar b'chalav, etc., one should have the attitude of "I have the desire to do it, but Hashem prohibited me.'' I offered one answer to both questions: When Rambam says that Hashem wants to instill in us disgust for the act, and the Torah (as per Chazal) says "t'shakstu,'' they mean that despite the fact that we should not deny or seek to eradicate the physical inclination for such pleasures, we must maintain an aversion to succumbing to it except for limited situations. (And the purpose of that is to keep us from doing it in excess, which is the real flaw.) *So although as per MN,] our proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is to instill a reluctance except for limited occasions (such as in a marriage setting), the desire still remaining is not a flaw [as per ShP] to be eradicated.* "I have the desire to do it [even outside of marriage, and I will not eradicate the sexual desire from myself,] but [live with it and constrain it outside of marriage,] because Hashem commanded me so [and this will bring me to perfection]. So, a word about the Moreh's wording. Pines translates: "As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. ... the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity." Friedlander translates: " we ought to limit sexual intercourse altogether, hold it in *contempt,* and only desire it very rarely." Ibn Tibbon translates "ha-arayos, ha-inyan b'kulam shahv l'ma-eit ha-mishgal *v'lim'os* bo, v'shello yirtseh mimennu ki im m'aht mi-za-ir...sheh-inyan ha-tiv'i *nim-ahs* l'hay-a-sos rak l'tsorech." I suspect from the context (lim'os/disgust/contempt, *except for limited occasions*) that the Rambam's original Arabic, not to mention his intention, is closer on the scale to the idea of avoidance for the sake of gaining perfection, than to disgust and contempt. Basically, it translates to what I believe is in fact our common attitude regarding these things. To put things in perspective, note that immediately before this section, the Rambam, following the same attitude of engaging in unrestrained physical pleasures being an obstacle to personal perfection, writes similarly about the activity of eating, again equating what he writes in the Moreh to what he wrote in Shemoneh Perakim: The thirteenth class comprises the commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain foods and what is connected therewith. These are the commandments that we have enumerated in the Laws concerning Forbidden Foods [/Hilkhoth Ma-akholoth Asuroth/]. The [commandments concerning] vows and the state of the Nazarites belong to this class. The purpose of all this is, *as we have explained in the Commentary on the Mishnah in the introduction to Aboth,* to put an end to the lusts and licentiousness manifested in seeking what is most pleasurable and to taking the desire for food and drink as an end. [Email #2. -micha] On 7/22/2015 1:25 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > But the most famous Ramban does speak of perushim tihyu and how perishus > is the key to holiness. ...And his first example is yema'eit > bemishgal... > I presume, in an unXian sense, the Rambam refers to onah, not "only" > piryah verivyah. > Perishus and neqi'us come up a lot in lower-case-m mussar literature, even > among anti-Maimonidians like Rabbeinu Yonah. To quote Mesilas Yesharim ch 13 > ..." And they said about > R. Eleazar (Nedarim 20b) that even in the proper hour and the correct > time he would expose a handbreadth and conceal two hand-breadths and > imagine that a demon was compelling him, in order to cancel out the > feeling of pleasure. > And ch. 14: ... > Separation in relation to pleasures, which we spoke of in the > previous chapter, consists in one's taking from the world only what > is essential to him. > Which also limits marital intimacy to what is necessary to fulfill piryah > verivyah and onah. Which, as I was contemplating to write, shows that the Ramban and Rambam (and as you have pointed out, mainstream Jewish thought) all share the same basic nuanced attitude--despite the Ramban's opposition to the Rambam's presentation. Thanks for the sources. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:00:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:00:43 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> References: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:06 AM, M Cohen via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after > chatzos on Tbav > > Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc > > Why ? > > What changed in the afternoon? (especially since some pple fast both the 9 > th and 10th( > There are two answers in the Birkhei Yosef quoting Sefer Hakavvanot of R. Haim Vital (OH 559 s"k 7) for why we say verses of consolation at minha, both based on Midrash Eicha Rabba, and perhaps the reason is the same. Firstly, that this was when the BHMK began to burn, and it was davka a time of consolation because the people realized that HKBH was pouring his anger on stone and wood, not on flesh and blood. Secondly, that this is the time when the Messiah whose name is Menahem is born. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 22:23:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 01:23:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55B07A69.5020203@gmail.com> On 7/22/2015 1:26 PM, H Lampel wrote: > When Rambam says that Hashem wants to instill in us disgust for the > act, and the Torah (as per Chazal) says ''t'shakstu,'' they mean that > despite the fact that we should not deny or seek to eradicate the > physical inclination for such pleasures, we must maintain an aversion > to succumbing to it except for limited situations. (And the purpose of > that is to keep us from doing it in excess, which is the real flaw.) I should also note that the Rambam teaches that hand-in-hand with the flaw of excessive involvement in physical pleasures, and the ultimate problem with that, is the attitude behind it, of making physical pleasure an end in itself, rather than a side benefit of a means. The Rambam applies this objection to both sexual pleasure for its own sake and eating pleasure for its own sake: The prohibition of certain foods and what is connected therewith.... The purpose of all this is, as we have explained in the Commentary on the Mishnah in the introduction to Aboth, to put an end to the lusts and licentiousness manifested in seeking what is most pleasurable and to taking the desire for food and drink /as an end/. ...The commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain sexual unions... The purpose of this ... is to bring about a decrease of sexual intercourse and to diminish the desire for mating as far as possible, so that it should not be taken /as an end/, as is done by the ignorant, according to what we have explained in the Commentary on the Tractate Aboth. Zvi Lampel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 01:16:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:16:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R' Aharon Lichtenstein was bothered by the difference in opinion regarding marital intimacy between Chazal who seem to have a very positive attitude and the Rishonim (especially the Rambam) who have a very negative attitude and the attitude of contemporary authorities who seem to have swung back to the positive side: "We, for our part, are confronted by a quandary of our own; and it is dual. At one plane, we ask ourselves, within the context of our learn- ing?it is Torah, and we must learn?a simple and straightforward ques- tion. In light of the predominant evidence we have noted from Hazal and, particularly, its halakhic component, how and why did Rambam, Ramban, and some other rishonim, deviate so markedly from their prevalent attitude? With reference to yetser (the inclination)?generic in connotation but defined by Rashi as shel tashmish (sexual desire)?Hazal identify it as one of a triad which, optimally, one should ?let the left hand deflect and the right hand bring close? (Sota 47a). One sometimes gets the impression that the proportion was subsequently inverted. ... To the extent that we do succeed in harmonizing the positions of Hazal and of rishonim, we ameliorate the pressure of one issue but exacerbate that of another. For we are brought, in turn, to a second quandary: our own. While I have conducted no empirical survey, I believe there is little question regarding the sensibility of the contempo- rary Torah world, irrespective of camp and orientation. We stand, fun- damentally, with R. Bar-Shaul. We assert the value of romantic love, its physical manifestation included, without flinching from the prospect of concomitant sensual pleasure; and we do so without harboring guilt or reservations. " Source: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 06:35:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:35:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shimon haTzaddik and Alexander the Macedonian Message-ID: <20150723133509.GA14333@aishdas.org> The story of Shim'on haTzaddiq, in the office of kohein gadol, meeting Alexander the Great, as told in Yuma 69a, is pretty well known. Josephus told the story earlier, in Antiquities 11:8. The Daily Mail recently covered what appears to be another retelling : Mosaic of Alexander the Great meeting a Jewish priest is the first ever non-biblical scene to be discovered inside a synagogue - Artwork was uncovered in a fifth-century synagogue in Huqoq, Israel - May depict Alexander the Great, based on the presence of elephants - Scene is the first non-biblical story to be found in an ancient synagogue - Depictions of Biblical hero Samson are also part of the decorative floor By Sarah Griffiths for MailOnline Published: 03:43 EST, 15 July 2015 | Updated: 07:21 EST, 15 July 2015 ... The artwork was uncovered in the east aisle of a fifth-century synagogue in the ancient Jewish village of Huqoq. ... The largest top strip contains the scene showing a meeting between two men, who perhaps represent the legendary warrior and a Jewish high priest. In the scene, a bearded soldier wearing battle dress and a purple cloak leads a bull by the horns, followed by other soldiers and elephants with shields tied to their sides. He is meeting with a grey-haired, bearded elderly man wearing a ceremonial white tunic and mantle, accompanied by young men with sheathed swords, also in ceremonial clothes. Southern Galil, 5th cent CE. Within a generation of the compilation of Mes Yuma. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 06:14:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:14:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B0E8A7.7050202@gmail.com> I agree with all those who reacted to my remark about Ramban vs Rambam, and I am especially grateful to Marty Bluke for the link to Rav Lichtenstein ztl's comprehensive article that provides the sources and notes the challenges they present. (I think that link was recently posted on R. Gil Student's blog.) As R. Akiva Miller has pointed out, it was Rebbi Eliezer of Nedarim 20b, referenced at the end of Kitzur 150:1 (and, as RAM pointed out, the Mechaber OC 240:8) who is understood to have expressed duress during the marital process. (And who is a Tanna, not an Amora, as I incorrectly stated.) Also, RAM asked, > For purposes of Talmud Torah, where is this Ramban who "strongly disagreed > with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting"? And again, I stand corrected. The Rav who gave me my "chassan shmuess" was probably referring to the /Iggeress ha-Kodesh,/ which, as Rav Lichtenstein pointed out in his article, is often erroneously attributed to Ramban. But apparently, had Rav Lichtenstein been giving me the "chassan shmuez," I would have come away with the same halacha l'ma'aseh regarding attitude. He writes: We cannot, as the author of the /Iggeret ha-Kodesh/ could not, abandon the conviction that so central a component of human nature is not part of the /tov me'od/ of primordial creation. Consequently, impelled by our spiritual instincts and animated by the faith instilled in us by our Torah mentors, we opt for consecration rather than abstinence. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 07:12:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:12:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> Message-ID: <26C8383E-E3E8-4443-8BAD-62AB922C5681@gmail.com> Again, one has to be very careful. There are four different sources here. 1)Shmona Prakim -- chapter 4 -- where reason for laws on arayot is to limit Sexuality -- in the sense of a golden mean. 2)Shmona Prakim -- chapter 6 -- where desire for things forbidden only by halakhah is endorsed as not a spiritual flaw 3) MN 3:35, where he describes category 14 of mitzvot -- relating to arayot -- in terms similar to source 1, as the rambam notes and meforshim point out. 4) MN 3:49 -- where purpose of hilchot arayot is to instill disgust -- not merely control and limit Therefore, RZL is correct that MN 3:35 refers to Spm but chapter 4. One can reconcile sources 1,2 and 3, or 1,3 and 4 -- but difficult to recocile all 4. I would ad that source 2 is problematic, in that it's view of halakhah as an almost arbitrary set of limitations, seems quite different than the rambam's normal presentation of the purpose of Halacha. Meir Shinnar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 10:15:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:15:16 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150723.131516.32484.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> Many posters - and their quoted sources - have compared the desire for intercourse with the desire for food. What I have not seen is any comparison between the *enjoyment* of intercourse and the enjoyment of food. Halacha restricts our eating in many ways, and we are taught that this is to curb our desires. But there are seem to be many exceptions to this, and I don't see parallels to intercourse. We have mitzvos where eating is merely a physical act used as a means to some other end. Achilas Matza might be the best example of this. We need to internalize the matzah and its lessons, but any enjoyment that we might get from this eating is utterly irrelevant. This seems quite comparable to the intercourse, where it is merely a means towards having children. The enjoyment that one gets from the intercourse (like from the matza) is irrelevant - or perhaps even lower, to be eschewed. One might cite Rama Even Haezer 25:2, which lists various permitted forms of intercourse, but to me, that is like saying "You can eat your meat broiled or cooked or fried, as long as you don't put milk in it, and don't eat it too often either." This is NOT what we are told about meat. Rather we are told that eating meat is the only way to enjoy Yom Tov. We are taught that eating is proper and good. When a simcha arises, we must make a meal so as to properly celebrate it. And if there are overlapping simchas, we should add an extra course so that each simcha gets its due. Red wine is more appropriate than white, but if you personally enjoy white, then go for it. Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. - Is the difference really that subtle? To me, it is as subtle as a brick. R' Marty Bluke posted: > Also see RAL's article OF MARRIAGE: RELATIONSHIP AND RELATIONS > ( http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf ) where > he discusses this question and brings many of the sources. Indeed he does bring many sources. And I was particularly intrigued by his conclusion, that the general thrust of recent authorities seems to be very different from before that: > To the extent that we do succeed in harmonizing the positions of > Hazal and of rishonim, we ameliorate the pressure of one issue but > exacerbate that of another. For we are brought, in turn, to a > second quandary: our own. While I have conducted no empirical > survey, I believe there is little question regarding the > sensibility of the contemporary Torah world, irrespective of camp > and orientation. ... We assert the value of romantic love, its > physical manifestation included, without flinching from the > prospect of concomitant sensual pleasure; and we do so without > harboring guilt or reservations. We insist, of course, upon its > sanctification?this, within the context of suffusive kedusha of > carnal experience, generally. and yet, a page later, > Assuming these facts to be correct ? as regards my own spiritual > environs, I can attest directly ? we ask ourselves: How and why > do we depart from positions articulated by some of our greatest > ? "from whose mouths we live and from whose waters we drink" - > and, is this departure legitimate? Are we victims of the Zeitgeist, > swept along by general socio-historical currents? Do we tailor our > attitude on this issue to conform to appetitive convenience and > erotic desire? Have we, in this case, adopted a self-satisfying > posture of facile world-acceptance clothed in culturally correct > garb? I did not find his answers to these questions very satisfying. But I do find his *asking* them to be extremely comforting. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 11:43:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:43:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Relative Priorities Message-ID: <1440012f20ae4d989f0b2c5fdc8b1c1e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> A yahrtzeit shiur is "being sponsored" at the same time as your regular learning seder. Evaluate the various score cards in shamayim (yours, the niftar's, your chavrutah's) depending on whether you attended the shiur or seder (all other things being equal). She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 24 07:09:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 17:09:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: artificial meat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Technological advances are bringing us to ask a pressing question: Does Judaism consider meat created in a laboratory to be kosher? Does Jewish law even consider it to be meat?The question takes on particular significance now, during the nine days, the traditional period of mourning that precedes Tisha B'Av when observant Jews abstain from meat. (Well, theoretical significance, at least ? the world's first lab-grown hamburger, created in 2013, cost a cool $325,000 and it's not exactly available at your neighborhood grocery store yet.)Some kashrut experts are ready to rule the burger kosher, and not only that, parve, reported Ynet reporter Koby Nachshoni ? meaning observant Jews, who won't eat milk and meat together, can eat their test-tube burger topped with cheese. Furthermore, the halachic authorities with whom Nachshon consulted even said this would apply to test-tube pork ? so make that a bacon cheeseburger.But, no surprise here, not everyone agrees about that.Chabad addressed the issue , too, noting that there are precedents for test-tube meat in the ancient Jewish sources. see http://www.haaretz.com/life/food-wine/1.667580 -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:30:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh Message-ID: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> Last night in the shul that I davened B'Leil Zeh was said with great fervor. However, I am wondering if it should have been said at all. B'Leil Zeh is referring to the night of the 9th of Av and the many things that occurred then. Last night was, of course, the night of the 10th of Av. Does it really make sense to have said B'Leil Zeh on the 10th of Av? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:50:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:50:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh In-Reply-To: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 10:30:37AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : B'Leil Zeh is referring to the night of the 9th of Av and the many : things that occurred then. Last night was, of course, the night of : the 10th of Av. Does it really make sense to have said B'Leil Zeh : on the 10th of Av? Now that you made me think about the question, I would ask the reverse one. Bayis sheini was set aflame shortly before sheqi'ah on the 9th and burned through the 10th. So wouldn't beleil zeh only fit a postponed ta'anis? As for bayis rishon... I'm still sorting my way through understandings of Yechezqeil and the Yerushalmi. RMT, kedarko (see ) touches on a nice subset of sources at http://download.yutorah.org/2012/1053/Tisha_Bav_To-Go_-_5771_Rabbi_Torczyner.pdf Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: R' Mordechai Torczyner -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:58:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:58:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh In-Reply-To: <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> References: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150726145900.0654D1831F2@nexus.stevens.edu> At 10:50 AM 7/26/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >Now that you made me think about the question, I would ask the reverse >one. Bayis sheini was set aflame shortly before sheqi'ah on the 9th and >burned through the 10th. > >So wouldn't beleil zeh only fit a postponed ta'anis? > >As for bayis rishon... I'm still sorting my way through understandings >of Yechezqeil and the Yerushalmi. Perhaps two separate tefillos are needed, one for the night of the 9th of Av and one for the night of the 10th of Av. However, given the vast amount of kinos and other tefillos for Tisha B'Av, I am loath to suggest adding any more. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 16:32:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 19:32:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Message-ID: From: M Cohen via Avodah There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why? What changed in the afternoon? Mordechai Cohen >>>> The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 22:02:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:02:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus Message-ID: Thew gemara in Gittin tells the story of the rich lady miryam bat batus who sent her sevant to buy food in the market, before the churban, each time the food is already sold and she finally dies from dung on her foot. OTOH the gemara in ketuvot says that miryam bat batus paid King Yanai a lot of money to appoint her son yehoshua ben gamla as high priest First the two stories are about 150 years apart. In addition Alexander Jannai was himself high priest and unlikely to sell that position -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 20:18:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:18:25 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150726.231825.30515.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> R' Zvi Lampel wrote: > But apparently, had Rav Lichtenstein been giving me the > "chassan shmuez," I would have come away with the same halacha > l'ma'aseh regarding attitude. He writes: > > We cannot, as the author of the /Iggeret ha-Kodesh/ could > not, abandon the conviction that so central a component of > human nature is not part of the /tov me'od/ of primordial > creation. Consequently, impelled by our spiritual instincts > and animated by the faith instilled in us by our Torah > mentors, we opt for consecration rather than abstinence. I am very bothered by this attitude. I will explain why. We have discussed the idea that a posek may sometimes choose a psak based on what "seems right" to him, and then he will find sources to support that conclusion. But if I remember correctly, this is usually done in the case of *new* questions, where there is little precedent to draw upon. But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed. And it changed so recently that Rav Lichtenstein couldn't name any seforim that might have explained it to him. Namely, that for some reason, various people (such as RZL's teacher) started paskening - "halacha l'ma'aseh" in RZL's words - that the halacha follows the Iggeret ha-Kodesh (whose author we aren't sure of) rather than the Shulchan Aruch and Rav Yosef Karo. Why aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? Can we really overturn the Shulchan Aruch simply because "We cannot ... abandon the conviction" that sex is "tov me'od"? When we justify a psak and say we were "impelled by our spiritual instincts", how are we different from Conservative and Reform? I would not speak this way if the topic was a machlokes rishonim. Can someone please point to another major Rishon besides the Iggeret ha-Kodesh who holds that way? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b5a34e339ce234e4610st01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 01:31:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:31:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why? What changed in the afternoon? Mordechai Cohen >>>> The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= R'YBS explained that once the mikdash started burning (PM of TB) we knew hkb"h was taking out his wrath on stones and wood, not us. 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 00:49:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:49:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> On 07/27/2015 01:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Thew gemara in Gittin tells the story of the rich lady miryam bat > batus Martha bat Baytus. > who sent her sevant to buy food in the market, before the > churban, each time the food is already sold and she finally dies from > dung on her foot. > > OTOH the gemara in ketuvot Yoma. 18a. And Yavamos 61a. I could not find any reference to this in Kesubos. > says that miryam bat batus Martha bat Baytus. > paid King Yanai a lot of money to appoint her son Husband > yehoshua ben gamla as high priest. First the two stories are about > 150 years apart. No, they're not. Yehoshua ben Gamla was the Cohen Gadol at the time of the revolt against Rome, and was murdered by the Biryonim. > In addition Alexander Jannai was himself high priest > and unlikely to sell that position Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos in both places points out, for precisely that reason. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 03:22:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:22:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> References: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150727102247.GA8241@aishdas.org> RnTK wrote: : The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting : the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people : (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house : on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. R' Yirmiyohu Kaganoff provided sources at : In some places there is a custom to wash the floors and clean the house on the afternoon of Tisha B'Av. This custom is based on a mesorah that Moshiach will be born on Tisha B'Av afternoon and that it is therefore appropriate to commemorate the redemption and strengthen people's hopes and prayers (based on Beis Yosef 554 and Kolbo). Although this seems like unnecessary work on Tisha B'Av that should be postponed, the poskim rule that one should not discourage those who follow this custom (Birkei Yosef 559:7). On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:31am +0000, R Joel Rich replied: : R'YBS explained that once the mikdash started burning (PM of TB) : we knew [HKB"H] was taking out his wrath on stones and wood, not us. I bet RYBS cited the Gra (OC 555:1). Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: Actually, Google gets most of the credit for filling in vague memories with mar'eh meqomos. -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 05:00:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:00:41 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150727.080041.13995.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> I asked: > I would not speak this way if the topic was a machlokes > rishonim. Can someone please point to another major Rishon > besides the Iggeret ha-Kodesh who holds that way? Alternatively, can anyone cite other halachos, where for centuries the acharonim followed the Shulchan Aruch, and then in recent decades, the poskim decided to follow a minority rishon? My first instinct is to say that the shitos of the Gra are in this category, but there were those who followed the Gra ever since his day, and the only real change is that his views became more and more widespread. Was there ever a community that was known for following the Iggeret ha-Kodesh in this inyan until recently? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b61d8f130a61d8b4299st01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 07:10:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:10:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 11:15:51AM -1000, R/ Dr Noam Stadlan wrote on Areivim: : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded : as ignorance... To do that woud be to disagree with her husband. See "Thinking Aloud", pg 113: DH: What is the heter for a married woman in her house not to cover her hair when there are outsiders present? RYBS: She has to cover her hair. Another exchange: DH: Someone was asking about a woman wearing a kisui rosh in the house. RYBS: We pasken you should. DH: Someone showed me a gemara in Kesubos that b'toch chatzeira it should be mutar, since otherwise there is no way any woman could remain tachas ba'alah (72b). Offhand it occurred to me that if it was lo shechichei inshei - just for going around the house when no one's around, and someone just may drop in - then it would be mutar. But if you have people coming over b'kevius, then why would it be any different than going aroung in the street? Is there a special din in the bayis that there's no din of covering your head anymore? DH: Is this kisui ervah like most kisui ervah? RYBS: Of course. DH: What should I do for myself, for my wife? RYBS: You will find out. There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 08:15:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & the Tosafists. http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ Our *Torah shebe?al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the *Torah shebe?al peh* would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe?al peh* today. I just heard a piece yesterday by Rabbi Weill, from a few years back on Kinnot and the destruction of Ashkenaz and burning of the gemorahs in Paris. It was very devastating for the area. Jews lived in other areas as well, thank God. So the Mesora continued with them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 11:42:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:42:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? Message-ID: From: Micha Berger via Avodah : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded : as ignorance...[--Dr. Noam Stadlan] To do that would be to disagree with her husband. ....There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. -- Micha Berger >>>> A similar quote (third hand): Someone told me he once asked RYBS if a married woman is obligated to cover her hair, and RYBS replied in a somewhat sideways fashion, "You are not obligated to divorce her if she does not do so." You have to understand that it was an era in which most American Jews were throwing away the Torah with both hands. It was hard enough to find a wife who was frum; demanding that she cover her hair was almost impossible in many cases. RYBS was not the only Torah scholar whose wife failed to cover her hair. I have to assume that this was simply one nisayon that was too difficult, given those times. After the post-war influx of chassidim arrived in America, kisui rosh, like so many other neglected mitzvos, became much more acceptable and common. R' Michael Brody in his article on the subject says that the Chofetz Chaim railed against the practice of women in Vilna, even those married to big talmidei chachamim, to go about with their hair uncovered. Although the CC is completely, vehemently, opposed to this practice, R' Brody deduces (I am paraphrasing) that "This proves that many talmidei chachamim did not demand that their wives cover their hair, from which we may deduce that they held kisui rosh was not required, and we may rely on them." This line of reasoning is reminiscent of the joke, "How do we know that Yakov wore a yarmulka? Answer: It says 'Vayetzei Yakov' -- would Yakov have gone out without a yarmulka?!" But at any rate it does indicate that this was a largely neglected mitzva even in Vilna, in the early 20th century -- though neglect of a mitzva does not make the obligation go away. I for one do not hold it against RYBS. What he would have preferred and what was actually obtainable, in that time and place, were not the same. For that time and place, for a woman to be Torah observant was already a madreiga. To have been the wife of such a man -- his rebetzen must have had extraordinary zechuyos. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 11:43:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:43:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> The below (and, btw, R Nachum Lamm makes an interesting point in the comments there) leads me to a different, but related, question: We trace Rashi's mesorah pretty easily back to Rabbeinu Gershom -- but where did _he_ get _his_ mesorah from? How did it get from Bavel and the Gaonim to northern Europe? > RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & the Tosafists. > http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ [1] > Our *Torah shebe?al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the *Torah shebe?al peh* would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe?al peh* today. Links: ------ [1] http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 12:41:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:41:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: From: Kenneth Miller via Avodah >> We have discussed the idea that a posek may sometimes choose a psak based on what "seems right" to him, and then he will find sources to support that conclusion. But if I remember correctly, this is usually done in the case of *new* questions, where there is little precedent to draw upon. But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? --Akiva Miller >>>> It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan Aruch. What frequency is optimum? Surely that is at least partly subjective, and any of the various sources that apparently disagree with each other can be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up what your gut tells you is right. I can easily see a modern day rav or Torah mentor varying his answers depending on the circumstances of the wife and husband who are asking him for advice, as well as accepted societal norms. Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least some obligation to fulfill. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 14:59:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gil Student via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 17:59:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume 2 of his Collected Essays. Gil Student From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 19:55:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 22:55:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Re:Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> References: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:10:59 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah > : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the > : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded > : as ignorance... > > To do that woud be to disagree with her husband. > > See "Thinking Aloud", pg 113: ... > There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with > his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. WADR, Micha misunderstands the issue. The issue is not whether RYBS agreed with his wife's practice -- there are sources (albeit most of them from long after her passing) which would suggest that he may ave disagreed, and paskened otherwise) -- but that is a different issue of whether he viewed it as ignorance -- and for sure not out of the pale of halacha. That is the crux of the issue -- not whether we wish to pasken that this is muttar for ourselves (or for those who listen to us..) -- but how we view those who follow a different shitta -- and anyone who suggests that RYBS viewed his wife as nonobservant or not fully halachically committed is motsi la'az and needs to go to her kever( you can ask R Seth Mandel his opinion how the rav would have viewed such a person) Several related stories: 1) The rav was the posek for a community, who knew that his wife did not cover her hair. The vast majority of that community, even those close to the rav, who followed his every word, did not think that he viewed this as being problematic -- and he had plenty of opportunity to let it be known.... 2) I knew a talmid who was close to the rav in the 70s (shiur many years, rav was measured kiddushin -- unfortunately niftar early. when getting married, he told me that he asked the rav all his shailos -- except about head covering for his wife (she did) -- he said that it was thought problematic to ask him because of the rav's wife 3) Another talmid was once invited, late 70s, to Rav Schwab's shabbes table. Topic got around to data's torah, and rav schwab said that many have it wrong -- there is not one da'as torah -- but da'as torah is the opinion of someone who is wholly torah -- rav kotler is da'as torah, rav feinstein is da'as torah,the satmar is da'as torah. My friend jumped in and asked what about RYBS? Rav Schwab was no fan of RYBS, and he hemmed and hawed and then said that as his wife did not cover her hair, he was not da'as torah. At that point Mrs. Schwab interjected, but you know that none of the litvische rebbitzens covered their hair. At which point R Schwab agreed to that, and then agreed that RYBS was da'as torah..... That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. Meir Shinnar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 06:52:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:52:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> Message-ID: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> On 7/27/2015 2:49 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos > in both places points out, for precisely that reason. > Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any permutation thereof. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 07:31:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:31:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> Message-ID: <55B79226.4030906@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 09:52 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 7/27/2015 2:49 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos >> in both places points out, for precisely that reason. > Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of > there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any > permutation thereof. Except this memra of Rav Assi, which is quoted twice in the gemara with the same language, so it's unlikely to be a mistranscription. Either Rav Assi was mistaken about the king's name, or there was a short-reigned later king of that name whom Josephus didn't bother mentioning, or one of the later kings had Yannai as one of his names, and Josephus didn't bother mentioning it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 07:21:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:21:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> References: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55B78FCC.2020104@sero.name> On 07/27/2015 10:55 PM, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: > At that point Mrs. Schwab interjected, but you know > that none of the litvische rebbitzens covered their hair. At which point > R Schwab agreed to that, and then agreed that RYBS was da'as torah..... > > That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it > was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, > it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. No, it was *not* a shita in Litte, it was a makas medinah. It was an aveira that was prevalent among women, and the best the rabbonim could do was not talk about it to the women, in the hope that they were shogegin. Even in an earlier generation, no less a person than R Akiva Eger had no control over his wife and daughters' mode of dress: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31632&pgnum=300 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 08:57:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:57:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 08:52:45AM -0500, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of : there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any : permutation thereof. Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and Hebrew? 400 years prior, having two names was common and the civil names we know of (Mordechai, Esther, Shadrach, Meshach, Aved-Nego, etc...) bore no relation to their Jewish names. Alternatively: Chazal could have thrown in the timing problem to flag to the historian that they were not speaking historically. After all, we know from the other narratives quoted that they knew the dates for Alexander Yannai wouldn't work. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:21:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 12:21:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> References: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150728162126.GC24227@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 11:09pm EDT, RnTK wrote: : with their friends, "You can't say kaddish for your Ima or your Abba : today, someone else has kadima"? Correct me if I am mistaken but my impression : is that kaddish yasom is really mainly for genuine yesomim, i.e., those who : lose their parents while they are still children. Rather than correct you, let me provide a mar'eh maqom: Rama YD 376:4, quoting the Mahariq. Both of us probably remembering R Michael Poppers posting this. The Rama says that Qadish Yasom was established for Qetanim, because they cannot be Chazan. BUT... the Rama is clear that this ended before the custom of multiple people saying Qaddish at once began. When writing the above, I started wondering about areas like Vilna, where a daughter would say Qaddish for parents who had no sons. Did this minhag begin back when only one person said Qaddish at a time? If so, she would get the same priority for Qaddish Yasom as a qatan, no? But cold you picture such a scene in early 19th cent Litta, a woman saying Qaddish by herself on one side of the mechitzah or by the doorway, and all the men of the minyan answering? So my instinct is that this minhag post-dates group Qaddish. But my instinct might be based on revisionist history, for all I know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:38:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:38:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:153am EDT, R Saul Guberman wrote: : RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & : the Tosafists. : http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ : Our *Torah shebe'al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish : history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a : great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, : but the *Torah shebe'al peh* would have survived without him. However, : without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, : any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe'al peh* today. Which is a different statement than the subject line. I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue understanding the gemara. But one thing RGS loses is RYBS's context. RYBS was saying this in shiur, in a room where talmidim bring a compact edition of the Rambam with them for reference. It's a different thing to make this statement while sitting in Brisk, when you may intentionally state a perspective re-setting idea more strongly than in other settings. On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 2:43pm EDT, R Sholom Simon wrote: : We trace Rashi's mesorah pretty easily back to Rabbeinu Gershom -- but : where did _he_ get _his_ mesorah from? How did it get from Bavel and the : Gaonim to northern Europe? In a teshuvah, Rabbeinu Gershom says he was taught most of his Torah by "R' Leon". He means Rabbi Yehudah (Leontin) ben Rabbi Meir haKohein. R' Leontin was from Iraly, but he was in France before reaching Mainz. In France he picked up talmidim who then followed him to Ashkenaz, including Rabbinu Gershom and R' Yosef Tuv Elem (Tuv Elem = Bonfils, you will see him the the Mordechai alot, Tosafos, and [if you ever have occasion to look] Machzor Vitri). Rabbeinu Gershom took over the yeshiva upon RYBRM's petirah, which is probably why he is "Rabbeinu" rather than "Rav". The thing is, the tradition in Provence is that they came from EY. For example, in Luneil it was (is?) believed that the city was founded by refugees from Yericho, who commemorated their city of origin by using a translation of the same name: yareiach = luna. Which brings me to RGS's reply to R Sholom, written yesterday, Jul 27, 2015, at 5:59pm EDT: : Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German : mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger : disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. : However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments : against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from : Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume : 2 of his Collected Essays. If there is any truth to the Israeli Provencial tradition, we have a link in terms of rabbinic leadership to EY. However, not only do nusach hatefillah, piyut, and a number of pesaqim (which RRW educated me on repeatedly on these "pages" in the past) point toward an EY origin of Ashkenaz, so does something I didn't see R/Dr Soloveitchik address -- genetics. A map of the Jewish genetic tree http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072 shows the closes affinity for the Ashkenazi gene pool were the Italian, Greek, Turkish and Syrian communities. Notably all under the Roman Empire. Whereas the Jews of the geonic lands -- from Bavel through Qairouan, Tunisia -- form a second grouping. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:45:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:45:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728174552.GE24227@aishdas.org> I just posted: : However, the loss of a codifier who : stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of : mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But : Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue : understanding the gemara. I meant to add a different (and to my mind very important) way of looking at this idea: In terms of mesorah, a flow of TSBP as a "dialog down the ages" (to use RYBS's terminlogy), the parshan keeps the chain connected down the ages in a way that a Yad, designed to be stand-alone, does not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:24:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:24:20 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go > by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and > Hebrew? > I don't follow: the Hasmonean and post-Hasmonean kings did all have both Hebrew and Greek or Latin names, but Yannai is a *Hebrew* name, from the same root as Yona. I know someone who Hebraized his surname from Taubmann to Yannai ("Taub" is German for "dove"). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:50:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:50:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 09:24:20AM -0700, Simon Montagu wrote: : > Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go : > by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and : > Hebrew? : I don't follow: the Hasmonean and post-Hasmonean kings did all have both : Hebrew and Greek or Latin names, but Yannai is a *Hebrew* name, from the : same root as Yona. I know someone who Hebraized his surname from Taubmann : to Yannai ("Taub" is German for "dove"). I believe this is a folk etymology. Where would the alef (yud, nun, alef, yud) have come from? But more tellingly, Alexander Janneus's Hebrew name was Yehonasan, like his uncle. See the Latin and Hebrew on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Jannaeus#/media/File:JanaeusCoinPhoto.jpg If he could be "Alexander Yannai" in one language and "Yonasan" in another, who knows it there weren't another king whose Latin name "Janneus" was simply not preserved? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:17:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:17:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: There are those who argued that Tosfos (in particular Rabbeinu Tam) essentially created Ashkenazi mesorah by radically changing how we study and relate to Gemara and how we relate to popular practice. One might suggest without exaggeration that Tosfos created our Mesora. In which case Rashi's mesora is less relevant. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> There certainly is a lot of evidence that Ashkenzi minhagim com more from E"Y than Bavel. But do we know of any chochomim that went from anywhere in the Middle East to Germany? I.e., ok, even if we accept that either there was a third school, or it came from E"Y -- do we yet know *how* it got to Northern Europe? (Or perhaps the answers are in articles that Haym Soloveitchik or David Berger wrote? (And, if so, does anyone have any citations?) -- Sholom On 2015-07-27 17:59, Gil Student wrote: > Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. > > However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume 2 of his Collected Essays. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:18:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:18:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Sources_for_Not_Covering_Hair=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > 2) I knew a talmid who was close to the rav in the 70s ... when getting married, he told me that he asked the rav all his shailos -- except about head covering for his wife (she did) -- he said that it was thought problematic to ask him because of the rav's wife I have a related story. A talmid who was also close to him. When getting married he _did_ ask about a head covering for his wife (after apologizing for asking it). If I remember the story correctly, the Rav smiled and said that he wasn't the right person to ask. -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:41:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:41:08 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Molad Message-ID: Calendars in my home town print the latest times of saying Kiddush Levana, which equate to exactly fifteen days after the announced Molad time. This might be an entire night, or an exact time, e.g. Sunday night 22.45. But since the astronomical Molad can be some distance from the calculated Molad times, by sometimes as much as twelve hours, does this not mean that these sof zeman kiddush levana times can be faulty by that same margin? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:00:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:00:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728180043.GG24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 01:28:42PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : There certainly is a lot of evidence that Ashkenzi minhagim com more : from E"Y than Bavel. Although experts, O Rabbi-PhDs, debate the issue. So what seems obvious to you or me apparently isn't. : But do we know of any chochomim that went from anywhere in the Middle : East to Germany? I already posted the mesorah from EY to Provence to Rabbeinu Gershom. Jews really started reaching the Rhineland area at the invitation of Charlemagne in the 9th cent CE, when he started the Holy Roman Empire. They came from Provence (again) and Italy. Recall that most of the captives from EY ended up in Rome, and you can understand how an Israeli presence in Italy would have already been established. Far more so than the Jews of the geonate -- who, as I mentioned, were living outside the Roman Empire. In mythic form, we have a story of a King Charles invited R' Moshe ben Klonimus from Lucca to Mainz. In documentation form, Louis "the Pious", C's son, left charters showing that he too invited Jewish merchants to provide an economic backbone to his country, and mentions that he was continuing his father's invitation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person must be very patient micha at aishdas.org even with himself. http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:10:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:10:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: AIUI the MN "was all that you needed to study". Are you/RGS saying that this is only as a codifier? RAMBAM did not feel that he was passing on the mesorah? In the end, it does not matter what he wrote, RASHI vs RAMBAM, you must have RASHI, RAMBAM is nice but without RASHI you come to a dead end? On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > > I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah > through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who > stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of > mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But > Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue > understanding the gemara. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:32:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:32:24 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are forgotten after 12 months (memory of the bet hamikdash is different) I have a personal problem with this statement. To my sorry I know of several people who have lost children especially in the age of 18-25. One thing I have learned from these people is that one never forgets a child, It is part of their lives every day. The secretary of my department lost a son in a flash flood in the negev. She changed her last name to incorporate the name of that son. Every time she signs her name she remembers her son, Others who have lost sons in military actions say kaddish every day for the son many years later. I would just imagine that Yaakov having lost his "favorite" son would not forget him after 12 months but indeed would mourn for him forever -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:09:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:09:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 12:41 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > Calendars in my home town print the latest times of saying Kiddush > Levana, which equate to exactly fifteen days after the announced > Molad time. This might be an entire night, or an exact time, e.g. > Sunday night 22.45. That should be halfway between moldos, i.e. 14d 18h 22m after the molad, not a full 15 days. It should also be adjusted for the time difference between your standard time and Y'm's real time, which for NY is 7h 20m in the winter and 6h 20m in the summer. Using a full 15 days is only bediavad. > But since the astronomical Molad can be some distance from the > calculated Molad times, by sometimes as much as twelve hours, does > this not mean that these sof zeman kiddush levana times can be faulty > by that same margin? Yes, but since we have no easy way (other than consulting readily- available secular resources, of course) of determining when the real full moon occurs, we use the calculated moldos, *unless* there is a lunar eclipse, since that by definition happens at the true full moon. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:28:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:28:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B7C9D0.5030709@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 01:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If he could be "Alexander Yannai" in one language and "Yonasan" in > another, who knows it there weren't another king whose Latin name > "Janneus" was simply not preserved? Here's a thought: AFAIK there is no mention in the gemara of a second, bad, King Agrippas. The only Agrippas mentioned is the first one, the good one. Also, as far as I know, there is no record of the second Agrippas's Hebrew name. What if the first Agrippas gave his oldest son Yannai as his Jewish name, after the first Yannai, and that is how he was known among Jews, and therefore by the Amoraim, while Josephus called him by his Roman name, Herod Agrippa? -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:23:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:23:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus Message-ID: <> Any Jewish king would have been over 100 before the churban besides there is the known problem with Yehoshua ben Gamla having his position bought for him OTOH he seems to have done good deeds Interestingly wikipedia writes "*Yehoshua ben Gamla* (or Joshua son of Gamla) was a Jewish high priest who officiated in about 64 CE. He married the rich widow Martha of the high-priestly family Boethos (Yeb. vi. 4), and she by bribing Jannai secured for him the office of high priest (Yeb. 61a; Yoma 18a; comp. "Ant." xx. 9, ? 4). Although Yehoshua himself was not a scholar, he was solicitous for the instruction of the young, and provided schools in every town for children over five years of age, earning thereby the praises of posterity (B. B. 21a). The two lots used on the Day of Atonement , hitherto of boxwood, he made of gold (Yoma iii. 9). Yehoshua did not remain long in office, being forced, after a year, to give way to Matthias ben Theophil ("Ant." xx. 9, ? 7)." i.e. Martha bribed someone named Jannai in 64CE. Not clear who this Jannai is but definitely not a king -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:44:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:44:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B7DB8C.8030404@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 03:23 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Interestingly wikipedia writes I.e. somebody, perhaps with no more information than you or me, wrote > i.e. Martha bribed someone named Jannai in 64CE. Not clear who this > Jannai is but definitely not a king Says who? Why do you say that, especially when not only does the gemara say he was a king, but we know that at the time the kehuna gedola was in the gift of king? -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 13:37:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:37:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? Message-ID: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> From: Meir Shinnar via Avodah >> That is the crux of the issue -- not whether we wish to pasken that this is muttar for ourselves (or for those who listen to us..) -- but how we view those who follow a different shitta -- and anyone who suggests that RYBS viewed his wife as nonobservant or not fully halachically committed is motsi la'az and needs to go to her kever [snip] That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. << Meir Shinnar >>>> [1] No one has ever suggested that RYBS viewed his wife as "nonobservant" so nobody has to go to her kever, although anyone who wants to may do so. I assume her children and grandchildren go on her yahrzeit. The line between observant and nonobservant is pretty clear, even though all of us sometimes sin. I have yet to hear of anyone saying that if a woman keeps Shabbos, kashrus and taharas hamishpacha, but does not cover her hair, she is "nonobservant." However if you know of a person who does say that, please cite the source, thank you. Maybe he is the same person who says that if you talk loshon hara you are nonobservant -- and therefore there are only about 500 observant Jews in the whole world, if that. [2] There is no "different shita." There was no "shitta in Lita" allowing married women to go out with their hair uncovered. What there was in Lita was the winds of Haskala, Reform and sliding, sliding, sliding away from Torah, more marked among the women even than among the men. Sarah Schnirer noted that there were chassidishe homes in Poland where, after the Friday night Shabbos meal, the teenage girls and even the mother would go out to see a play at the local theater. If there was slippage in Poland, where chassidus was strong, you can just imagine what was going on in Lita, where there was nothing to capture the hearts and minds of people who were not themselves talmidei chachamim -- viz, the unlearned masses, and the women. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 14:30:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:30:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> References: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150728213052.GA12259@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:37pm EDT, RnTK wrote: : [2] There is no "different shita." There was no "shitta in Lita" : allowing married women to go out with their hair uncovered... The AhS, whose theory of pesaq gives a lot of weight to seeing which ruling was accepted as general practice, famously permits saying Shema while seeing a married woman with her hair uncovered. But this is what he says in OC 75:7 , where that heter is given: And now, we will cry about the breached of our generation in its many since, for many years Benos Yisrael violate this sin and go with a revealed head. And whateve we yell about this, it doesn't help and it doesn't have an effect. And now this mispachas [oe of the nega'im] has spread, that married [women] go with their hyair like the besulos do. Woe to us that this arose in our generation! Still, al kol panim, according to the din is appears permitted to us to daven and make berakhos opposite their revealed heads, since now that most of them go this way... memeilah there won't be hirhur. So, RYME is pretty clear: It was common, it was viewed has a sin -- not "a different shittah", and the rabbinate did complain but no one listened. And again, that's the AhS, not the textual theoretician "what ought the ideal halakhah be from a clean slate" approach of the MB. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 14:46:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:46:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728214605.GB12259@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 02:10:52PM -0400, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: : AIUI the [MT] "was all that you needed to study". Are you/RGS saying that : this is only as a codifier? RAMBAM did not feel that he was passing on the : mesorah? In the end, it does not matter what he wrote, RASHI vs RAMBAM, you : must have RASHI, RAMBAM is nice but without RASHI you come to a dead end? As the Rambam says in the haqdamah (par 40 ), the goal was to put the "TSBP kulah sedurah befi hakol" -- his primary audience was the masses. And we know how much he thought of the masses. Similarly he continues (41) by telling you he his work "Mishneh Torah" because it fulfills the shelish bemishnah -- the studying of halakhah pesuqah. (He calls it sheliesh BTSBP, but as you just saw in the haqdamah, the Rambam both identifies the two and also says they're contained in his MT.) However, in Hil' Talmud Torah 1:12 tells you that that's only "betechilas tazlmudo shel adam, aval kesheyagdil bechokhmah" he should set time for TSBK and divrei hashemu'ah so as not to forget, "veyifneh kol yamav ligemara". So it is not impossible that even the Rambam himself might agree that those who explain how to do the shaqlara vetarya like gemara, or lomdus, or "veyotzi davar midavar veyidmeh dava ledavar" etc... are more central to the mesorah than his own Mishneh Torah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 13:54:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: <9ea4b.71e33b03.42e9460c@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) >>The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are forgotten after 12 months (memory of the bet hamikdash is different) I have a personal problem with this statement. To my sorry I know of several people who have lost children especially in the age of 18-25. One thing I have learned from these people is that one never forgets a child << --Eli Turkel >>>>> My grandmother had a baby daughter who died at the age of five months, and fifty years or more after that, I once asked her about the baby she had lost. She started to cry as if it had just happened, and described the baby in detail -- what she looked like, what she could do at five months and so on. So I learned the lesson that a parent never forgets a lost child. However, she only cried for a little while and then returned to her cheerful self. I'm sure that in the year after her baby died, she was not cheerful. I don't think "gezeira al hameis" means the person is literally forgotten, but that the degree of mourning becomes less intense. Initially the bereaved person, especially a bereaved parent, simply cannot believe the child is gone, and constantly thinks and even dreams about the child. With the passage of months and years, the knowledge that the child is truly gone is assimilated and the parent goes on with life, even if a heaviness always remains somewhere in the background. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 15:38:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 18:38:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150728223810.GD12259@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:12am EDT, R/Dr Meir Shinnar wrote: : Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions : I) in hazal - that continued desire for some forbidden actions : is compatible with a high spiritual state - issue is control of : the desire - NOT its presence : II) Aristotelian ethics - a high spiritual state does not desire : for forbidden - the desire is a sign of a flaw. But chazal too talk in terms of virtue ethics, not just in terms of kibush hayeitzer (overcoming the desire) but also tiqun hayeitzer (adjusting those desires). Most famously, "mah Hu Chanun, af atah chanun". Or, as the Rambam paraphrased, "mah hu *niqra* 'Chanun'..." It doesn't speak of giving to others without cause despite desire, it asks us to develop the middos of chanun, rachum, etc... Now, on to a totally different topic... On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 05:15:16PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote: : Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. Sex : is proper as long as you minimize it. - Is the difference really that : subtle? To me, it is as subtle as a brick. I think the difference is just about that, but because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: 1- It involves a second party. There is no threat of objectifying good. 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... Therefore, the attitude toward perishus for each comes from opposite directions. For food, which is necessary for survival, we talk about how much is too much. For sex, we talk about the right balance between keeping the other happy (chiyuv onah) and turning them into a tool for your own happiness. The bottom line is still the same: perishus from challenges I cannot handle while be maqdish olam hazeh the rest of the time. The details differ due to the differences above. On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:18am GMT, Kenneth Miller wrote: : .... This is a case where the Shulchan : Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went : uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed... On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:41pm EDT, Rn Toby Katz replied: : It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too loosely. If : it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim and acharonim, agree : that marital intercourse is always mutar (assuming the usual, the wife is not : a nidah, it's not forced, it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really : talking about here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan : Aruch. What frequency is optimum? Surely that is at least partly subjective, ... While what I said before about "minimize it" not meaning all that different from "don't overdue" addresses this question of RAM's as well, I think RnTK's response is really the essence of the answer. But to quibble with the language... I'm not sure it's "hashkafah" as much as Hilkhos Dei'os / Chovos haLvavos. After all "Qedoshim tihyu" is a chiyuv, not a nicety, and that's a source for "perushim tihyu". What a mitzvah to be or to become something (such as "qadosh") is in practice, though, is inherently situational and subjective. If we were talking about something reducible to black-letter halakhah and objective rules, it would have been. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 15:58:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:58:41 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <20150728.185841.2133.0@webmail10.vgs.untd.com> R"n Toby Katz wrote: > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar > (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, > it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might also be RTK's point). But if that is how we are to understand the vocabulary, then we have a whole new way of reading the Shulchan Aruch. Here are some examples: It's not assur to shmooze between Geulah and Tefillah of Maariv. (236:2) It's not assur to say Shehecheyanu on the Lulav on the second day. (662:2) Surely that is at least > partly subjective, and any of the various sources that apparently disagree with each other can be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up what your gut tells you is right. I can easily see a modern day rav or Torah mentor varying his answers depending on the circumstances of the wife and husband who are asking him for advice, as well as accepted societal norms. Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least some obligation to fulfill. ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b8096a62fe9695575st03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 20:51:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:51:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 02:09:11PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : That should be halfway between moldos, i.e. 14d 18h 22m after the : molad, not a full 15 days. It should also be adjusted for the time : difference between your standard time and Y'm's real time, which : for NY is 7h 20m in the winter and 6h 20m in the summer. Using : a full 15 days is only bediavad. Y-m time to EST is 7h 21m, not 20. But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we call it. It's hard to know exactly where the molad is being announced for, since the average lunation has changed over time and the accumulated difference between estimation and reality over millenia has grown large. Right now, the average molad matches the average moment of new moon for Qandahar, Afghanistan. If we go back in time to when the molad was closest to one lunar month, we get to 4th cent CE, the days of Hillel Nesi;ah. The av beis din to whom R Hai Gaon attributes our current calendar. If we assume the molad then was most accurate in start time as well when it was most accurate in durection, then the molad is being announeced for something like Ur Kasdim, which is also around the middle of Jewish settlement at the time, between the Nile and the Euphrates. In which case, the molad is being announced for a place 44 min after IST (not 21m). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 23:45:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 02:45:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 11:51 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Y-m time to EST is 7h 21m, not 20. True. I was approximating, much as the Rambam did with Y'm latitude. > But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we > call it. http://mechon-mamre.org/i/3811.htm#17 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:33:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 02:45:03AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we :> call it. : http://mechon-mamre.org/i/3811.htm#17 The Rambam there (Qiddush haChodesh 11:17) discusses the calculation of the calendar. The rules are set up based on RC in Y-m. Announcing the molad doesn't reflect the calculated calendar, but the whole Qiddush haChodesh is set up to invoke Sanhedrin being meqadesh al pi re'iyah. So perhaps they chose a clock for announcing the molad that wasn't the one they used to translate to the meridian used for translating mollad into rosh chodesh. Why would we do so? Isn't the meridian of Y-m the obvious time to use even if it weren't the one used to compute the calendar? As I quickly mentioned (I gave more details more than once in the past), I am suggesting a different meridian because if Hillel Nesi'ah ubeis dino had assumed a molad that was 23 min earlier than the one we announce, the molad would be more accurate. 23 min later than Yerushalayim does correspond to a meaningful place at the time, a point exactly midway between the Jews of EY and those of Bavel. Aside from including Ur Kasdim. Not the most obvious choice (Yerushalayim) but still not a random meridian either. So why not assume they picked the meridian for announcing the molad on that basis, and credit the Sanhedrin with knowing the molad to greater accuracy? The question is what that does to molad zaqein, and how we would explain the clean result of before noon vs posponing RH if the molad is after noon. The idea behind molad zaqein is that the furthest east Jewish community would still be able to see (weather permitting) the new moon before the end of RC. This is obviously only a loose idea, since we're talking about timing based on the molad, an approximate average. (So that on average Jews in the east would see the new moon...?) RYGB and/or RAZZ theorize http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n038.shtml#08 that the Calendar Controversy was over the issue of how far east do we worry about. R' Aharon ben Meir wanted to move the cutoff for molad zaqein by 64 chalaqim. (More than 23 min, ie 414 chalaqim.) He doesn't say why. Their article suggests that RABM was setting the rule for molad zaqein based on the furthest known Jewish settlement at that time. Which would be Kaifun, and the numbers work. Whereas RSG objected saying that the location is theoretical, not experimental. The Kuzari (following RSG -- since it's his version of the calendar that we all use) uses this to argue that the international date line is 90 deg east of Y-m ih"q. And thus any Jewish settlement that would be further east would be on the other side of the date line WRT Rosh Chodesh, and there is no problem of the molad being on their day 2. If so, changing the molad by 23 min would change the calendar, halakhah would prove my claim wrong. But few if any of us hold that the date line is 90 deg east of Y-m, east down 125.2 deg E, down Dongeng St in Changchun, China. To quote R Dovid Heber at : Families on the eastern strip of Dongfeng Street would recite kiddush while families a block to the west would recite havdala. It may be possible for those who want two days of Shabbos to walk one block eastbound, down Dongfeng Street, after Seuda Shlishis and start Shabbos again. Those who want to skip almost all of Shabbos could take a short stroll westbound, and go from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. (This post needed something light to leaven it.) >From where I sit, between those who say 180deg and the CI's adjudgment of including the entire land mass if part of it is west of 90deg, the dominant shitah is inconsistent with the Kuzari's explanation. If the date line is not involved, it would mean the machloqes would be about what we mean by the far enough end of Jewish settlement who would still experience the molad before the end of RC. RSG is saying that 90 deg is the Sanhderin mandated estimate, and RABM holds it's the actual furthest settlement. And that stands whether or not RYGB and RAZZ are correct about RAML's sevara, as we're only looking at RSG lehalakhah. I just took the Kuzari's lomdus and asked what it would mean to those who don't agree with his date line. If that line of reasoning is correct, then saying the approximate eastmost community is to be measured from the center of the core Jewish settlement -- between Bavel and EY -- ends up more intuitive than saying it's measured from Y-m. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 05:11:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:11:28 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Ooops! Yesterday I accidentally pressed "send" when I meant to "save draft". The result was a post that was far from finished. Here is what I had intended to publish: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar > (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, > it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might also be RTK's point). But IF that is how we are to understand the vocabulary, then we have a whole new way of reading the Shulchan Aruch. Here are some examples of this new way of understanding: It's not assur to shmooze between Geulah and Tefillah of Maariv (236:2) or to say Shehecheyanu on the Lulav on the second day (662:2) or to say Hallel on RH and YK (584:1) or to get a haircut before Mincha (232:2). It's not assur to daven only in your heart, but it's better if you pronounce the words with your lips. (101:2) I will concede that these examples are indeed less severe than cases where the Shulchan Aruch DOES use the word "assur". But nevertheless, we do not take these halachos as mere suggestions. Despite the lack of the word "asur", we DO accept it as normative psak halacha, and not as "hashkafa", to use RTK's word. So why should Siman 240 be different? Why would we suddenly take the words of Siman 240 to be hashkafa, and wave off the Shulchan Aruch, saying that his derech is different than our derech? Shouldn't we accept it as normative halacha? Even if I feel these halachos to be strange or difficult, shouldn't I at least accept them as a goal to strive for? And if I *don't* strive for them, doesn't that require teshuva? > Surely that is at least partly subjective, and any of the > various sources that apparently disagree with each other can > be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up > what your gut tells you is right. Maybe, but one had better be VERY sure that those sources actually exist, and that they have ample support in the poskim. Otherwise - as I asked a couple of posts ago - how is this any different than what the conservative and reform do? "It's a big machlokes - there's gotta be someone who paskens the way I want, so that's what I'm gonna do." I shudder when I hear otherwise-observant people saying such things. There are indeed some cases where there is such a *lack* of consensus among the poskim that one can do as he wants (one of my teachers paskened this way and for this reason regarding brachos on dessert), but I do not see Siman 240 in this category. We seem to be abandoning the consensus of the Shulchan Aruch and Nosei Keilim, and running to minority rishonim. > Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing > this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing > to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation > of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional > closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly > pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least > some obligation to fulfill. Are we really sure that (for the wife) physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness from the Torah's perspective? Or perhaps that is only an invention of minds which have been clouded by the outside culture? Could it be that Onah requires physical closeness, but not emotional closeness? I get mixed messages on this. On the one hand, an awful lot of Siman 240 is devoted to husband and wife both being of the proper frame of mind, and this is extremely strong evidence to the real importance of emotional closeness. But when I see halachos about keeping conversation to a minimum, and keeping the time involved to a minimum, then I wonder how much closeness can be achieved. I had posted: : Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. : Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. R' Micha Berger responded: > ... because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: > ... 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... Really? Can we really survive without it? You and me, I suppose, but that's because we are male. RTK referenced mitzvas onah. In the Torah's view, sex is as essential as food and shelter are. But only for women. Regardless of whether we're talking about physical closeness or emotional closeness, it seems that the Torah is concerned about closeness only for the woman, and not for the man. For women, closeness is a need which must be met; for men, closeness is a taavah which must be controlled. Let's not allow ourselves to get confused between needs and taavos. A person may desire something so much that he thinks it to be a need, but he is deluding himself. Nowhere do I see any responsibilities of the wife which are comparable to Mitzvas Onah. Yes, she'll be a "moredet" if she refuses, but (as I understand it) that is due to the social contract implicit in the concept of marriage, which is a very cry from a Chiyuv D'Oraisa. ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b8c3465e5f543465c9est02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:01:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:01:07 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla Message-ID: according to the Hebrew wikipedia Matyha bat Baytus bought the high priesthood for her husband Yehoshua ben Gamla towards the end of the second Temple. As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai and they guess that it was from Agripas II. Furthermore Yehoshua Ben Gamla was killed during the revolt against Rome. (Where the high priest Yishmael ben Elisha fits in we have discussed in the past) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:07:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:07:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150729160759.GF12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 06:01:07PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> according to the Hebrew wikipedia Matyha bat Baytus bought the high :> priesthood for her husband Yehoshua ben Gamla towards the end of the second :> Temple. As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai and they guess :> that it was from Agripas II. : Furthermore Yehoshua Ben Gamla was killed during the revolt against Rome. : (Where the high priest Yishmael ben Elisha fits in we have discussed in the : past) The gemara is Yuma 18a and Yevamos 61a. The mishnah in Yevemos says that Yehoshua ben Gamla married Marta bas Baisus, an almana, but before consummating the marriage "umanahu melekh" to be kohein gadol, The point of the mishnah is that they can stay married, as actually happened in this event. The gemara comments on the language of "manahu" rather than the expected "nisnamneh" to denote that the appointment wasn't the usual approval of a candidate selected by the kohanim and vetted by Sanhedrin. Then the gemara says she spent two qavin ("tarqav" = trei + qav) of dinarim to buy it. The gemara in Yuma makes this last point as well. Josephus (Antiquities XX 9:4 ) wrote that he became KG during the reign of Herod Agrippa II. Nothing about how. The translation reads weird, calls him "Jesus the son of Gamaliel". I went to the Soncino, since I don't know who else would comment on a gemara - Josephus interaction. Fn 16 on Yuma, 20 on Yevamos make the identity. They first opine that "Jannai is often employed in the Talmud as a general patronymic for Hasmonean and Herodian rulers." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:30:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:30:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?HILCHOS_KIBUD_AV_V=92EIM?= Message-ID: <20150729153144.1CF3218089B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://halachafortodaycom.blogspot.com/2013/02/archives-hilchos-kibud-av-veim.html Some selections from this site. The Aseres HaDibros, the Ten Commandments given to us by Hashem on Har Sinai are divided into two parts, the first five are commandments between man and Hashem (Bein Adam L?Makom) and the last five are commandments between man and fellow man (Bein Adam L?Chaveiro) Kibud Av V?Eim ,the fifth of the Aseres HaDibros, is listed amongst the commandments that are between man and Hashem even though it is seemingly a commandment that is only between man and man. The reason for this is that honoring one?s parents is akin to honoring Hashem. There are 3 partners in every human being, the father, the mother and Hashem. If one honors any of the three it is as if all three have been honored, and if one dishonors any of the three it?s as if all three have been dishonored. 1)It is prohibited to contradict a parent. (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah Siman 240:2) If a parent has a verbal disagreement with another person, and the child tells the other person ?I concur with your view?, it is considered contradicting the parent and is prohibited. (Shach Yoreh Deah 240:2) 2) According to some Poskim this prohibition is only in the presence of the parent. Other Poskim, however, maintain that even not in the presence of the parent it is prohibited. 1)It is forbidden to call a parent or refer to them by their name; rather they need to be referred to as ?My father [my teacher]? or ?My mother?. 1) What constitutes ?Kibud, respecting? parents? One must speak to their parents softly, with respect the way one would speak to a king. 1) Children are obligated to stand up for their parents when they enter a room. 1) If a parent does something that is against the Torah and a child sees, the child should not say ?You transgressed a Torah prohibition?, as bluntly saying so will cause the parent embarrassment. Rather, the child should say something to the effect of: ?Father Does it say in the Torah that one should not .?? in a way that sounds like a question and not like a chastisement or rebuke, and the parent will realize on their own that they have committed the sin. 1) If one?s father asks for a glass of water or any other task, and at the same time his/her mother asked for a glass of water or another task, tending to the father?s needs takes precedence, as the son/daughter and the mother are both obligated to respect the father/husband. 2) If a parent is sleeping it is forbidden to wake them up. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:51:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:51:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B8F66D.2000701@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 11:33 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > > But few if any of us hold that the date line is 90 deg east of Y-m, > east down 125.2 deg E, down Dongeng St in Changchun, China. To quote > R Dovid Heber at: > Families on the eastern strip of Dongfeng Street would recite > kiddush while families a block to the west would recite havdala. > It may be possible for those who want two days of Shabbos to walk > one block eastbound, down Dongfeng Street, after Seuda Shlishis and > start Shabbos again. Those who want to skip almost all of Shabbos > could take a short stroll westbound, and go from sunset Friday to > sunset Saturday. > (This post needed something light to leaven it.) Shu"T Bnai Tziyon points to a gemara about two villages within techum shabbos, where it was Yom Kippur in one and not the other, because that was the last place the messenger had made it before sunset. (I can't figure out how that actually worked, but that is what the gemara says.) He avoids the awkwardness of the situation posited in this clip by positing that the line is not one-dimensional but is several miles wide, and that the area inside the line has an official din of sofek, like bein hashmoshos. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:21:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 19:21:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: saw some trivia questions: 1) Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters of the alph-bet (I only know one) 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:51:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:51:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150729165138.GH12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 07:21:20PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 1) Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters : of the alph-bet (I only know one) Soferim use Tzefania 3:8 to show their penmanship, because it not only includes all 22 letters, it also includes all the sofios. Is that a way to denote total ultimate justice (the meaning of the words ) or what? This question is easier than that, just asking for 22 letters, not whether sofis or not. I already heard this one so I will leave the other 6 for others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:58:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B8F834.5060103@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 11:01 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > according to the Hebrew wikipedia Which is no more authoritative than English WP, and in fact seems to have looser rules regarding sourcing. > Matyha bat Baytus Martha. > As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai As Tosfos already points out, in both places where the gemara quotes this memra. > they guess that it was from Agripas II. That seems like a good guess, that the Yannai in the memra refers to the king Josephus calls Herod Agrippa II, but it is only a guess. On 07/29/2015 12:07 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I went to the Soncino, since I don't know who else would comment on a > gemara - Josephus interaction. Fn 16 on Yuma, 20 on Yevamos make the > identity. They first opine that "Jannai is often employed in the Talmud > as a general patronymic for Hasmonean and Herodian rulers." Which, for all we know, it may have been. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 10:13:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:13:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B909C7.7070906@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 12:21 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach 1. The definition of an "edah" from "this wicked edah". 2. Hezek re'iyah from Bil'am. 3. Standing for a davar shebikdusha, from Eglon. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 14:57:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:57:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150729215724.GA3540@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:11:28PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : R"n Toby Katz wrote: : > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too : > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim : > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar.... : > What we are really talking about : > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan : > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... : : Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. : : I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount : of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as : "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" : (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken : literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that : these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might : also be RTK's point). Which is why I quibbled with RnTK's language. Becauser I think it's assur -- really and actually assur -- not to try for perishus where possible. It's a bitul asei of "qedoshim tihyu". However, a mitzvah of hilkhos dei'os is to stretch, to move the nequdas habechirah and is therefore not only "at least partly subjective" but necessarily subjective. And if the criteria for behavior could be spelled out non-subjectively, they would be spelled out in chovos ha'eivarim. : I had posted: :: Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. :: Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. : R' Micha Berger responded: :> ... because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: :> ... 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... : Really? Can we really survive without it? You and me, I suppose, : but that's because we are male. Under normal circumstances, one can't go 3 days without food and water. Not just "one would be miserable if", but actual death. I am not sure how you could compare the need for intimacy to that kind of mechanistic do-or-die. : RTK referenced mitzvas onah. In the Torah's view, sex is as essential : as food and shelter are. But only for women. I disagree. And BTW, my #1 which you ellided /was/ mitzvas onah. : Regardless of whether we're talking about physical closeness : or emotional closeness, it seems that the Torah is concerned about : closeness only for the woman, and not for the man. For women, closeness : is a need which must be met; for men, closeness is a taavah which must : be controlled. Or, the Torah presumes that opportunity is in the hands of men. Not a difference in desire. Or -- a 3rd possibility -- lehefech, men are presumed more likely to get distracted by their own taavos and objectify their spouse and therefore the chiyuv of onah to focus on someone else's psychological needs. In any case, the requirement to avoid misery would motivate a chiyuv, one needn't define it as a need. Esperically since biologically, it's not necessary for survival the way food, drink or air are. But getting back to what you're saying here... Let me repeat point #1 in different phrasing: Because onah is indeed a chiyuv, saying that it should be minimized outside the realm of mitzvah isn't that much of a minimization. And yet, the threat of erotic desire becoming an end in itself is both more damaging, since there will be other victims beyond the self-destructive aspect and more likely. (In most people's psychology -- it's not like there is an internet food "porn" industry.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 15:37:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:37:27 GMT Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> R' Eli Turkel asked: > The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov > mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are > forgotten after 12 months ... > > I have a personal problem with this statement. ... one never > forgets a child R"n Toby Katz answered: > I don't think "gezeira al hameis" means the person is literally > forgotten, but that the degree of mourning becomes less intense. > ... the parent goes on with life, even if a heaviness always > remains somewhere in the background. I have had the same question as RET, and I thank RTK for this answer. I have written on several occasions, about my belief that Chazal often exaggerate, and this misleads those who are not used to their style of speaking. I think we have here another example of the same thing. There's a tendency to take Chazal at literal face value. We need to be more careful when reading the poetry. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 08:02:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:02:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Parallels in Kiruv Message-ID: <56c357c0b3404dbcbfc7bce2d25a6162@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Here's a quote from "Their Rock is Not Like Our Rock" - Daniel Strange In a recent article addressed to evangelical pastors I outlined a three-point "to do" list that might begin to move us into this stance: * Develop and deploy a biblically rich and nuanced theology of religions * Discern and denounce the arrogance and intolerance of pluralism * Demonstrate and display, in both word and deed, the unique power of the gospel to change lives and communities My impression is the first two are not generally done by kiruv folks but I was wondering if you replace gospel with orthodoxy and evangelical pastors with kiruv professionals, what fits? Should it be considered as an approach? Kol Tuv, 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 09:30:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:30:47 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: 'oh hanisa elokim' is one; the other is in parshat haman , i forget which one. will leave the dvar tora connecting the two , to others , other than to say the import of 'zeh gilui shechina' and lechem mishamayim as fundaments of faith,,,, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 10:38:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:38:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: From: Eli Turkel via Avodah " 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach -- Eli Turkel >>>>> Don't know if this is what you had in mind but I can think of these: [1] A woman cannot be married without her consent -- learn from Lavan -- "Nish'alah es pi hana'arah" before sending Rivka off with Eliezer to marry Yitzchak. [2] A younger sister cannot marry before the older sister (unless she gets permission from her) -- from Lavan again, excusing himself for giving Leah to Yakov instead of Rachel. [3] Celebrating seven days of sheva brachos -- from two places. One is Lavan again -- give Leah a week to celebrate and then Yakov can marry Rachel. And from the Pelishti "friends" of Shimshon who celebrated his wedding for a week. [4] We also learn from Izevel (Jezebel) that it's a big mitzva to dance at a wedding, to be mesameach chassan vekallah, but strictly speaking this is not in Tanach, it's a midrash. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 11:41:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:41:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: In Avodah V33n109, RET posted > Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters of the alph-bet (I only know one) < In the Torah, a *pasuq* in P'Va'eschanan (4 :34) is usually noted, but it (containing letter *sin* but no *shin*) works only when the *shin* and the *sin* are considered the same letter (they are, so long as we're considering the written form). The other *pasuq* in the Torah of which I'm aware is Shmos 16 :16 (in it, the *shin* is extant but there's no *sin*). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 15:30:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:30:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months In-Reply-To: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150730223053.GA17753@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:37:27PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : I have written on several occasions, about my belief that Chazal often : exaggerate, and this misleads those who are not used to their style of : speaking. I think we have here another example of the same thing. There's : a tendency to take Chazal at literal face value. We need to be more : careful when reading the poetry. Tanakh sometimes does something else with a similar effect, and it may be what Chazal are doing here. Lei'ah, rather than being described as "less loved" is "senu'ah". It's not necessarily exageration as much as a language norm to express a relative statement uing the same terms as absolutes. Here too chazal are making a comparison. Was the reader expected to know it's guzma, or was the norm in mishnaic Hebrew as well to use the term for the end of the spectrum to mean "less mourned than"? My problem with this is the parent of the MIA who can't let go for years or decades, and then it's found out that the chayal r"l was killed upon capture (or their body was taken after petirah for a bargaining chip). We have no experimental evidence of parents having that mystical knowledge of their children's state, and quite a bit of evidence otherwise. Perhaps Yaaqov avinu, or even someone with "just" ruach haqodesh is that aware of what's going on on the plane of souls without learning about them through normal olam hazeh means. But I do not see it being true of the majority of humanity. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 20:39:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 03:39:12 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> I tried to make the point that although many try to show similarites between food and sex, if we look at the Torah's view, there are far more differences. I suggested a rule of thumb: > Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. > Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. Chazal see food as an entirely proper way of enjoying olam hazeh, to the point that it is actively encouraged as a form of all sorts of celebrations. (And not only happy celebrations, but eating is also involved in various mourning practices.) Under normal circumstances, one can and should eat as much as he needs, subject to the limitations of kashrus and brachos. One is never allowed to eat in a quantity or manner that he becomes a menuval, but that is not a major concern. Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah. And even there, the restrictions are many. Food has tremendous room for creativity even within the restrictions of hilchos kashrus and brachos. Sex could be similar, even within the bounds of hilchos nidda and arayos, but the restrictions set out in OC 240 go much farther than merely to insure that one does not become a menuval. R' Micha Berger responded: > I think the difference is just about that, but because of the > biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: > 1- It involves a second party. There is no threat of > objectifying [food]. > 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... > Therefore, the attitude toward perishus for each comes from > opposite directions. For food, which is necessary for survival, > we talk about how much is too much. For sex, we talk about the > right balance between keeping the other happy (chiyuv onah) > and turning them into a tool for your own happiness. I think that he is agreeing with me that food and sex are very different, but I disagree with his explanation of *why* they are so different. In his first point, intended to be "food"), he seems to feel that the restrictions on sex are to prevent people from taking advantage of each other: If I have even a small desire for a snack, the Torah has no problem at all if I go to the kitchen and take an apple (provided that I say the bracha to acknowledge Hashem's involvement) because the apple is nothing more than an apple. But while casual eating is fine, casual sex is not. Casual sex involves people, and they must not be taken advantage of. My problem with this is on several levels. First, Chazal are pretty explicit that the purpose of Hilchos Nida is to restore a honeymoon-style atmosphere on a regular basis, and that alone might suffice to insure that spouses aren't objectified. Also, we have the many parts of OC 240 which insure that husband and wife are in the same "place" emotionally: no one is drunk, words of "ritzui", and so on. But isn't that sufficient protection against objectifying? What is gained from the additional restrictions (such as various positions, or finishing quickly) which have no parallel in food? In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach the Torah uses for Onah. While men and women are pretty much identical in the halachos of food, Onah places the husband and wife in opposite situations. Any discussion of Onah that uses the word "spouse" will be flawed, because Onah treats the husband and wife so differently. For example, whenever the wife desires relations, then the husband has a clear and present chiyuv d'Oraisa. But if the husband desires, she has no corresponding obligation; in fact (if I'm not mistaken) she's not even labeled as a "moredet" until after prolonged and repeated refusals. It seems to me that Onah may have the effect of objectifying males. Those parts of Orach Chaim 240 which forbid unwilling relations ought to suffice to insure that the women are not objectified. But Onah seems to push the pendulum too far. In response to RTK, RMB wrote: > I'm not sure it's "hashkafah" as much as Hilkhos Dei'os / Chovos > haLvavos. After all "Qedoshim tihyu" is a chiyuv, not a nicety, > and that's a source for "perushim tihyu". > What a mitzvah to be or to become something (such as "qadosh") > is in practice, though, is inherently situational and subjective. > If we were talking about something reducible to black-letter > halakhah and objective rules, it would have been. And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective rules", is it not? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 1 22:55:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 00:55:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: I initially replied on Areivim to a post reminding women during the summer to cover their hair. Mrs. Katz added that there was no support for those who hold that hair covering in public is not necessary. Others have disputed what RYBS's position on hair covering was, in view of the fact that his wife did NOT cover her hair in public at all times(someone seems to have the impression that she wore a hat). Here are the sources I have collected, in addition to the fact that a significant percentage of Modern Orthodox women to not cover their hair in public except in shul/davening situations. In response to those who have stated that the younger more educated women are covering their hair, I would point out that they have been educated to believe that it is an obligation, and the permissive sources have not been shared with them- case in point Mrs. Katz who either is not aware or chooses to dismiss them out of hand. In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is: if it is the practice of women to cover [their hair] and she uncovered it, then this is immodesty ( *ervah*). But if it was not the regular practice [of women] to cover [their hair] then [going uncovered] is not in the category of immodesty at all. If they uncover one hand?s-breadth in a place where they are habituated to cover then it is [a case of] uncovering immodesty and it is prohibited to read the Shema prayer in their presence... But if their (ladies?) custom is to uncover their hair (or a hand?s-breadth of the body) ? as single women do who by custom walk around with head [hair] uncovered - then this [action] does not constitute immodesty (*ervah*)." If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. Here is a list of easily accessable sources: Rabbi Marc Angel(former president of the Rabbinical Council of America) discusses why hair covering is not mandated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbrQwEerLsY Massive article by Rabbi Michael Broyde: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/0095-0180.pdf I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and everyone can come to their own conclusion. Rav Yosef Haim(author of Ben Ish Chai) writing that hair covering is not necessary(and how his opinion was altered by others): http://text.rcarabbis.org/the-ben-ish-hai-and-women%E2%80%99s-hair-covering-an-interesting-case-of-censorship-by-jacob-sasson/ See Rabbi Broyde's article(pages 155-158) for citations of those who state that hair covering is not mandated in the current society: R. Yitzchak Hurwitz in Yad HaLevi R. Moshe Malka(late Chief Rabbi of Petach Tikvah) R. Josef Messas(late chief rabbi of Morocco and later Haifa) R. Yaakov Haim Sofer Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did not cover her hair? Was this permitted by the *halachah*, or was it not prohibited on the grounds of modesty? He took out a *Gemara Berachot*, opened it to page 24A and showed me the Talmudic statement. "Said Rav Sheshet: [showing] hair by a woman is *ervah *(an act of immodesty)." Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with uncovered hair. Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat common. Some will say that- 'they couldn't control their wives' or other such statements. I would point out that RYBS also went to the opera- perhaps in keeping with an approach that hair wasn't erva, a lenient view of kol isha, all of which seems consistent. Furthermore, it seems quite far fetched that a rav who knew that he had great communal status would abide by gross violation of halacha in public by his own family, and at the very least would make it clear that he did not hold by it. Obviously, the fact that he did not make a deal of it(certainly not a big deal), illustrates something. Do you think he would countenance his wife eating treif? furthermore, the chiyyuv is also for men not to see hair(if that is the position that is being taken), and by not protesting his wife's uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 2 03:40:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 13:40:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: <<> 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach 1. The definition of an "edah" from "this wicked edah". 2. Hezek re'iyah from Bil'am. 3. Standing for a davar shebikdusha, from Eglon. >> Some others are: 4. Lavan: Sheva Brachot; also the Bracha we give the Kalla at the bedeken 5. also "chaye shaah" is less important that "chaye olam" from the 4 lepers, gechazi and his sons -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 2 01:25:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 11:25:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: ""It's a big machlokes - there's gotta be someone who paskens the way I want, so that's what I'm gonna do." I shudder when I hear otherwise-observant people saying such things. There are indeed some cases where there is such a *lack* of consensus among the poskim that one can do as he wants (one of my teachers paskened this way and for this reason regarding brachos on dessert), but I do not see Siman 240 in this category. We seem to be abandoning the consensus of the Shulchan Aruch and Nosei Keilim, and running to minority rishonim." R' Lichtenstein was bothered by this point and answered that we need to rely on our teachers and Gedolim. "Probably most significant, however, is our reliance upon our own mentors. Sensing that modern gedolim, ?the judge of your era??for our purposes, most notably, the Rav, but not he alone?have examined the issue and the evidence and adopted a positive stance, we, ordinary students of Torah, follow in their footsteps as we identify with their position. Whether they felt justified in accepting, out of the depths of their own conviction, a minority view; whether they held that our topic was essen- tially a matter of hashkafic proclivity, not necessarily amenable to the nor- mal procedures of pesak; or whether some other unknown but imagined element?might, for instance, the hospitable climate of Kabbalistic sources, have had some impact?is a matter for conjecture. That the authority of our mentors can inform and sustain our sensibility is not." I understand that for many of us that is not a very satisfying answer and leads to many questions about why specifically here we follow minority opinions as opposed to other places (e.g. wombs issues, etc.) but I don't think there is a better answer. This is the way the halachic system works. Even after all of this, R' Lichtenstein himself was bothered by this very point: "I am left, nonetheless, with a lacuna. Even while adhering to the Rav?s position, one may freely concede wishing that he had done for us what we have been challenged and constrained to do here: examine the various tiers of tradition and elucidate the basis for his own judgment and commitment." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 01:21:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:21:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on tefillin Message-ID: There is a disagreement between Rashi/Rambam and R Tam whether one says one or two brachot on tefillin of the arm and head. While sefardim follow SA and say one bracha ashkenazim follow R Tam and say 2 brachot bur add "baruch shem kvod ..." to avoid a bracha le-vatala I have 2 things I don't understand about the ashkenazi minhag 1) The usual rule is "safek bracha le-kula" and so when in doubt don't say a bracha 2) How does saying "barch shem" help ? We have many disagreements about brachot. For example ashkenazim (again following R Tam) say brachot on customs, eg half hallel. We don't add "baruch shem ..." in these cases. Why only in tefillin? Furthermore whenever there is a doubt about a bracha (classical case is if one forgot to count the omer at night and remembered during the day) why do the act without a bracha - why not say the bracha and add "baruch shem" -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 07:43:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:43:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150803144333.GA30399@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 03:39:12AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed : in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah... ... and priya verivya, no? : Food has tremendous room for creativity even within : the restrictions of hilchos kashrus and brachos. Sex could be similar, : even within the bounds of hilchos nidda and arayos, but the restrictions : set out in OC 240 go much farther than merely to insure that one does : not become a menuval. ... : I think that he is agreeing with me that food and sex are very different, : but I disagree with his explanation of *why* they are so different. I have the same assessment. I am saying that the same principle of when perishus is appropriate is very different for food vs sex because food and sex are different in nature. Summarizing my point #1: : But while casual eating is fine, casual sex is : not. Casual sex involves people, and they must not be taken advantage of. : : My problem with this is on several levels. First, Chazal are pretty : explicit that the purpose of Hilchos Nida is to restore a honeymoon-style : atmosphere on a regular basis, and that alone might suffice to insure : that spouses aren't objectified.... If your objection is based on the "might suffice", all one needs to assert is or might not. : What is gained from the additional : restrictions (such as various positions, or finishing quickly) which : have no parallel in food? I am not sure that prohibitions based on mood are sufficient, as it's too easy to fool oneself about what the other person really wants. In any case, you return to OC 240 again at the end of the post and ask: : And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective : rules", is it not? Perhaps not. Is OC 1 black-letter halakhah? Is hitting the snooze button, or even lying around for a few seconds before getting up, actually assur? For that matter, there is a mitzvah to remember right vs left when putting on and tying shoes, but do you really think someone was oveir an issur if they don't? As the AhS OC often notes, the style of the SA is just to discuss do vs don't, and it blurs the distinctions between levels of issur -- a deOraisa can be next to an accepted minhag, and both may even be written in parallel language. : In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival : without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, : psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach : the Torah uses for Onah. : : While men and women are pretty much identical in the halachos of food, : Onah places the husband and wife in opposite situations... Whereas moredes has no parallel because she cannot initiate a gett. And for that matter, it has no parallel because he is obligated to support here. For that matter, the assymetry in who supports who is quite possibly why HQBH set up an assymetric process for gittin. The man who obligates himself in support can get of it. Onah is a protection against that objectification. Against turning that whole support thing into near prostitution. And with onah, the outcome is more symmetric -- he can end a marriage if dissatisfied, and is obligated to keep her satisfied. Without which BD can force him to willingly end the marriage. (Just paraphrasing the din...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 08:17:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:17:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on tefillin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150803151733.GB30399@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:21:03AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I have 2 things I don't understand about the ashkenazi minhag : : 1) The usual rule is "safek bracha le-kula" and so when in doubt don't say : a bracha : 2) How does saying "bar[u]ch shem" help ? ... The AhS (OC 25:11 ) agrees with you on both points, and therefore posits (se'ifim 12-13) a totally different meaning to the 2nd berakhah. And even though shel yad and shel rosh are two different of the 613, we make one berakhah on maaser rishon and maaser sheini. He also quotes that the BY rejects a possibility that if someone talks between the two tefillin, he would have to make both berakhos on the shel rosh -- repeting "lehaniach" and yet still saying "al mitzvah". But even though he uses this as proof, he requires (se'if 16, following the Ran via the MA s"q 15) loosening the shel yad so that you are still saying "lehaniach" the 2nd time on both. This is a pretty big chiddush, a birkhas hoda'ah that says "asher qidshanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu al mitzvas..." However, similar arguments are made about Birkhas haTorah, if one says the berakhah is deOraisa (Ramban) and therefore "aqb"v la'asoq bedivrei Torah" can't be a birkhas hamitzvah. The IM says as much (OC 2:3). : We don't add "baruch shem ..." in these cases. Why only in tefillin? Leshitas AhS, it follows enacting the qesher gadol between us and HQBH for the same reason the pasuq is said after the first pasuq of Shema. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:04:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 17:04:47 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> I wrote: : Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed : in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah... R' Micha Berger asked: > ... and priya verivya, no? I was trying to show differences between sex and food. I would say that, in the eyes of Halacha, there is no connection between pirya v'rivya and the olam-hazeh enjoyment of sex, in exactly the same manner that there is no connection between achilas matzah and the olam-hazeh enjoyment of food. The latter is a means of internalizing a historical connection, and the former is a biological imperative, but neither has any connection to olam-hazeh enjoyment. However, that it not to say that halacha is blind to the fact that sex *IS* enjoyable. This is recognized by the mitzvah of Oneg Shabbos, where if the act is to be done once a week, then Shabbos is receommended. Chiyuv Onah also recognizes that if the wife has a taavah for this particular hanaah, then it is the husband's obligation to satisfy her taavah. But pirya v'rivya? No, I don't see evidence of that. I asked: : And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective : rules", is it not? RMB suggested: > Perhaps not. Is OC 1 black-letter halakhah? Is hitting the snooze > button, or even lying around for a few seconds before getting up, > actually assur? For that matter, there is a mitzvah to remember > right vs left when putting on and tying shoes, but do you really > think someone was oveir an issur if they don't? I agree that there are degrees of obligation. A simple verb like "yaaseh" clearly implies a smaller obligation than "chayav laasos". "Must" is much stronger than "should". But if a subject makes it into Shulchan Aruch - as these did - that also shows a stronger obligation than something that appears only in Mesilas Yesharim, or even Gemara for that matter. Yes, I do think that when the alarm clock rings, one has an obligation to seriously consider whether he really *needs* to stay in bed a little longer, or whether he merely *wants* to. And I will admit that - b'shaas maaseh - I rarely consider that as seriously as I should. And that's one of the things I'm trying to improve on. Same thing for tying my shoes - I think that by now I do it correctly by habit, but I'm not really sure, and I'll try to remember to watch myself tomorrow morning. RMB wrote: > Whereas moredes has no parallel because she cannot initiate a gett. And > for that matter, it has no parallel because he is obligated to support > here. For that matter, the assymetry in who supports who is quite > possibly why HQBH set up an assymetric process for gittin. The man who > obligates himself in support can get of it. Yes, I agree that this could be part of why Hashem set it up that way. But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no corresponding safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55c0f0f9c892870f9653ast02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:43:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:43:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <117801d0cedd$1904bea0$4b0e3be0$@com> > But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan > Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went > uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why > aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? Good question. I can't help but thinking that this is one of those (many) halachic issues where the hanhaga of Klal yisroel in certain halachic (or hashkafic) areas has developed to be inline with yechidim than with the majority of chazal/rishonim/etc Why this happens is certainly a discussion - is it societal / siata shimaya guiding Klal yisroel / etc We have many others similar to this (some d'oriasa, some d'rabbanan) - human hair sheitals, chadash, live music after the churban, etc. When this should happen (and when it should be fought), I will leave to the einei haeida. Mordechai Cohen From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:49:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Baruch Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 10:49:07 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Halachic Requirement for Dayanim Evaluating In-Person Facial Expressions of Parties in Bais Din In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: List Mates: In an AMI issue that was reported in VosIzNais, Rabbi Hershel Schachter was quoted as saying: ""*There is a Mishna in Pirkei Avos that the oilam says a vort on. It says, "K'sheyihiyu habaalei dinim lifanecha, yihiyu b'einecha k'resha'im. K'she'yaamdu m'lifanecha yihiyub'einecha k'tzaddikim, shekiblu aleihem es hadin." ["When the litigants stand before you (the judges), they should be in your eyes like wicked people. When they stand up from being in front of you, they should be in your eyes like righteous people, because they have accepted the judgment."] They say from a few different dayanim that they would put a tallis over their face, to not see the face of a rasha. But that is wrong; part of the din Torah is to look at the person and see from his facial expression and how he talks...whether or not he is saying the truth. You have to be able to detect whether he is telling the truth*.'" ( http://www.vosizneias.com/92931/2011/10/11/new-york-in-exclusive-ami-magzine-intreview-noted-rabbi-schachter-slams-set-up-of-rabbinical-court-system/ ) Is there a Halacha that you can direct me to that mandates in-person and face-to-face participation by the parties to a Bais Din for the reasons given by Rabbi Schechter? I found this... The seating configuration of the Sanhedrin ??????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?? ?? The Mishnah describes how the members of the Sanhedrin sat in a row in the shape of a half-circle in order *for each person to be able to see everyone else*. Why was it necessary for everyone to be able to have direct eye contact with everyone else? Rashi explains that it is only when people have direct sight of each other that they can listen and then argue and debate with each other. ?"????? elaborates and says that when people argue and express their views, they often rise from their seats. If they did not sit facing each other, it is quite possible that they would not be able to hear when a person turns as he speaks from a standing position. Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin 1:3) explains that this arrangement was used in order for the President (????) and the Av Beis Din to be able to see everyone. Lechem Mishneh notes that this was a sign of respect for these leaders to sit in the middle and for everyone to easily be able to listen to them. Rashi also addresses why the Sanhedrin sat in a half-circle rather than in a full circle. From a technical standpoint, the witnesses and litigants would have to have a way to enter the circle to present themselves in front of the judges (see Rashi, Chullin 5a). Furthermore, if the judges sat in a full circle, while the witnesses would be facing some of the judges, their backs would be turned toward the others. *The judges might have a hard time hearing the witnesses and litigants, or they would not be able to see them as they spoke. Facial expressions and other subtleties are essential in communication, and the judges must be able to pick up on any and all such nuances during the deliberations*. The Tosefta (8:1) cites differing opinions regarding the seating position of the President of the Sanhedrin. Tanna Kamma holds that the President sat in the center of the semi-circle, with thirty-five of the members of the Sanhedrin seated on each side of him. R' Elazar b. Tzadok says that when Rabban Gamliel sat in the Sanhedrin in Yavne, one of the sages sat to his right, and all the others sat to his left. Rambam (ibid.) writes that the ???? sat with the Av Beis Din to his right, and the rest of the sages to his left, seated according to their ages and their wisdom, with the wisest among them to his immediate left, and the rest seated closer according to their level. Radva"z and Kesef Mishneh ask why Rambam does not rule according to Tanna Kamma, and, as he rules according to R' Elazar b. Tzadok, why the row begins with the Av Beis Din, and not with the ???? himself. Radva"z explains that it was not only the Av Beis Din who sat to the right of the ????, but the ???? sat in the middle, as Tanna Kamma explains, with the Av Beis Din to his immediate right. ??? ???? explains that Rambam rules according to R' Elazar b. Tzadok because he cites the actual case of Rabban Gamliel http://www.dafdigest.org/Sanhedrin/Sanhedrin%20036.pdf -- Respectfully, Baruch C. Cohen, Esq. Law Office of Baruch C. Cohen, APLC Los Angeles, CA 90010 e-mail: BCC4929 at gmail.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:24:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:24:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> From: Kenneth Miller via Avodah >> In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach the Torah uses for Onah. [snip] It seems to me that Onah may have the effect of objectifying males. << Akiva Miller >>>>>> To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without reproduction. Our nitzchius is absolutely dependent on this particular activity, which is why "peru urevu" is actually a mitzva and not "mutar if you wish." It is Hashem's chessed that He made this activity intrinsically pleasurable. If you were a robot or an alien without human emotions and you witnessed this human activity, you would wonder, "What the heck are these humans doing? And why?!" I am not an expert on male physiology but I am under the impression that for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. This reminds me of something else I wanted to say in response to some of RMB's posts. He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her. But human beings derive pleasure from each other all the time, whether the pleasure is a stimulating conversation, "please scratch my back," playing with a delightful, cuddly baby -- I could go on and on -- and it is just absurd to think that if another person gives me some kind of pleasure, I have "objectified" that person. Not to forget the main point I wanted to make: sex /is/ necessary for survival, and therefore some comparison to eating food /is/ valid. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:57:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:57:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> References: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150804185730.GA28011@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 02:24:43PM -0400, RnTK wrote: : To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS : required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human : species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without : reproduction... The question is the difference in relationship a person to their hunger compared to their sex drive. You appear to only be objecting to an overly broad use of "required for survival" by not saying "individual's survival", without touching the point that people relate to each desire very differently. (You also seem to ignore non-reproductive sex -- an infertile couple, post-menapouse, etc...) .... : This reminds me of something else I wanted to say in response to some of : RMB's posts. He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from : being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her... Pleasure is a positive thing, as long as it's not the only thing. It's turning a wife into a cheftzah by which he obtains his pleasure that is literally objectifying. If the husband is forced to think about her perspective, his wife as a person, during relations, the risk of the pursuit of pleasure taking over to that point, the mutual search for pleasure is humanizing and bonding, quite the reverse. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:10:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 14:10:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150804181031.667AC180E06@nexus.stevens.edu> At 01:51 PM 8/4/2015, Noam Stadlan wrote: >If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered >hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. Is it really true that what women in the general society do is some standard for tznius for Jewish women. If so, then the practices of "well undressed" gentile women (as R. A Miller used to call them) of today have eliminated all tznius standards. One sees women in public today dressed in almost nothing. [Email #2] At 01:51 PM 8/4/2015, Noam Stadlan wrote: >Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat >common. Just because something is or was commonly done does not make is correct according to halacha. Many, many people talk loshon hara, yet it is not proper according to halacha. [Email #3] Please see Covering the Hair by Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 13:07:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 23:07:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: >> Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters >> of the alph-bet (I only know one) < [R' Michael Poppers:] > In the Torah, a *pasuq* in P'Va'eschanan (4:34 > ) is usually noted, but it > (containing letter *sin* but no *shin*) works only when the *shin* and the > *sin* are considered the same letter (they are, so long as we're > considering the written form). The other *pasuq* in the Torah of which I'm > aware is Shmos 16 :16 (in it, > the *shin* is extant but there's no *sin*). We still need another 3 pesukim in the rest of Nach including one that has not only the 22 letters of the alphabet but also all the end letters -- Eli Turkel [Well in I already wrote: > Soferim use Tzefania 3:8 to show their penmanship, because it not > only includes all 22 letters, it also includes all the sofios. Is > that a way to denote total ultimate justice (the meaning of the words > ) or what? -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 15:31:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:31:53 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I see your pesukim and raise you a medieval Hebrew poem of four lines, where each line contains every letter of the alef-beit including sofiot exactly once with no repetition: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pagefeed/hebrewbooks_org_38040_154.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 5 02:53:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 05:53:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" Message-ID: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> I think a philosophy book just came out detending a variant of RSSchwab's "two clocks" explanation of ma'aseh bereishis. RSS's shitah appeared in AOJS's Challenge (ed. R Aryeh Carmel, R/Prof Cyril Domb pg 164 onward. surveys the area and summarized RSS as follows: Similarly, Rav Shimon Schwab talks of two types of time, cosmic time and earthly time. The 6 days of creation are counted according to cosmic time, during which period millions of years may have passed according to our measure of time. (Althugh I disagree with their next sentence on REED's position.) Now for the book. I just got this review : > he Fall and Hypertime > Hud Hudson, Oxford University Press, 2014, 211pp., $65.00 (hbk), > ISBN 0198712693. > Reviewed by Trent Dougherty, Baylor University > Hud Hudson's book is a brilliant and creative defense of the following > proposition. > There is a conflict between a literal reading of the book of > Genesis and science only if one assumes that the hypertime hypothesis > is false. > The import of Hudson's thesis is that those who allege a conflict between > science and a literal reading of Genesis are not basing that claim merely > on science but on controversial metaphysics as well.,,, > To understand the hypertime hypothesis (hereafter "HH"), begin > with the "growing block" theory of time, one of the standard set of > options. According to this theory, the past is real and "still exists" > as a "block" as spacetime and the future is "open," i.e. the future > does not exist. The block grows as the quantity of either space or > time increases. Hudson notes that there is nothing more intrinsically > mysterious about the block losing parts than its gaining parts. He > then points out that it is also not more intrinsically mysterious that > a "morphing block" shrink or grow not just in units of hyperplanes > ("slices" of the block) but also in sub-regions of hyperplanes. As a > result, there are no in principle limits to the ways in which a block can > morph, to the "shape" it can take. Furthermore, there is no good reason > why the hyperplanes (or sub-regions thereof) might not be "reshuffled" > in a different order. > Because the universe is here modeled as a spacetime block, the temporal > dimension only measures changes within the block. Hypertime measures, > as we may think of it, changes to the block (though technically blocks > at different hypertimes are numerically distinct,and there remains a > question concerning the status of various essentialisms about blocks > with respect to their parts). That means that at any given moment on > the hypertimeline, there can be a complete spacetime block, a complete > physical universe distinct from blocks at different hypertimes. Given > infinite hypertime, this generates a plurality of worlds not unlike that > of David Lewis. Hudson applies the possibility of this plurality in three > ways: to an understanding of omnipresence (which I will not discuss), to > (three versions of) the problem of evil (one of which I'll discuss below), > and in defense of his main thesis. The way HH helps with an understanding > of omniscience and the problem of evil gives it credit and motivates > it as a viable option so that its application to the main thesis is > not ad hoc (though it's being ad hoc would not prevent its success for > its purpose). I will describe the application to the problem of evil, > offer a criticism, then describe its application to the main thesis. > If there is a plenitude of spatiotemporally discrete universes, then it is > difficult to infer from any empirical observation that the actual world > is not the best possible world. It is important to remember that on the > hypertime hypothesis the spacetime blocks at different hypermoments are > only one portion of total reality. Our observable universe is a drop > in the bucket. So an argument from evil against the existence of God > from ours not being the best possible world would have to argue that > the observable universe could not even be a part of the best possible > world. That is not clearly an easy argument to make. > This move takes the form of what is traditionally called a "defense" > rather than a "theodicy"... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 5 15:22:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 18:22:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesak and Safeik Message-ID: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> Anyone know a source (or at least a theory) that discusses when we treat a machloqes as a safeiq, rather than applying the rules of peaq? The issue comes up in AhS YD 24:42. (Mazal tovs on completing OC will be graciously accepted.) Siman 24 discusses 4 of the 5 halakhos leMoshe miSinai of shechitah. (Shehiyah got its own siman.) There is a machloqes between the Behag and Rashi about the line between aqirah and tereifos. Rashi says that aqira is the displacement of the qaneh or veshet caused by using a nicked knife. Most rishonim hold like the Behag, and then there is a submachloqes about what kind of dislocated simanim are aqirah, ad what are tereifos. Leshitas Rashi, they would all be tereifos. Anyway, here the AhS says that Rama holds that midinei shechitah, we are machmir for every definition of aqirah. But midinei tereifah, which differ in that it would also prohibit the milk or eggs from such an animal, we recognize that the iqar hedin if the Behag, and are meiqil. So okay, one tiny bit of my question is answered -- we have a special rule by shechitah that machloqesin are resolved by safeiq deOraisa lehachmir. But WRT tereifos.... The AhS says that despite the Rama, we are nohagim lehachmir. So, while the Rama thinks this is a case where the rules of pesaq apply, the AhS says "we" disagree and treat it like a safeiq. Why? I also realize the line isn't all-or-nothing. I presume that not every shitah rises to the level of creating a safeiq, so there is some kind of pesaq-like reasoning necessary to assess which do and which don't. So it's more an issue of how balanced do shitos have to be for us to be unwilling to pasqen and just assume it's a safeiq. But still, these two acharonim are setting te line at a different place. So, does anyoe discuss the kelalim of when to bail out from the (other) kelalei pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 07:47:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:47:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] They Found Gat Message-ID: <20150806144710.GA2303@aishdas.org> As you may have heard, a team found the gates of Gat, Golias's home town. And, as I've noticed in the past, the question of whether they find evidence of the events as found in Tanakh or evidence against can be predicted in advance by checking the religious stance of who is running the dig. So you get this story from Haaretz : Philistine City of Gath a Lot More Powerful Than Thought, Archaeologists Suggest Powerful fortifications newly uncovered by Israeli archaeologists suggest the kingdoms of Saul, David may not have been quite as powerful as thought. Nir Hasson Aug 04, 2015 3:08 AM [IDT] ... According to Maeir, the discovery of Gath as a huge, fortified city on the border of Judea during an extended period, without any signs of destruction as a result of a war with Judea, proves the Philistines controlled the Judean plain. Because Khirbet Kaifa existed for a relatively short period -- about 30 years -- it is likely the remnant of a failure of the Israelite kingdom to spread westward and not a sign of its power. "The Judean kingdom is supposed to be big, important and strong," says Maeir. "But it turns out there is a very big city on its western border. For years, I claimed Gath was a big city, but they countered that it has no lower city, and if it has one it is not fortified. After finding a huge fortification, its clearly the most important city of the 10th and ninth centuries." Now, to get a hint of how we would have heard about Gat had the dig been run by a bilical maximalist, here's an element mentioned in : Near the gate, Maeirs team also unearthed the remains of the citys extensive fortification wall, a Philistine temple, ironwork and pottery. While the pottery bears hallmarks of the distinctive Philistine style, elements of Israelite techniques can be seen on the fragments as well, indicating there was more interaction between the two cultures than previously thought. Since Pelishti culture was importing Jewish culture, doesn't that lend MORE credibity to the idea that David haMelekh's kingdom was at east on the same scale if not overshadowing theirs? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 15:28:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 23:28:31 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] : Re: De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> RAM writes: >And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective rules", is it not? In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? And further read the Tur (and the meforshim on the Tur) in Even HaEzer simin 25 to get a fuller picture of the sources (and the original gemora sources) - so you can see the history of the machlokus on how to deal with this issue all the way back. As Rav Lichtenstein articulated it, the question is not so much that we differ from the position of Chazal, as our position (and the one quoted by the Rema) is much more in line with the majority position in Chazal, but why did the major rishonim - Rambam, Ra'avid etc differ so markedly from what appears to be the majority position in Chazal and posken - well like Rabbi Eliezer (shmuti hu?), as then did the Achronim. I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the influence of the outside world. The same sort of influence that reputedly led to the cherem of Rabbi Gershom (Jews who are supposed to be the upholders of morality cannot be seen to have more than one wife in a world where that is seen as immoral). In a world which identified relations with sin and death (standard Xtian theology of the time, and the Muslim theology in many circles was not that different) - it would have been inappropriate, and led to general looseness if the general non Jewish world view had been repudiated to the extent consonant with the positive positions found in Chazal. Hence Orech Chaim, the book most accessible to the masses, contains not a word of the Rema's position, that is buried in Even HaEzer, where it is more likely only the scholarly will look (or from the point of view of Maran, go look in the Tur). But to talk about relations positively in an open way in Xtian Europe would have created temptations for the non Jewish world that would have unleashed a level of vengeance (eg from the priesthood) that could likely not be endured. There was a lot of censoring and self censoring that went on in all sorts of areas, it seems to me also here, especially as there are the minority positions to bring and rely on. Only in the modern day world which has swung so far the other way is it possible to honestly and openly evaluate the position of Chazal, and that is what in effect has been done, by Rav Lichtenstein and others. >Akiva Miller Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 17:28:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 00:28:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? Message-ID: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Apparently, In the U.S., the therapist's duties are owed to the client, subject to statutory obligations such as the mandatory-reporting requirement. There is no exception for the therapist's religious custom or belief, unless, in limited circumstances, the client consents to it. Question-from a torah point of view should it make a difference who shows up at the therapist's (or Rabbi's)door (for any therapy or advice)? How does Halacha balance the needs of the individual, the family, the community, Jewish society and/or society in general? 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 12:56:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 15:56:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" In-Reply-To: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> References: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> What's the difference between this and Gerald Schroeder? KT, GS, YGB On 08/05/2015 05:53 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I think a philosophy book just came out detending a variant of RSSchwab's > "two clocks" explanation of ma'aseh bereishis. > > RSS's shitah appeared in AOJS's Challenge (ed. R Aryeh Carmel, R/Prof > Cyril Domb pg 164 onward. > > > surveys > the area and summarized RSS as follows: > > Similarly, Rav Shimon Schwab talks of two types of time, cosmic > time and earthly time. The 6 days of creation are counted according > to cosmic time, during which period millions of years may have > passed according to our measure of time. > > (Althugh I disagree with their next sentence on REED's position.) > > > Now for the book. I just got this review > : > >> he Fall and Hypertime >> Hud Hudson, Oxford University Press, 2014, 211pp., $65.00 (hbk), >> ISBN 0198712693. >> Reviewed by Trent Dougherty, Baylor University From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 13:32:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:32:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" In-Reply-To: <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> References: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150807203234.GA14121@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 03:56:56PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: : What's the difference between this and Gerald Schroeder? R' Gerald Schroeder is working within physics, using Relativity to try to make the timelines match up. R' Schwab, and for that matter this Hypertime idea are metaphysical, saying that the 6 days were not physical days, meausured using the same kind of time Galileo turned into a variable when he measured pendulum swings, Newton took derivatives with respect to, and Einstein unified with space. Rather, a logically prior idea altogether. This is more in line with the rishonim who said that science as we know it post-dates creation, and therefore time during creation is has to be measured with a different kind of clock than the one of physics. ------- And some day when humanity develops to this point, the two will finally be in sync. Which would fit RAYK's metaphysics in which every duality is an illusion, as everything is the Or Ein Sof from the Absolute Unity. And le'asid lavo, even the division between olam hazah and olam ha'emes will fall. Leshitaso, techiyas hameisim is a consequence of the reunification of the worlds of life and of death. Those souls don't so much come back to life as the distinction disappears. (I do not recall if RAYK invokes "hayinu kekholmim".) And yes, in such a situation, physical time will be back in sync with supernal time. Although one needn't believe in RAYK's eschatology in order to accept the concept that the two definitions of time will be unified, nor do we need to believe in eventual synchronization in order to talk about the 6 days of ceration being on a different kind of clock than physics. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 13:56:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 15:56:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Re; sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R. Levine wrote: "Is it really true that what women in the general society do is some standard for tznius for Jewish women. If so, then the practices of "well undressed" gentile women (as R. A Miller used to call them) of today have eliminated all tznius standards" Response: Of course there are baseline standards of tzniut for Jew, men and women, that are independent of surrounding culture. But hair covering is not one of them.(At least according the sources and shitta that I have brought). R. Levine then brings an article by Rav Breuer. That is his shitta, it doesn't mean it is universally accepted or binding. Much of what he brings is not specific halacha but advice or Nach based(the entire sugya of kol kevuda etc) I would note that the vast majority of shittot do not require single women to cover their hair I will not have access to respond for a week or so, but will be address further responses at that time. shabbat shalom noam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 8 12:02:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 22:02:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] depression Message-ID: Enclosed is a summary of the last shiur of R Zilberstein to the doctors. I am giving a shiur on this in my shul this coming shabbat. Since I feel it is controversial I am looking for input from the list. Question from a psychiatrist - A patient has 3 kids and has mild depression since the last birth. She wont take chemical drugs and instead uses one based on plants which is good for mild depression. It had some side effects and so the patient stopped that also. The dictor suggested various anti-depression drugs and other help which the patient refused, Contacting a social worker it turns out the woman runs a "nursery' (mishpachton) from 8am to 4pm. The social worker says she manages only with a great effort; her husband comes home from work at 1pm and the mother helps. The woman refuses to open a file in the social ministry because of this nursery which they may close down. The social worker pointed out that if something happens the state will prosecute the psychiatrist. Question: On one side there might be a danger to the kids in the nursery and the psychiatrist might lose her license OTOH this is a major income for the young family. She has successfully run the nursery for several months without any complaint with the help of the husband and mother. If this is all explained to the ministry it most likely won't help and they will closer her down Answer: The job of a bet din is to watch out for the welfare of the community. Hence, according to Torah law the doctor must go the rabbi of the city or neighborhood to hear their opinion, R Zilberstein notes that in Bnei Brak there is an agreement with the authorities that the local bet din deals with such problems and calls in the local authority only if they feel this is necessary. Such an arrangement should be set up in every town that the local bet din makes the decision. see YD 336:1 that ba doctor needs the permission of the bet din to practice, Therefore one needs the permission of the local secular authorities to rely on the judgement of the local rabbi. It is well known that the "mara de-atra" have the ability to treat broken and depressed people. In England there was a baby born with Down's syndrone whose Jewish parents disappeared. The local board of health turned to Rav Yoseph Dinner Zt'L what to do, Rav Dunner , who was the 65, (after checking with his wife) said they would adopt the baby since at that time there was no Jewish institution capable of handing this baby. The local board of health accepted this solution. The couple cared for the child until they reached the age of 80. At that point they transfered the child to an instituion in Afula, Each year R Dunner would come to Israel to bake matzot and then visit the child in Afula. The doctors in Britain said the best social workers are the Jewish leaders. In the beit midrash of R. Pam there was born a child with Down's syndrone. R Pam always tried to cheep up the boy. One year the boy complained that on simchat Torah they used all the sifrei Torah except for his paper one. After Musaf R Pam went to the Bimah and announced to everyone that now they were reading from the sefer Torah of this boy. This was the happiest moment for the boy and the angles surrounding "kise hakavod" Conclusion: The psychiatrist should explain to the local rabbi the situation in the nursery. The rabbi should come to some agreement with the local secular authotities to rely on his judgement -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 8 21:21:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 21:21:33 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? Message-ID: you are basically asking when must the rabbi/frum therapist offer halachic therapy and then risk prosecution? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 12:17:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:17:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] human hair sheitals Message-ID: In the thread "De-Chokifying Arayos", I asked: > But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan > Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went > uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why > aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? R' Mordechai Cohen answered: >>> I can't help but thinking that this is one of those (many) halachic issues where the hanhaga of Klal yisroel in certain halachic (or hashkafic) areas has developed to be inline with yechidim than with the majority of chazal/rishonim/etc >>> ... >>> We have many others similar to this (some d'oriasa, some d'rabbanan) - human hair sheitals, chadash, live music after the churban, etc. You are raising a great point. I have wondered this about chadash and music myself, and I'm somewhat surprised that I didn't see the connection. Thank you very much for bringing it to my attention. (Though, to be honest, these examples sharpen my question about Conservative "psak".) But for THIS thread, my question is simple and direct: Tell me more about why you specify "human hair sheitals". Have chazal/rishonim ever distinguished between wigs made of human hair vs other kinds of wigs? I was always under the (possibly mistaken) impression that chazal and rishonim - and even acharonim - only discussed the requirement to cover hair, and how much to cover, and the ramifications of leaving it uncovered. But I don't recall any discussion of the covering itself except by the leaders of very recent chasidic groups. Am I mistaken? Where is this discussed in the seforim? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 13:15:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 16:15:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: In Avodah V33n111, RET noted: >> Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters >> of the alph-bet (I only know one) << > We still need another 3 pesukim in the rest of Nach including one that has not only the 22 letters of the alphabet but also all the end letters < Fact-checking what I found via Google'ing (besides the *pasuq* already noted by R'Micha) provides these fifteen (!) *p'suqim* containing all the letters: -- Y'hoshua 23:13 -- M'lachim Beis 4:39, 6:32 -- Y'sha'yahu 5:25 -- Yirm'yahu 22:3, 32:29 -- Y'chezqeil 17:9 -- Hosheia 13:2 -- Amos 9:13 -- Esther 3:13 -- Daniel 3:22, 4:20, 7:19 -- Ezra 7:28 -- N'chemya 3:7 All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 14:11:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: <<< To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without reproduction. Our nitzchius is absolutely dependent on this particular activity, which is why "peru urevu" is actually a mitzva and not "mutar if you wish." >>> Yes, that's true. But please note that you yourself are referring to "peru urevu". My question concerns a different mitzva, namely Onah, wherein sex is explicitly linked to food and clothing/shelter. I don't think it is a big stretch to say that the common thread of these three things is how important they are to this particular individual, and NOT how important they are to the species. <<< ... for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. >>> I think we may be understanding the word "objectify" in different ways. Contrary to what some might think, not all men are constantly obsessed with having sex. At any given point in time, a particular man might have other priorities - other activities that he'd rather do than this one. But a husband cannot give higher priority to these activities over Onah, just like he can't choose them over minyan, or other mitzvos. He must be sensitive to his wife's needs and wants, and if he senses her mood, he is under a chiyuv d'Oraisa to act accordingly. (Actually, he'll have this chiyuv even if he does NOT sense her mood accurately, in which case he will have been Mevatel the Aseh b'shogeg, though I suppose it could easily be argued that it's more of a "shogeg karov l'meizid" if he hasn't even tried to judge her mood accurately.) But there is no flip side to Onah. The wife has no responsibility to judge her husband's desires. In fact, even if she does realize that he is "in the mood", there is no Chiyuv d'Oraisa for her to ignore her other desires and respond to her husband's desires. Sure, it could well be advisable for her to do so for Shalom Bayis reasons, and one might even call it a "chiyuv" in that context, but the imbalance remains: Her chiyuv would be Shalom Bayis alone, while the husband must deal with both Shalom Bayis and Onah. That's what I meant by "objectify": Much of Orach Chaim 240 is to protect the wife from a forcible rape (for instance, she can't be asleep or drunk), and much is also to protect her from more subtle rape (such as thinking of another woman). But there are far fewer protections offered to the husband. Neither can be drunk, and neither can have decided to divorce, but in general, the wife is within her rights to demand relations whenever she wants, and to me, this can "objectify" the husband. RTK reminds us that the husband *will* have pleasure from this. But that is exactly my point: If someone is required to have a pleasure that (for whatever reason) he does not actually *desire*, it is a sort of rape. RTK also wrote: <<< He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her. But human beings derive pleasure from each other all the time, ... it is just absurd to think that if another person gives me some kind of pleasure, I have "objectified" that person. >>> You are correct. Merely receiving pleasure does not automatically objectify a person. But if one receives pleasure without returning that pleasure to the giver, this carries a danger of objectifying the giver. And if one receives pleasure against the giver's will, that is the very definition of "objectifying" (in my view). R"n Chana Luntz wrote: <<< In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? And further read the Tur (and the meforshim on the Tur) in Even HaEzer simin 25 to get a fuller picture of the sources (and the original gemora sources) - so you can see the history of the machlokus on how to deal with this issue all the way back. >>> Indeed, the first few times I saw that Rema, he seemed to be saying, verbatim, that "you can do anything you want, and whenever you want to do it." A sexual hefkervelt, a world with no rules. But a more careful reading shows that he is only making two specific points: That there are no restrictions on positions, and that (as we've already said in this thread) the timing restrictions of O"C 240 are a "madrega" but not the basic halacha. But aside from these points, I see OC 240 and EH 25 as very similar: Their main focus concerns the *mental* state, and it is in this area (it seems to me) that Shulchan Aruch - including all acharonim until quite recently - endorses a very prishus-oriented approach. RCL again: <<< I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the influence of the outside world. ... In a world which identified relations with sin and death (standard Xtian theology of the time, and the Muslim theology in many circles was not that different) - it would have been inappropriate, and led to general looseness if the general non Jewish world view had been repudiated to the extent consonant with the positive positions found in Chazal. >>> There are many responses I could give to this. Perhaps the simplest would be: So then let Shulchan Aruch be silent; why did they choose to pasken overtly like the prishus view? Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 10 05:08:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:08:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: To continue from my previous post: R"n Chana Luntz wrote: <<< In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? >>> I think it is noteworthy that the Aruch Hashulchan often goes out of his way to justify the common practice in the face of the consensus of poskim, but does *not* do so in this case. In fact, Aruch Hashulchan EH 25:11 quotes the same Tur as the Rama did, but emphatically warns us *against* following it. This suggests that the turning of the tide, from a more prishus-oriented view to something else, occurred more recently than the days of the Aruch Hashulchan. Can anyone suggest a more precise time? Or, to put my question more blatantly: Does the less-prishus-oriented view appear only in recent articles such as the one by Rav Lichtenstein, and in the sort of verbal psakim such as he received? Does it appear anywhere at all in any of the seforim that one might happen to be learning, such as the Igros Moshe, Tzitz Eliezer, or similar? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 07:14:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akirah In-Reply-To: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> References: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150811141458.GA31500@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 6:22pm EDT, I wrote: : The issue comes up in AhS YD 24:42... : There is a machloqes between the Behag and Rashi about the line between : aqirah and tereifos. Rashi says that aqira is the displacement of the : qaneh or veshet caused by using a nicked knife. Most rishonim hold : like the Behag, and then there is a submachloqes about what kind of : dislocated simanim are aqirah, and what are tereifos. Leshitas Rashi, : they would all be tereifos. : : Anyway, here the AhS says that Rama holds that midinei shechitah, : we are machmir for every definition of aqirah. But midinei tereifah, : which differ in that it would also prohibit the milk or eggs from such : an animal, we recognize that the iqar hedin if the Behag, and are meiqil. In response RAF sent me offlist an essay he wrote in Dec 2001, titled "Hagdaras Iqur Simanim baTalmud", which I put up on-line here . The article does a survey of various definitions of ique hasimanim, which vary amazingly widely. He lists some causes: - The discussion is in scattered snippets across Chullin, not one organized sugya. - The rishonim do not agree about the girsa of the gemara that contrasts iqur from tereifah. - The rishonim do not even agree on basic defining features about iqur simanim. RAF also mentioned to me: "I have a very different peshat in ikkur, based on actually looking at the Behag." Sec. 4 does appear to quote a Behag that is at odds with the mesorah about shitas haBehag that the baalei Tosafos received. We've discussed the relationship between errors in reception and whether finding one would change pesaq before. Here, the nafqa mina lemaaseh is small but real, as per above. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: If anyone else has a Torah article they want up on-line, feel free to ask. -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 15:53:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:53:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150811225301.GA13480@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 12:55:06AM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : Here are the sources I have collected, in addition to the fact that a : significant percentage of Modern Orthodox women to not cover their hair in : public except in shul/davening situations. Although there is long evidence of rabbis saying it's a problem, but not a battle they can win. So the mimetic side is dismissable. (Also, how does someone who advocates for more roles for women in shul make a mimetic argument?) : In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of : uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is... : If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered : hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. But saying it's not a breach of tzeni'us doesn't say it's allowed, that's your addition not in the translated text you quote. RYB could mean what the AhS says, that it's terrible things came to this, but you may daven in her presence. Or, that whle it's not a tzeni'us problem, it's still prohibited deOraisa as per the implication in parashas sotah. : Here is a list of easily accessable sources: : Rabbi Marc Angel... Listening to his citing R' Masas and your quoting R Badad, maybe it's a Seph thing? He presumes hair covering is das Yehudis, which makes his a rare shitah. (Again, given the derivation from a pasuq.) But then again, R' Ovadiah Yosef firmly disagrees. But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. ... : I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and : not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. : However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and : everyone can come to their own conclusion. ... which is what he does, that the theory is there, but it's a shitah dechuyah. And noticably, he too quotes R' Yosef Masas, R' Moshe Malka and the Kaf haChaim -- Sepharadi sources. : Rav Yosef Haim... So, assuming the woman doesn't eat qitniyos, may she go with her hair uncovered? And even if she does... At what point is a shitah dechuyah? ... : Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony : of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. : R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: : "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did : not cover her hair? ... : Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in : this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." : I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the : artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with : uncovered hair. : Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat : common... And yet the rabbanim protested. This isn't even admissable as mimetic tradition, any more than noting how often people speak leshon hara or buy off-the-books or anything else rabbis have failed to curb. : uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his : wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. He too, would only need to be convinced is wasn't ervah in the sense of "all those men" sinning. But as we see in the AhS, that doesn't mean it's allowed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 16:00:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:00:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R' Noam Stadlan wrote: <<< Of course there are baseline standards of tzniut for Jew, men and women, that are independent of surrounding culture. But hair covering is not one of them. ... I would note that the vast majority of shittot do not require single women to cover their hair. >>> I both agree and disagree. Hair covering is NOT a "baseline standard", in the sense that it applies only to married women and not to single girls. But hair covering IS a baseline standard for Jewish women, in the sense that it remains in force independent of the surrounding culture. Thus, we have at least three different standards: males, married females, single females. And actually, we have several more than that, if we distinguish among various ages of boy and girl children, not to mention infants. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 21:26:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:26:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: From: Akiva Miller via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) <<< ... for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. >>> [--TK] >> I think we may be understanding the word "objectify" in different ways. Contrary to what some might think, not all men are constantly obsessed with having sex. At any given point in time, a particular man might have other priorities -- other activities that he'd rather do than this one. But a husband cannot give higher priority to these activities over Onah, just like he can't choose them over minyan, or other mitzvos. He must be sensitive to his wife's needs and wants, and if he senses her mood, he is under a chiyuv d'Oraisa to act accordingly.... But there is no flip side to Onah. The wife has no responsibility to judge her husband's desires. In fact, even if she does realize that he is "in the mood", there is no Chiyuv d'Oraisa for her to ignore her other desires and respond to her husband's desires....<< Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) >>>>> There is a great irony in what you have written. You seem to think that there is an inequality, a lack of reciprocity, in the mutual obligations of men and women -- with women having all the power and men all the obligation. It is ironic because the mitzva for men to be sensitive to their wives' feelings derives from the /curse/ that was given to Chava! Look at Rashi on Ber 3:16, "el ishech teshukasech -- your desire will be towards your husband." Rashi says the curse is: You -- the woman -- will desire relations, but will not be so brazen as to request it verbally. Rather, "he will rule over you" -- it is all from him -- the initiative is his -- and not from you. [end Rashi] To modern ears this Rashi might sound strange because the idea that "women are not brazen" sounds so old-fashioned. Modesty has gone out the window in modern society. But even the brazen women -- and certainly the more refined and eidel women -- want to be wanted. By their nature, most women do not want to be the ones taking the initiative or the ones pursuing the men. For most women it is embarrassing to have to ask outright. If you want an example of a woman in the Torah who was brazen even way back then, look at Eishes Potiphar -- "Lie with me." The very fact that she behaved this way shows what a hussy she was, but also, it shows that she was utterly humiliated. Not only was Yosef not seduced by her wiles, but even when she so lost her dignity as to ask him outright, he /still/ refused. It is no wonder she felt such a burning desire for revenge. It was in order to mitigate the harshness of Chava's curse that Chazal instituted the rule that men have to be sensitive to their wives' desires, that a woman should not have to humiliate herself by spelling out what she wants. It is a chessed that a man does for his wife, to mitigate the curse, to somewhat level the playing field in which men have all the advantages! I actually think this a wonderful example of Chazal's extraordinary sensitivity to women. They acknowledge and partially correct an imbalance that favors men at the expense of women, ever since Adam and Chava. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 22:47:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (bk via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:47:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: depression Message-ID: I have worked in the mental health field and have other personal experience with serious depression. The description which you provided "mild depression", would not at all indicate a danger to anyone including daycare children. It seems that the description is very much lacking. Either there is much more to warrant defying her confidence, including/especially to a rav, or someone doesn't understand what depression is all about. I'm assuming that the former is the case. So, the question is, what can we learn from a case in which the problem is not accurate? b'kavod, ChaimBaruch Kaufman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 06:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:19:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waiting Six Hours for Dairy- A Rabbanite Response to Qaraism Message-ID: <20150812131918.925F517FC6A@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/08/waiting-six-hours-for-dairy-rabbanite.html Qaraites are a Jewish group that began around 760 CE. They rejected the Talmud and rabbinic Judaism and insisted that Jews only observe halacha as expressed in the literal text of the Torah. "Qaraite" means "Scriptualist". The movement started in Iraq and Persia by Jews who objected to the authority of the leaders of the Babylonian Talmud Academies, the Gaonim. The Gaonim and their successors, the rishonim, are called Rabbanites because of their stance in defending the Talmud and rabbinic laws. Scholars have noted that many minhagim began as a response to the Qaraite movement. For example, the recital of Bameh Madlikim on Friday evening after davening [1] was started in the times of the Gaonim to reinforce the rabbinic stance on having fire prepared before Shabbos, in opposition to the Qaraite view that no fire may be present in one's home on Shabbos [2]. There is evidence that the reading of Pirkei Avos [3] on Shabbos afternoon, which began in Gaonic times, was to emphasize to the Jewish masses that the Oral Law was passed down since Moshe Rabbeinu as stated in the first mishna of Pirkei Avos. Professor Haym Soloveitchik [4] has argued convincingly that the unique arrangement of Hilchos Shabbos in Rambam's Mishna Torah was organized specifically with anti-Qaraite intent. Briefly, Rambam's formulation of the Shabbos laws does not follow a chronological order or any other expected logical order. See the above URL for more. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:03:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 11:25:27AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : R' Lichtenstein was bothered by this point and answered that we need to : rely on our teachers and Gedolim. : "Probably most significant, however, is our reliance upon our own mentors. : Sensing that modern gedolim, "the judge of your era" -- for our purposes, most : notably, the Rav, but not he alone -- have examined the issue and the evidence : and adopted a positive stance, we, ordinary students of Torah, follow in : their footsteps as we identify with their position... : I understand that for many of us that is not a very satisfying answer and : leads to many questions about why specifically here we follow minority : opinions as opposed to other places (e.g. wombs issues, etc.) but I don't : think there is a better answer. This is the way the halachic system works. To some extent, yes. However, I do not know what halachiccategory is "gedolim". My job is to have my own poseiq, someone ho cnot only knows the halakhah, but knows me and my situation. Or to get as close to that as possible. My rav's job is to have experts to inform him, and to know when a question is either too complicated for his skills, or the stakes to high (eg mamzeirus, potential intercommunal fallout, or....) to not consult others, starting with his own rav. Yes, you will eventually reach the few at the head of the pyramid, so I guess we can call them "the gedolim", and their opinions will end up shaping policy on big or broad issues. But I do not think RYBS would be happy learning that he had a talmid in the job of mara de'asra who had so little confidence in his own ability to map theory to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronos and desires of the people in it that he hands the job off to people who know less of that reality. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:19:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:19:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> References: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150812201911.GB8165@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 11:28:31PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the : influence of the outside world. The same sort of influence that reputedly : led to the cherem of Rabbi Gershom (Jews who are supposed to be the : upholders of morality cannot be seen to have more than one wife in a world : where that is seen as immoral)... I understood this as well as the Sho'el uMeishiv's take on intellectual property in a single way, and slightly different than your explanation. The Sho'el uMeishiv invokes "lo sehei Torah shelanu kesichah beteilah shelahem. If they recognize a kind of property as a right our native sense finds moral, we obviously must obligated to protect it as well. This is not DDD, as the protection isn't to the extent of the civi law, but to the extent of the halakhos of property. He is identifying a moral obligation we must halachically defend, not the civil law in and of itself... My understanding is that it's not that we learned morality from their law, but their law reflects a new social contract. The new expectations are a change in metzi'us. Now that we expect to have intellectual property, that is part of the new situation, to which a new pesaq applies. Similarly, I understood Rabbeinu Gershom's mandating monogamy in the same terms. He was less worried about being seen as immoral, or learning morality from Xian marriage norms. Rather, once society created different expectations of what marriage is, we had no ability nor obligation to reset to the old expectations (after all, even chazal referred to sister wives as "tzaros"), and therefore have to support a moral solution to the new expactations. A woman gets married expecting a man for herself. Rabbeinu Gershom mandated treating that woman morally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:22:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150812202233.GC8165@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:04:47PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : ... But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent : the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no corresponding : safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. Given the size of the two porn industries, or the difference between what "porn" usually refers to and locating smut in a romance novel, I would think that it's not just Chazal who would conclude the threat of objectfication is assymetric. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 16:24:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:24:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> References: , <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <13CC426F-297A-4E3A-AC33-979E5391FA35@sibson.com> > > But I do not think RYBS would be happy learning that he had a talmid in > the job of mara de'asra who had so little confidence in his own ability > to map theory to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronos > and desires of the people in it that he hands the job off to people who > know less of that reality. > > I agree but I think it's also true That RYBS would not be happy learning that he had a talmid in the job of mara de'asra who had so so much confidence in his own ability to create the theory to map to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronosand desires of the people in it that he doesn't hand the job off to those more qualified to break new ground. Kol tuv 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 20:21:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:21:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: I wrote: : ... But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent : the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no : corresponding safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. R' Micha Berger responded: > Given the size of the two porn industries, or the difference > between what "porn" usually refers to and locating smut in a > romance novel, I would think that it's not just Chazal who > would conclude the threat of objectfication is assymetric. Chazal were aware of the differences between those two industries, and they suggested reasons for it on the top few lines of Kesubos 64b. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 12:36:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:36:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Copyright Message-ID: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> Back in Jun 2001, Napster was in the news, and I heard a shiur from R Zev Reichman, then of REITS' Kollel Elyon. So at the first on-list mention of copyrights, I used it as an excuse to post a summary on-list at and . It's been 14 years, and I just learned of a beautiful einfahl by R' Asher Weiss on the subject. So, I'm reviewing the list, and adding to it. (v7n58 #13 is marked ">", #4 is marked ":".) > 1- Dina dimalchusa issues: > According to Tosafos on Gittin, dina dimalchusah dinah is only on > taxation. > The Beis Yitzchak does rule that ddd applies here. However, RZR opined > that ddd still wouldn't apply apply to Sony Bono's law that was aimed > specifically at Disney, allowing them to extend their copyright on some > animated characters. It's not an evenly applied rule. > 2- I already cited the most chamur, the Sho'el uMeishiv 1:44, who goes > beyond ddd. : The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral : obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it : is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership : of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal : (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights : are lehalachah also eternal. : Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for : that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a : halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos : of copyright. : I just want to note the SuM's assumption, and the importance he assigns : moral rights identified by the surrounding culture. > RZR wondered if the SuM would also recognize the French philosophy of > copyright: that the artist could sell reproduction and profit rights, but > eternally retains rights to controlling how the idea is changed. (So even > if you sell a painting, the owner is allowed to copy it, but not modify > it.) After all, this is also a secularly identified moral right. Would > it be a halachah only in France? > 3- Hasagas gevul: > There is an old cheirem, invoked in many if not most haskamos for a few > centuries, against copying sefarim. (The SuM mentions it.) The cheirem > is at least as old as the publication of Tomer Devora (about a century > after it was written) -- because it's mentioned in the haskamos. That > if one copies the sefer beli reshus, or buys such a copy he is subject > to the cheirem and will lose all the berachos showered on people who > learn TOmer Devorah listed in the begining of the haskamah. > The Chasam Sofer traces the cheirem back to the Maharam Padua's edition of > the Rambam. After he invested all the time and money preparing the plates, > a non-Jewish publisher, Justinian, took those plates and printed his > own copy of the Yad, charging one gold coin less than the original. The > Rama said that anyone who bought a Justinian edition was under cheirem, > as they prevented him from recouping his loss. > Given this lashon, the CS concludes that the problem is hasagas gezul. > However, as RZR noted, hasagas gevul only applies to unfair competition, > not to give copies away as a tzadakah or a fundraiser. > This is also the conclusion of R' Moshe. R' Bleich, back when he was > a talmid at Torah Vadaas found a rare publication of a notebook of R' > Chaim and had it published as a TvD fundraiser. The original publisher > found out about it and cried "hasagas gevul". They went to R' Moshe who > ruled in favor of R' Bleich. > 4- Issur geneivah: > R' Bleich himself, when writing on the subject, quotes "ein berei'ach > mishum me'ilah", and that there is no geneivah without a cheftzah. > 5- Hezek > Now we're in "Micha's 2 cents" territory. Li nir'eh that even for a > tzedakah to do it, even if not hasagas gevul, you are causing hezek to > someone who would otherwise earn money. > Even if not quantifiably assur, I would want to invoke bal tishaktzu on > this one. > 6- Chilul Hashem > In a case like Napster, where the case will have a kol and a trial in > the press, I would think that the risk of chillul Hashem, and therefore > *dinei nefashos*, is enough to assur it -- even in cases where the > copying would be found to be technically legal. 7- Chamas So I heard from R' J Ziring (YUTorah.org) that R' Asher Weiss in a 2013 shiur compared the theft of intellectual property to the dor hamabul (after revisiting some of the above). I found a blog post of RJZ's that describes it or : Chazal explain that the sin of the dor hamabul was that they would each steal less than a shaveh perutah. Thus, in the aggregate they would destroy people's livelihood, but none of them could be prosecuted in court. From here he argued that there is an issur to do something, which while not formally theft, lends to a society that destroys other people's financial well being. If no one respects intellectual property, then inventors, writers, and the like will have no way of supporting himself. Thus, even if no one can properly be called a gazlan, they have all participated in chamas. Tir'u baTov! -Micha > PS: While on the subject, I should point out that we obtain reshus to > include any emails that are reposted on Avodah. When asking, I make it > clear that a copy will appear in the web archive as well. -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 15:08:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baal Nefesh in the Igeros Moshe Message-ID: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> R' Elli Fischer contrasted the use of baal nefesh yachmir in the MB with its use in the IM. (Also heard via R' Jonathan Ziring.) The MB uses baal nefesh yachmir to refer to chumeros where the person is acting in a way to fulfill all shitos. The MB lists the more recent opinions, and then advises that the baal nefesh follow the most stringent. (Although I believe we found in previous iterations that the MB doesn't actualy use the expression particularly often. The IM argues that chalav hacompanies is actually chalav yisrael, so that there is no textual reason to only drink milk that was literally Yisrae'el ro'ahu, as opposed to using anan sahade eidus. But leshitaso, FDA certified milk is kosher even according to the Peri Chadash. (YD 1:47) In 1:48 he dismisses all other possibilities, and then says baal nefesh yachmir. RMF's baal nefesh is not being chosheish for all shitos, he dismissed those other shitos. Instead he is keeping minhag yisrael saba beyond halakhah. Pretty much the opposite of the MB's baal nefesh, who is ignoring accepted pesaq in order to make sure all the textual bases are covered. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 20:27:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 05:27:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Baal Nefesh in the Igeros Moshe In-Reply-To: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> References: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55CD6005.7020707@zahav.net.il> I don't have it open in front of me, but IIRC, in his psak on eating veal RMF makes it very, very clear that the baal nefesh will not eat it and anyone who does is (to use my words) walking on thin ice. The way he relates to a baal nefesh in the CY issue (it is a nice thing to do but if you don't keep, no big deal) vs the veal issue (you really shouldn't be eating this stuff) is stark. Ben On 8/14/2015 12:08 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In 1:48 he dismisses all other possibilities, and then says baal nefesh > yachmir. RMF's baal nefesh is not being chosheish for all shitos, he > dismissed those other shitos. Instead he is keeping minhag yisrael saba > beyond halakhah. > > Pretty much the opposite of the MB's baal nefesh, who is ignoring accepted > pesaq in order to make sure all the textual bases are covered. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 14 12:13:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Heather Luntz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 20:13:15 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> I have been struggling with this thread, but have not found it easy to explain why, although I will do my best: On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:153am EDT, R Saul Guberman wrote: : RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & : the Tosafists. : http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ : Our *Torah shebe'al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish : history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a : great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, : but the *Torah shebe'al peh* would have survived without him. However, : without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, : any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe'al peh* today. And RMB then wrote: >Which is a different statement than the subject line. >I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to >the survival of mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue understanding the gemara. I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? I really struggle with that statement. Now, if you want to limit the claim, and say that Rashi and Tosphos are far more key than the Rambam to what people do in modern day yeshivas all day, including (if not particularly) the Briskers, then it would be hard to disagree. But is what people are doing in yeshiva all day in the 21st century "the mesorah" or is the Shulchan Aruch "the mesorah"? What are the consequences if we relegate the Shulchan Aruch and elevate the Tosphists in terms of halacha as she is practiced? Somehow these seem troubling directions in which to be heading, but I must log off as shabbas is coming very soon in this part of England (and I, for one, am not about to rely on Rabbanu Tam, Tosphotist par excellence, regardless of his mesorah, I don't know about you,). -Micha Shabbat Shalom Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 14 13:48:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:48:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 08:13:15PM +0100, Heather Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> Which is a different statement than the subject line. : :> I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah :> through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who :> stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of mesorah :> than the parshanim... : : I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan : Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the : Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, : we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. : : Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the : Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? Let me make it far more more explicit. The subject line differs from my understanding of RGS' expansion of RYGB's idea in that it claims "Mesora ONLY through Rashi" (emphasis added), whereas I heard them talking about cofication being "less critical". Comparative terms, not absolute ones. IOW, the mesorah could survive without codes, if we had to. But it couldn't survive without parshanim. Without them we couldn't handle any new case that isn't in a code, nor even have the skills to always determine which are the new cases. In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that discusses how the conclusions are reached. Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The parshan connects the past to the now. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 15:41:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:41:09 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> I wrote: : I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan : Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the : Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, : we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. : : Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the : Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? And RMB replied: <<>Let me make it far more more explicit. The subject line differs from my understanding of RGS' expansion of RYGB's idea in that it claims "Mesora ONLY through Rashi" (emphasis added), whereas I >heard them talking about cofication being "less critical". Comparative terms, not absolute ones. >IOW, the mesorah could survive without codes, if we had to. But it couldn't survive without parshanim. Without them we couldn't handle any new case that isn't in a code, nor even have the >skills to always determine which are the new cases.>> Firstly of course, the Rambam wrote his perush on Mishnayos, so I don't think it is merely parshanut that distinguishes the two. Secondly, in the Rambam's code there are various "nire li" statements where he comes across areas where the answer from the gemora is not clear, and he therefore inserts his own view. It seems slightly bizarre to suggest that he or the Shulchan Aruch ever assumed that their code would make determining new cases more difficult, nor does that seem accurate historically. >In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that >discusses how the conclusions are reached. So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no Rambam and no Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any distinction at all between the halacha of the Orthodox and the halacha as championed by the Conservative movement? Is that not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would of necessity lead (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent than we have today - one that would perforce have to embrace the Conservative movement, and certainly all the forms of Open Orthodoxy that RGS is so vehemently against. Part of RAM's distress on one of the other threads on this list at the moment, regarding modern day psak vis a vis sexual relations versus the postion of the Shulchan Aruch has to do with the fact that Orthodoxy in general (although not, I would note, at least some of the Chassidic movements, such as Ger, and possibly increasingly not other groups within the Charedi world) has without appearing to notice, abandoned the position as set out in the Shuchan Aruch (albeit for one that can be said to be the more majority position of Chazal). But take the codes out of the equation and *all* these multiple rishonic positions become tenable, allowing a general free for all within the vastness of the parshanut tradition. The codes therefore are a critical part of what might be considered a dual process - equivalent to the situation where one first brainstorms ideas, and then whittles away to those most tenable. There are of course, situations where Sephardim do not posken like the Shulchan Aruch, and there are even more situations where Ashkenazim do not hold like the Rema, preferring a Shach, Taz or Magen Avraham (or even a Bach). But in the post-Shulchan Aruch world the conversation that RAM has been leading on the other thread is fundamental and critical - if we do not posken like the Shuchan Aruch in the particular case in question - we need to understand and investigate precisely why not, because by and large, the Shulchan Aruch draws the line as to where we go or do not go halacha l'ma'aseh. Without the Shulchan Aruch, we are only left with the brainstorming side of the halachic endeavour, and that means - as I intimated in my closing remarks, that if you find Rabbanu Tam's shkia analysis compelling (or indeed, that of a more minor rishon), there would seem to be little to prevent you holding like it halacha l'ma'aseh. What would hold us together? Indeed you are, I see, engaged in a debate regarding hair covering on another thread. But surely those who seek to justify the practice of many, many women who otherwise led and lead fully halachic lives are full square within the mesorah of tosphos. It is only those who also have an eye to the codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in the light of common practice. >Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The parshan connects the past to the now. That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation handed over to the next. And the generation of the Shulchan Aruch, in accepting it as "The" Code which shall be followed in most circumstances (with exceptions) handed that down to all generations following - making the Shulchan Aruch the mesorah par excellence. I can debate the nature of shkia with the Tosphotists in a conversation down the generations, but my mesorah regarding Shabbas is unlikely to be based upon any such conversation, nor is it expected to be. If you want to redefine the word mesorah to mean only that which Rashi has given us, then of course the title of this thread becomes 100% correct, just rather pointless. Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more of them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the Rambam, were able to formulate their halachic conclusions. Without them it would be far more difficult to have anything like the number of people we have today engaging with the gemora. The Rambam in contrast might well not see the point - if you can't manage without Rashi and Tosphos, then, in his view, maybe you shouldn't be trying, and should be relying on his code instead, leaving gemora engagement to the true elite who should be leading the people. That aspect of the Rambam's view has not dominated as "the mesorah" - using the more commonly understood use of the term. While we might debate the length of time that should be spent in yeshiva, and whether one should do work/army instead of long term yeshiva study - there is pretty close to universal agreement within Orthodoxy that all Jews should spend at least some significant time engaging with the fundamental texts, even if they are of only average intelligence. But what people do in yeshiva is still, in my view, only a small slice of "the mesorah", as it is commonly understood (as opposed to as redefined by RYBS) and a far greater slice is the Shuchan Aruch itself, and for that, the Rambam's influence is surely pre-eminent. >-Micha Shavuah tov Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 13:35:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:35:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim Message-ID: Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? [image: --] Shui Haber [image: https://]about.me/shuihaber *"The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are."* ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 19:20:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:20:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55CFF350.3030205@sero.name> On 08/15/2015 04:35 PM, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: > Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? Devarim 6:13, 10:20. Hil' Yesodei Hatorah 2:1 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 22:14:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:14:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R. Micha offered the following critiques: > Although there is long evidence of rabbis saying it's a problem, but > not a battle they can win. So the mimetic side is dismissable. (Also, > how does someone who advocates for more roles for women in shul make a > mimetic argument?) If the same rabbi's whose wives were not covering hair were the same ones saying it is a problem, this critique makes sense. otherwise, there is no reason to say that those whose wives were not covering their hair were unhappy with the mitziut. The mimetic argument here is that the shitta existed and was followed. It doesn't mean that it is obligatory. So I think this is apples and oranges regarding roles of women in shul. >: In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of >: uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is... >: If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered >: hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. > But saying it's not a breach of tzeni'us doesn't say it's allowed, > that's your addition not in the translated text you quote. RYB could > mean what the AhS says, that it's terrible things came to this, but you > may daven in her presence. Or, that whle it's not a tzeni'us problem, > it's still prohibited deOraisa as per the implication in parashas sotah. I think that you are making a moving target, one rationale knocked down and another rationale surfaces. Obviously hair covering could be mandated for a number of different reasons, but all of them? I am not sure it is necessary to be yotzei l'chol hadayot and even if so, the sources who permit, permit it regardless of the rationale against. I also have to go back and look at the source because I think it said more than the quote. >: Here is a list of easily accessable sources: >: Rabbi Marc Angel... > He presumes hair covering is das Yehudis, which makes his a rare > shitah. (Again, given the derivation from a pasuq.) > But then again, R' Ovadiah Yosef firmly disagrees. He obviously is not paskening like R. Ovadiah > But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And > two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. There are Ashkenazim among the sources as well.....I am illustrating that not only the shitah exists, but was followed and continues to be followed by a significant segment of the MO community. And, were it not for the shoah, it seems that a large segment of Lithuanian Jewry would still be following it. ... >: I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and >: not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. >: However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and >: everyone can come to their own conclusion. > ... which is what he does, that the theory is there, but it's a shitah > dechuyah. And noticably, he too quotes R' Yosef Masas, R' Moshe Malka > and the Kaf haChaim -- Sepharadi sources. >: Rav Yosef Haim... > So, assuming the woman doesn't eat qitniyos, may she go with her hair > uncovered? Again, apples and oranges, or peanuts and sesame. It isn't just a Sephardi shita. > And even if she does... At what point is a shitah dechuyah? Good question. From my limited point of view, if it makes sense and some Rabbonim of at least some stature (and I think Rav Messas et al quality) hold that position, it is not dechuyah. What is your definition? ... >: Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony >: of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. >: R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: >: "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did >: not cover her hair? ... >: Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in >: this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." >: I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the >: artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with >: uncovered hair. >: Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat >: common... > And yet the rabbanim protested. This isn't even admissable as mimetic > tradition, any more than noting how often people speak leshon hara or > buy off-the-books or anything else rabbis have failed to curb. I do not agree. Many in Meah Shearim protest that all women do not wear long thick stockings but that doesn't mean that every rabbi holds that long thick stockings are obligatory. if it is the rabbi whose wife didn't cover her hair, you have an argument. otherwise I suggest that those who protest do not speak for everyone. >: uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his >: wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. > He too, would only need to be convinced is wasn't ervah in the sense of > "all those men" sinning. But as we see in the AhS, that doesn't mean > it's allowed. It is a possible option, but not the probable one. It seems you are going out of your way to figure out how this could occur in consonance with your pre-selected approach, rather than accepting the most likely and obvious rationale. kol tuv. Noam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 16 14:05:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:05:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150816210531.GE28046@aishdas.org> : I think that you are making a moving target, one rationale knocked down : and another rationale surfaces... You gave two counterarguments: 1- Ashkenazi mimeticism 2- A list of sources that appear to be predominantly if not entirely Sepharadi. I therefore gave a teo part reply: 1- Ashk mimeticism was consistently gainst rabbinic will. Even the AhS who weighs halakhah-as-practiced as a major factor in pesaq laments the ubiquitous sin of neglecting this din. He also says it's not ervah. So, the sole person who does spell out Ashk position gives me no reason to equate either (1a) ubiquity nor (1b) a textual statement ruling out ervah with permissability. 2- Those sources are not only Seph, but are possibly dechuyos in their community as well. But at the end of the day, I did write: :> But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And :> two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. (And I still find it ironic that someone making a mimetic argument about hair covering wants to also change the role of women by looking at tets to the exclusion of 3-1/3 millenia of common practice.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 17 08:59:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 11:59:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Soloveitchik on Single Women Lighting Shabbat Candles Message-ID: <20150817155949.GA11283@aishdas.org> http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/single-women-lighting-shabbat-candles Snippet: Torah Musings Halakhic Positions of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik Single Women Lighting Shabbat Candles By Aharon Ziegler on Aug 14, 15 1:00 am in Halakhic Positions ... ... Those who have family customs and if their minhag [custom] is that the single women do not light their own candles then they should certainly not deviate from their custom- "Ve'al Titosh Torat I'mecha"... ... .... As a matter of fact Rav Soloveitchik suggested that Le'chat'chila, all women should indeed first turn off the electric lights, light the Shabbat candles, open the electric lights and then recite the Beracha. Regarding single girls, Rav Soloveitchik noted that this was the practice in Europe, even in his town, and that is how the Rav practiced with his daughters when they were single-that they lit their own candles, even with a Beracha, even when his wife also lit candles with a Beracha. Interestingly, RYBS promoted mimeticism in not taking on the practice of lighting candles if one's mother and grandmother didn't light when they were single and still living with their parents. Yet in the same discussion, he acknowledges how the new reality of electric lights makes relying on the mimeticism of making the berachah on the candles / oil alone just a bedi'eved. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 01:22:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 04:22:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Copyright In-Reply-To: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> References: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55D2EB40.1060303@sero.name> On 08/13/2015 03:36 PM, in a message that Gmail, for some reason, decided was spam, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Beis Yitzchak does rule that ddd applies here. However, RZR opined > that ddd still wouldn't apply apply to Sony Bono's law that was aimed > specifically at Disney, allowing them to extend their copyright on some > animated characters. It's not an evenly applied rule. This isn't true. > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, > it is impossible that the Torah is less moral. This assumes its own conclusion. The exact same reasoning could have been used during the Jim Crow era to "prove" that the Torah requires racial segregation of shuls and yeshivos, or during Prohibition to "prove" that the Torah requires teetotalism. > Now we're in "Micha's 2 cents" territory. Li nir'eh that even for a > tzedakah to do it, even if not hasagas gevul, you are causing hezek to > someone who would otherwise earn money. Even if not quantifiably assur, > I would want to invoke bal tishaktzu on this one. Why should he earn that money? You could invoke the same idea against giving anything away to someone who might otherwise have bought it. Every wedding takes parnassah away from wherever the guests might have bought their dinner that night. Sellers do not own their customers, and have no rights to them. > Chazal explain that the sin of the dor hamabul was that they would > each steal less than a shaveh perutah. [...] From here he argued > that there is an issur to do something, which while not formally theft, Stop right there. Stealing less than a shaveh pruta *is* formally theft. The thief is over on lo sigzol. It's not *returnable*, which is an entirely different matter. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 17 22:18:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:18:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Splendor of Clothes Message-ID: <20150818051824.9B2F7183235@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/the-splendor-of-clothes/ Rav Soloveitchik further added that wearing a Yarmulke, a Kippa, is more dignified than a baseball cap. He said, "If the President of the United States suddenly appeared and wanted to take a picture with me, would I wear a Russian hat, a baseball cap,- or a Kippa? That is the way we should stand Shemoneh Esrei when addressing the King of the Universe, HaKadosh Baruch-Hu. See the above URL for more. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 15:08:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:08:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150818220842.GA26873@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:35:26PM +0300, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: : Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? While it's obligatory (see Zev's citations), I am not sure it's halakhah rather than something prior to halakhah. As in Moshe rabbeinu's list: Mah H' sho'el mei'imakh, ki im - leyir'ah es H' Elokekha - lalekhes bekhol derakhav - ule'avah oso - vela'avod es H' Elokekha... - lishmor es mitzvos H' ve'es chuqosav... It would seem that MRAH is excluding these for thing from the realm of mitzvos and chuqim, and yet still mandatory. Even though the Rambam calls "lalekhes bekhol derakhav" to be "HILKHOS Dei'os". I don't know how to shtim this with the pasuq. It seems more like the Rambam's approach, that there is a duty of pursuing qedushah, yashrus and tov in ways beyond the limits of black-letter halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 10:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:17:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halachic Requirement for Dayanim Evaluating In-Person Facial Expressions of Parties in Bais Din In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150819171747.GA2506@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:49:07AM -0700, Baruch Cohen via Avodah wrote: : ... The Mishnah describes how the members of the Sanhedrin : sat in a row in the shape of a half-circle... : Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin 1:3) ... : The Tosefta : (8:1) cites differing opinions regarding the seating position of the : President of the Sanhedrin. Tanna Kamma holds that the President sat in the : center of the semi-circle, with thirty-five of the members of the Sanhedrin : seated on each side of him. R' Elazar b. Tzadok says that when Rabban : Gamliel sat in the Sanhedrin in Yavne, one of the sages sat to his right, : and all the others sat to his left.... My apologies to RBC that I don't have any thoughts about his intended topic, but he got me thinking about something else... To quote myself from 2010 : > REMT quoted the IE, which I found at Shemos 25:37, in what Bar Ilan > calls the short version of the IE: > Neiroseha: And the qadmonim said that one lamp was in the middle > ve"hashisha ne'erachim ze achar ze bachatzi iggul" (to cut-n-paste > from REMT's post) > And after the scripture said "vehei'ir al eiver paneha", and the > reason for "al eiver" one [eiver], behold the shape is clear. Not semicircular as seen from the front, but the lamps in that pattern as seen from above. Continuing: > The IE appears to very explicitly places all the lamps on the same side > of the middle one. Similarly, in the long version of the IE, Shemos 27:21: > Yaarokh: baavur hayos haneiros bechatzi igul. Ve'od adaber al zeh. Notice that leshitaso, the layout of the Sanhderin parallels the layout of the neiros in the keli most associated with chokhmah. Which makes it interesting that the definition of neir ma'aravi also parallels the machloqes about where the nasi sat. We generally assume it's the middle lamp, on the central shaft. However, Tamid 33a speaks of the two western lights, which we also find implied in Abayei hava mesader, "hatavas shetei neiros" being at a different time than "hatavav 5 neiros". >From which Rashi (see also Rashi Menachos 86b "mimenah hayah madliq") concludes that the neir ma'ariv was the 2nd in the row. So it looks like a two machloqes, leshitasam, setup. But... IE's semicircular menorah is based on the idea that the middle lamp was westmost, the other lamps curving off toward the NE and SE directions. A variant on the shitah that the menorah stood so the lamps run north to south. The idea that the 2nd was the ner hama'ari has the lamps running from west to east. The 2 neiros on the west are lit on their own. The second from the west end is the neir hama'arivi, a title not given the westmost candle because it is lit facing the NhM, with the wick on the east. But that leshitasam looked so pretty! Anyone want to help me salvage it? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 12:25:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:25:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? In-Reply-To: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> References: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150819192519.GB2506@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 12:28:27AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Question-from a torah point of view should it make a difference : who shows up at the therapist's (or Rabbi's)door (for any therapy or : advice)? How does Halacha balance the needs of the individual, the : family, the community, Jewish society and/or society in general? Confidentiality and for that matter focusing on the needs of the client serves society in general in the long run. Society needs not only therapists, but therapists clients are willing to get help from. If we tell therapists that they are to compromise client trust for the sake of the family, community or society, we will lose that. So, even if halakhah requires factoring others' needs in to a greater extent, it might not change things all that much. (After all, the profession developed those standards for a reason. That reason needn't reflect a different set of values.) There are also the secondary effects of the law... If someone loses the opportunity to offer therapy because disobeying those standards open them up to threat of suit or legal consequences, we still lose the therapy. Which has to be factored in to the halachic decision. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 14:45:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:45:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Bais Hamussar] The Small Things Message-ID: <20150819214542.GD812@aishdas.org> ----- Forwarded message from Bais Hamussar ----- Bais Hamussar Al Sheim HaRav Shlomo Wolbe zt"l Shoftim - Elul Rav Wolbe (Daas Shlomo) cites a mind boggling Medrash (Bereishis Rabba 2:7). Reb Avahu said, "From the beginning of time Hashem gazed at both the actions of the righteous and the actions of the wicked. Yet, it is not clear whose actions He desired. Once the Torah writes, 'And Hashem saw the light that it was good' it is clear that He desires the actions of the righteous and not the actions of the wicked." What is this supposed to mean? Could there be a possibility that Hashem prefers the actions of the wicked over the actions of the righteous? Rav Simcha Zissel Ziv, the Alter of Kelm, offers a beautiful explanation. Indeed, even the wicked perform good deeds. However, they limit their good deeds to grandiose actions whose effects can be heard around the world. They will found organizations, create moral ideologies and give their lives for the sake of their country. In contrast, the righteous focus on the small, even minuscule, actions. Chazal were asking who's good deeds are superior -- those performed by the righteous or those performed by the wicked? The answer was provided by the Torah: Hashem prefers the small actions of the righteous over the high-flying deeds of the wicked. A similar idea is mentioned by the Rambam. He asserts that for one who wishes to give tzeddaka, it is better that he give many small donations than one big donation. Many small mitzvos are preferential to a single big action. Rav Yisrael Salanter writes that the focus of teshuva also must be on the small actions. Many are overcome with despair when faced with the prospect of teshuva. "There is no possible way for me to stop speaking lashon hara" or "I simply can't overcome this middah" they lament. However, there is no room for despair when the topic is teshuva. They are absolutely right; at the present time they cannot entirely overcome their inclinations. Nevertheless, they can greatly reduce the severity of their actions if they would merely desist at the times when it is easy for them to refrain from transgressing. If they would take small steps and resist for five minutes here and there, they will already have progressed tremendously down the road of teshuva. With this in mind, our understanding of Chazal's well known statement becomes even more profound. "Hashem says to Klal Yisrael, 'Open for me a hole like the eye of a needle and I will open for you gateways that wagons and carriages will be able to pass through!'" Hashem specifically is interested in the small holes. Teshuva must begin with a focus on the small actions. "Just five minutes" is a mantra that can change your life. I will refrain from lashon hara just for five minutes. I will learn just for five minutes. I will spend just five minutes on helping another Yid. The truth is that sometimes one doesn't even need five minutes. A wave of the hand to motion that one can't talk now can save a person from pages of bittul Torah or loads of lashon hara. Moreover, Hashem guarantees that He will reciprocate our small gesture with a huge dose of Heavenly assistance, as He waves us through big gateways of teshuva! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 20:49:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:49:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: I'm really very unsure what this thread is asking. Let's take, for example, this paragraph from R' Micha Berger: > In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the > BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, > but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that > discusses how the conclusions are reached. What can you possibly mean, that we COULD HAVE limped along without it? We ARE limping along without it! There is so much that is ALREADY missing from the Mesora! There are so many masechtos missing from the Bavli, for example. I suppose it is possible that Ravina and Rav Ashi never saw a need to compile them, but it's much more likely that they were written and then lost, no? Now, imagine, if you will, a halacha which was decided (by a rishon, acharon, it doesn't matter) because of one obscure gemara that some ingenious thinker found and applied to a particular situation. Without this gemara, the halacha pesuka would have been different than we are accustomed to, but because that gemara -- obscure though it might be -- WAS found, and is a legitimate part of our Mesora, the halacha as we know it came to be. There must be hundreds of such halachos, maybe even thousands. But what if that particular gemara was not hiding in Chullin or Makos? Suppose it was a gemara in Terumos? Then that halacha would never be known to us, because that gemara has been lost. R"n Chana Luntz wrote: > Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more > of them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the > Rambam, were able to formulate their halachic conclusions. You do realize, of course, that there was no such person as "Tosphos". The Tosaphists were very real, and very important, but they were not the ones to decide on the inclusion or exclusion of any particular comment. That was the choice of the publisher of the gemara, and if his whim had gone in another direction, who knows what other views would have gotten more press coverage. (Yes, I know that there are many volumes filled with the writings of even the most obscure Tosaphists, but the fact remains that getting included in the standard printed edition is the path to widest influence.) My point is that while RMB and RCL are trying to imagine what Torah would look like without Tosaphos, as I see it, even the Tosaphos that we do have is a somewhat random document. If Hashgacha (or, some might prefer, blind luck) had gone in another direction, Tosaphos would be very different, and practical halacha with it. But it doesn't stop there. Need I remind anyone that even our Torah Sheb'ksav is a reconstruction (or, some might prefer, an approximation) created by the Baalei Mesorah? If the sources that they worked from had been just a bit different, then our Sifrei Torah today would be different too. And yet, somehow we manage. We use the Torah that we have today, because it rendered the previous versions (the source material of the Baalei Mesorah) to be passul. What an amazing concept! One day, these several Sifrei Torah, all with known yichus, each had its own chezkas kashrus. And the next day, a new document, different from those that preceded it, comes to center stage and replaces the others! I would like to suggest that this is exactly how it would have worked if there was no Rashi, or no Rabenu Tam, or no Rambam, or no Rav Yosef Karo: We would use whatever we did have, and that would be our Torah. It would be different than the Torah that we do have, but so what? Rashi's Torah was different too! IN CLOSING, RCL asked: > So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no > Rambam and no Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any > distinction at all between the halacha of the Orthodox and the > halacha as championed by the Conservative movement? Is that > not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would of necessity lead > (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent than > we have today ... If you've been following me, then my answer to this should be clear: No! This "much broader tent" is pure speculation. If we had no Rav ABC to guide us, the void would have been filled by Rav XYZ, whose views might have been to the right, to the left, or the same. And in *exactly* the same manner as how we are obligated by the new Torah created by the Baalei Mesorah, the possibility of differences is much less important than our confidence and emunah that this Torah is the right one FOR US. Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller on gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:19:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:19:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mesorah only through rashi Message-ID: <> Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against the concept. Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own interpretation and not rely or be bound by any text. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:29:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:29:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mimetism Message-ID: <> I understood mimetism and trying to follow the custom of one's family. This is of no help when the physical circumstances have changed. Would anyone suggest using outdoor toilets because that is what our ancestors did and would object to an indoor bathroom. Plumbing changed the halacha. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:25:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:25:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] splendor of clothes Message-ID: > Rav Soloveitchik further added that wearing a Yarmulke, a Kippa, is > more dignified than a baseball cap. He said, "If the President of the > United States suddenly appeared and wanted to take a picture with me, > would I wear a Russian hat, a baseball cap,- or a Kippa? That is the > way we should stand Shemoneh Esrei when addressing the King of the > Universe, HaKadosh Baruch-Hu. The average person would also not wear a black hat while taking a picture with the president. I have noted before there has become a new minhag of wearing a hat all the time not only when wearing davening or saying a bracha. I went this week to a charedi wedding and most of the men wore their hats throughout the meal. OTOH I also went to a shiur of Rav Zilberstein this week. Throughout the shiur he wore a kippah. In the break he took some food and put on his hat for the bracha and then removed it for the shiur. This is also what I observed from RYBS If so why do other rabbis insist on giving a shiur wearing a hat? [Email #2.] BTW I just received a copy of a formal photo of RYBS with Ed Asner. RYBS is wearing a black kippa -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 05:10:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 08:10:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] splendor of clothes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 3:25 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > I have noted before there has become a new minhag of wearing a hat all > the time not only when wearing davening or saying a bracha. I went this > week to a charedi wedding and most of the men wore their hats throughout > the meal. For me, at least, this is a practical matter: There is often no place to leave a hat, not even in the coat room; and certainly no place from which the hat can be easily retrieved before bentching. --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 16:16:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 19:16:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:49pm EDT, R Akiva Miller wrote: : I'm really very unsure what this thread is asking... Part of the difficult of this thread is that we came in mid-conversation. RGS quoted Qinot Mesorat haRav. The quote is long, so I'm just giving part: Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebe'al peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... This is a comment RYBS frequently made in shiur. Picture sitting in a brisker shiur, where every talmid needs a reference set of shas and Rambam. It is logical for the rebbe to need to remind people that they couldn't play this game of comparing that Yad back to shas if we didn't have Rashi and Tosados opening up shas to understanding. Interestingly, RGS compared this to the Yam Shel Shelomo: Rav Shlomo Luria, the Maharshal, famously said that Rabbeinu Tam was greater than the Rambam (introduction to Yam Shel Shlomo). In discussing Kinah 42, Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik suggests that the French and German Tosafists were more important than the Rambam, without discussing who was greater. The Maharshal was very opposed to the SA. He had a hostile attitude toward the whole notion of codification which goes way beyond RYBS's intent in ways RYBS wouldn't agree to. He and the Maharal (his brother) were of the "many" in RET's response. On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:19am IDT, R Eli Turkel wrote: : Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against the : concept. : Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own : interpretation and not : rely or be bound by any text. This coming in in the middle caused language confusion and consequent frustration for RnCL. On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:41:09PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the :> Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The :> parshan connects the past to the now. : That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. : Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation : handed over to the next. Yes, but if you want to know what RYBS meant, it requires knowing what the word means in RYBS's lexicon, with the connotations he assumed. Notice my suggestion about how "mesorah" was being used fits the quote from the qinos and the example of the Yerushalmi. I understand the frustration of thinking you were discussing a statement that meant one thing and only after formulating a log response being told that it likely meant something else. But that's a straightforward misunderstanding due to your being outside the target audience when RYBS was saying / learning Qinos, and therefore not being used to the connoctations he assumes; and Lewis Carrol refferences aren't needed. I intend to write a post on the meaning of the word "mesorah" as developed in RYBS's and RHS's thought as the start of its own thread. Because it not only comes up here, it comes up in the discussions raging elsewhere (Torah Musings, Cross Currents, Facebook) on RWMO's objections to Open O and feminism. RnCL argues for the importance of codes in that post: : So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no Rambam and no : Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any distinction at all between : the halacha of the Orthodox and the halacha as championed by the : Conservative movement? Is that not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would : of necessity lead (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent : than we have today... ... : But take the codes out of the equation : and *all* these multiple rishonic positions become tenable, allowing a : general free for all within the vastness of the parshanut tradition... ... : It is only those who also have an eye to the : codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in : the light of common practice. Actualy, it's only those who have an eye on common practice. After all, we discuss machloqesin between Rashi and the Rambam in halakhah lemasseh contexts all the time. And if Ashkenazim accepted Rashi's ruling, or one found in Tosafos, the Rama has no problem limiting his pesaq to that rather than that of the Rif, Rambam or Tur. And had there not been a Rama, then some shu"t or parshan could as well. For that matter, there is also the middle ground, the shu"t writer (eg the Ritva) who discusses halachic sevara and lomdus without either using a study of a pre-existing text as his organizing principle nor trying to codify a complete set of rulings. For that matter, the Beis Yoseif and AhS also sit in the middle ground -- code-like works that spend more space discussing how they understood the sources to get there. Returning to RAM's post for his reply to RnCL's question: : If you've been following me, then my answer to this should be clear: No! : This "much broader tent" is pure speculation. If we had no Rav ABC to guide : us, the void would have been filled by Rav XYZ, whose views might have been : to the right, to the left, or the same. And in *exactly* the same manner as : how we are obligated by the new Torah created by the Baalei Mesorah, the : possibility of differences is much less important than our confidence and : emunah that this Torah is the right one FOR US. Without the parshanim, there is no way to fill in the holes between se'ifim, to know how the conclusions were reached so that halakhah can survive beyond the limited set of cases in the Rambam or SA. However, without the codifiers, it's hard to find Rashi's ruling, but not impossible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 02:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:02:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha Message-ID: RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear as ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) 1) Prozbul - while the originial takanah was for individuals that made loans and meant a trip to bet din today it has become a piece of paper signed given to the rabbi or some ad hoc bet din (similar to hatarat nedarim). 2) nonJewish produce during shemitta - whther bought directly from nonJews or through heter mechirah the end result is that the consumer feels little difference between a shemitta year and a regular year. Only consumers that use Otzar bet din have to account for shemitta rules (of course it affects the farmer) 3) mechirat chametz - In the extreme one goes away for the entire Pesach, sells everything in the house and returns after Pesach to eat whatever is around, no need to even put away the chametz. For the rest of us it means putting what we sell in some closet and for some getting rid of "real" chametz like cakes 4) heter iska - again originally meant making a document for a specific loan and allowing a possibility pf loss. Today (in Israel) the banks and other financial insitutions have the document on the wall somewhere and most customers are not even aware of it. Because of court cases the heter iska has been refined so that the possibility of loss to the bank is essentially zero. In addition the heter iska today applies to non business loans - eg renovating a house, buying a car or going on a pleasure trip In addition to things that appear as cereonies to the average layman there are halachot called "ha-aramh" which is a trick way of avoiding the usual halacha. Again some eamples (again including inyana de-yoma" 1) paying the chazan for RH and YK for singing the first night of selichot 2) returning to shemitta - buying the lulav and throwing in for free the etrog 3) R Tarfon "married" 300 women so they could eat termah In an actual case involving yibum a couple without children and the husband was senile and near death while the brother-in-law lived in New Zealand. The solution was for the brother-in-law t "marry" the wife's sister and then divorce her but now the wife no longer needs a yibum or chaitzah. Note that pruzbol and heter iska began as ha-aaramah and later became a ceremony. I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview it. Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 11:57:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 14:57:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah Message-ID: <20150821185758.GA8815@aishdas.org> The word "mesorah" is overloaded with too many meanings. Literally, it's "that which was passed on". So logically, a common usage would make it synonymous with TSBP. And yet it's also used for the near opposite -- we speak of the mesoretic text, its vowels and its trope -- the ultimate in TSBK. And the collections of notes that describe that text are also called "mesorah". (So the mesorah describes the mesorah?! And you can join the email list if you wish to discuss the mesorah, diqduq, nusach hetefillah and the like.) More along the lines of the direction I want to head in, unlike talking about TSBP and thus focusing our attention on Divine origins, when we speak of mesorah we focus out attention on the chain of people. And so there is the usage of "mesorah" to mean mimetic tradition, and is often posed in contrast to textual TSBP. Notice R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik not only defines "mimetic tradition" as knowing what a kezayis is because you remember what your father and greandfather ate at the seder but also considers such cultural mesorah (my term) rather than textual transmission to be the carrier of value and emotion. It is the loss of mimetic tradition that he blames for the loss of dread of the Yamim Noraim and (in speech, not writing) for the loss of what his father RJBS called the "Erev Shabbos Jew" (from "On Repentance, pp 97-98): Even in those neighborhoods made up predominantly of religious Jews, one can no longer talk of the 'sanctity of Shabbat.' True, there are Jews in America who observe Shabbat... But it is not for Shabbat that my heart aches; it is for the forgotten 'erev Shabbat'.... There are Shabbat-observing Jews in America, but there are no 'erev Shabbat' Jews who go out to greet Shabbat with beating hearts and pulsating souls. There are many who observe the precepts with their hands, with their feet, and/or with their mouths - but there are few indeed who truly know the meaning of the service of the heart!" Then we speak of someone "having a mesorah" in two different uses: both if they have a received practice and cultural (as above) and if they have a known rebbe-talmid lineage. Still in contrast to texts, we're talking about the importance of all that Torah that doesn't fit into books. We also talk about those in the hands-on kelei qodesh, such as a sofer, a mohel, a shocheit, etc... also of "having a mesorah" from the one who taught them the craft. And that too is all about the kind of thing you need to learn with your senses and muscles, and not know from books discussing the topic in the abstract. To pasqen mar'os, a rav must also have a mesorah in that sense. It's a skill, a craft, that is learned from practice under the guidance of a mentor. Usually called "shimush". For regular pesaq too there is an element that is a craft, an art, a skill, the kind of thing one needs to learn from shimush, not by studying from abstract texts. Qara veshanah velo shamash TC, harei zeh am ha'aretz. ... - Sotah 22a This is why I like R/Dr Moshe Koppel's metaphor of laws of grammar for some usages rather than always comparing halakhah to civil law. (More as per his sefer "Metahalakhah" than in the essay "Judaism as a First Language" .) As I wrote in Feb : The "First Language" model is much like R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik's mimeticism, but also somewhat different. Halachic rules are an approximation of something that is inherently more complex in kind than rules and algorithms. Much the way grammar is only approximated by ever more complex rules which still never get a foreigner studying the language in class to the same feel for grammar that the native-speaker has. (And why TSBP loses something when not be'al peh.) So the ESL student may know what a past pluperfect is, and I don't, but the native speaker is more likely to know what is valid poetic license and what will produce non-English results. Similarly, a poseiq needs to pick up that feel, not the formal rules. Unstructured knowledge. I have two rather lengthy quotes that help create a feel for what I am talking about. They're quite beautiful, so I appreciate this excuse to share them. Notice how RYBS explicitly defines the word "mesorah" at the beginning of this first quote, UBiqashta miSham 10:1, pp. 63-65 (tr. RARR, The Rav, vol. I, pp. 247-250): Let me stress the idea of the Mesorah by telling you a personal story. I remember that when I was growing up I was frightened and lonely boy. I was afraid of the world. For me, the world was a cold and strange place. I imagined that everyone was mocking me. But I had one friend; do not laugh at me, it was the Rambam [Maimonides]. How did we become friends? Simply, we met. Rambam was a constant guest in our home. During the days when my father was newlywed, supported by my grandfather... father studied Torah day and night. A small group of outstanding young scholars gathered around him and eagerly absorbed his teachings. My father studied with his disciples in the room where my bed was located. My wont was to sit on my bed and listen to my father's words. He constantly quoted Rambam. His method was to first open the Talmud and analyze the text under discussion and the relevant commentaries. He would generally say: these are the explanations of Tosafot. Now, let us analyze the explanations of Rambam. My father would inevitably discover that Rambam rejected the basic explanation of the text and differed with Tosafot. My father would declare, as if to complain, that we cannot comprehend the approach and conclusion of Rambam towards the Talmud text. It was almost as if my father were directly saying to Rambam: "Rabbi Moshe, why have you taken this approach?" My father would continue, "at first glance, the Ra'avad (commentary on the Rambam) is correct at his criticism." The students would jump forward and each would express his thoughts. My father would carefully listen but would refute their proposed interpretations. Once again he would exclaim that the words of Rambam were incomprehensible. Nevertheless, my father would not give up. He would place his head on his hand and soon be engrossed in deep thought. The students would not disturb his thought process. Finally, my father would gradually lifts his head and begin to expound the true meaning of Rambam. Sometimes he would be lengthy, and on other occasions brief. I would strain my ears to catch my father's every word. In my young and impressionable mind, there developed a duel impression: First, that the Rambam was being attacked by enemies who wanted to hurt him, and second, that the Rambam's only defender was my father. I felt strongly that without my father, who knows what would happen to the Rambam? It was as if the Rambam himself were with us in the room, listening to my father's words. The Rambam sat next to me on my bed. What did he look like? I don't know exactly. He seemed to look like an exceedingly handsome and good father. His name was also Moshe, just like my father. Intensely following my father, the students absorbed his every word. Slowly but surely, the tension evaporated. My father continued his discourse with strength and courage. New ideas were clarified; the laws under discussion were classified and carefully articulated. A new light emerged; the questions were resolved and the topic properly explained. Rambam emerged triumphant, and my father's face was filled with happiness and delight. He had defended his friend, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon. The Rambam was comforted and smiled. I too was delighted and joined in the feeling of joy in the room. I would jump from my bed and run to my mother and cry out the good news: "mother, mother, the Rambam won; he beat the Raavad. Father helped him. Look how wonderful my father is!" But once in a great while my father did not succeed, and despite all his efforts the enemies of the Rambam defeated him. Their questions were as strong as iron. Although my father mustered all his strength, he could not save the Rambam from his detractors. Salvation did not come for the Rambam. Deep in thought, my father would lean on his head on the palms of his hands on the table. The students and I, and even the Rambam, waited in great tension for my father's words. But my father would raise his head and sadly state: "there is no answer. The words of the Rambam are difficult. The shiur ended with no explanation. The students were sad, and even my father was depressed. A sense of despair descended upon all of us. I cried. Even the eyes of the Rambam glistened with tear-drops. With a broken heart, I would walk slowly to my mother and cry out to her: "Mother, father cannot answer the Rambam. What will we do? He did not succeed today." And my mother would tell me: "Don't worry. Father will find and answer to the Rambam. If he does not succeed, then when you grow up perhaps you will find an answer to the Rambam. Always remember, my son, the important thing about Torah is to study it in happiness and enthusiasm." It is true that this story is part of my youth. It is not, however, the fantasy of a young child or the creation of mystical feelings. This story is an historic and psychological reality that guides me at all time. When I sit down to learn, the giants of the Mesorah are with me. Our relationship is personal. The Rambam sits to my right, Rabbeinu Tam to my left. Rashi sits at the head and explains, Rabbeinu Tam asks, the Rambam decides the halacha, and the Raavad objects. All of them are with me in my small room, sitting around the table. They look at me with fondness. They world the text out with me, and life a father, they encourage and strengthen me. Learning Torah is not just a didactic, formal, and technical experience whose purpose is the creation and exchange of ideas. Learning Torah is the intense experience of uniting many generations together, the joining of spirit to spirit, and the connecting of soul to soul. Those who transmit the Torah and those who receive the Torah are invited to meet one another at the same historic juncture. And Reflections of the Rav, vol II, pp. 21b-23 (original language in: RARR's The Rav vol II, pp 186-189) this quote winds up with mention of the mesorah: The old Rebbe walks into the classroom crowded with students who are young enough to be his grandchildren. He enters as an old man with wrinkled face, his eyes reflecting the fatigue and sadness of old age. You have to be old to experience this sadness. It is the melancholy that results from an awareness of people and things which have disappeared and linger only in memory. I sit down; opposite me are rows of young beaming faces with clear eyes radiating the joy of being young. For a moment, the Rabbe is gripped with pessimism, with tremors of uncertainly. He asks himself: Can there be a dialogue between an old teacher and young students, between a Rebbe in his Indian summer and students enjoying the spring of their lives? The Rebbe starts his shiur, uncertain as to how it will proceed. Suddenly the door opens and an old man, much older than the Rebbe, enters. He is the grandfather of the Rebbe, Reb Chaim Brisker. It would be most difficult to study Talmud with students who are trained in the sciences and mathematics, were it not for his method, which is very modern and equals, if not surpasses, most contemporary forms of logic, metaphysics or philosophy. The door opens again and another old man comes in. He is older than Reb Chaim, for he lived in the 17th century. His name is Reb Shabtai Cohen, known as the Shach, who must be present when civil law (dinai mamonot) is discussed. Many more visitors arrive, some from the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, and others harking back to antiquity -- Rabbeinu Tam, Rashi, Rambam, Raavad, Rashba, Rabbi Akiva and others. These scholarly giants of the past are bidden to take their seats. The Rebbe introduces the guests to his pupils, and the dialogue commences. The Rambam states a halacha; the Raavad disagrees sharply, as is his wont. Some students interrupt to defend the Rambam, and they express themselves harshly against the Raavad, as young people are apt to do. The Rebbe softly corrects the students and suggest more restrained tones. The Rashba smiles gently. The Rebbe tries to analyze what the students meant, and other students intercede. Rabeinu Tam is called upon to express his opinion, and suddenly, a symposium of generations comes into existence. Young students debate earlier generations with an air of daring familiarity, and a crescendo of discussion ensues. All speak one language; all pursue one goal; all are committed to a common vision; and all operate with the same categories. A Mesorah collegiality is achieved, a friendship, a comradeship of old and young, spanning antiquity, the Middle Ages and modern times. This joining of the generations, this march of centuries, this dialogue and conversation between antiquity and the present will finally bring about the redemption of the Jewish people. After a two-or three hour shiur, the Rebbe emerges from the chamber young and rejuvenated. He has defeated age. The students look exhausted. In the Mesorah experience, years play no role. Hands, however parchment-dry and wrinkled, embrace warm and supple hands in commonality, bridging the gap with separates the generations. Thus, the "old ones" of the past continue their great dialogue of the generations, ensuring an enduring commitment to the Mesorah. So there is a community of baalei mesorah that carries down a mimetic tradition of how to pasqen. A tradition of informal knowledge that cannot be codified into books and that creates a feel and emotional consequence. This is RYBS's usual usage of the word, "mesorah". No better or worse than any of the other usages, but more relevant to two of the conversations we've (we as in various members of the A/A chevrah, not necessarily here on Avodah) been having lately. In the discussion of feminism and Torah (which hasn't been here, but we have had identical cycles here before), RHS's piece "Preserving Our Mesorah in Changing Times" and others like it are often cited. RHS opens: What is Mesorah? Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today.[1] The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers.[2] 1. Avot 1:1. 2. For a more extensive discussion of mesorah, see Nefesh HaRav, pp. 34-58 and Beikvei HaTzon, pp. 21-37. Firmly in line with what we've seen from his rebbe, mesorah is used in the sense of the chain of transmission down time that conveys the art and culture of halakhah decision-making and Torah as a whole. And a bit further down he discusses "Who Is Authorized to Institute Change?" {emph mine): Changes in practice require delicate evaluations that only a master Torah scholar, a gadol baTorah, can properly conduct. Only someone with a broad knowledge and a deep understanding of the corpus of halachah, with an intimate familiarity with both the letter and the spirit of the law, WITH A MASTERY OF BOTH THE RULES AND THE ATTITUDES OF THE MESORAH, can determine when a change is acceptable or even required. The more wide-reaching the proposed change, the greater the expertise required to approve it. The evaluator must not only be a master of the mesorah, but he must also be able to consider new practices based solely on values internal to the mesorah, removing external influences from the deliberation.[14] 14. See Halakhic Mind, n. 98. But I think this example from a teshuvah (tr and poor title by YWN is more on-topic: Indeed, the Rav would often say (see drasha to Parshas Korach), that every person must recognize that he needs a Rav or a Rebbe. Even a Talmid Chochom whose Rebbe had passed away must constantly ask himself in truth (when they present questions to him) what his Rebbe would have said in such a scase, and what stance he would have taken. ... The expression that some of those who have permitted this utilize that according to the technical halacha a certain act is permitted, and that which people wish to prohibit it is because of political considerations is incorrect. For even a matter such as changing the mesorah the traditions of the Jewish people is in and of itself an integral section of halacha. When one rules on the donning of Tefillin for women it is not enough to merely examine the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch in Hilchos Tefillin and in the sources there and treat it as a simple question. The version of mesorah in RYBS's usage is the same concept RHS invokes to reject a "but it can be fit to the technical halakhah so your objection is merely political" attitude. Change must conform to mesorah to be valid, even if the textualists are satisfied. This is not an invocation of "daas Torah", because we're talking about questions of Torah, not politics or other metzi'us; we are invoking knowledge, if cultural and informal knowledge rather than book knowledge, and not invoking any metaphysical or mytical power; and because we do not expect a single correct answer that "the gedolim hold". But it still makes halachic decisionmaking when it comes to significant change subject to the skill of a few, and the rest of us are forced to submit to their understanding. The other use we've been knocking around, and this was here on-list, is RYBS's statement (Qinos Mesorat haRav, quoted by RGS here : Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebeal peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... RYBS identifies mesorah as the ineffible skill to think like a poseiq. And that we do get from those who explain how the prior generations developed the law, how the community down the ages conversed about the law, from living in the culture whose mimeticism is mesorah. And we saw Sotah's opinion of someone who learns without shimush. From only a little further down in that sugya (22a): Tanna: Hatannaim (those who repeat codified law) are swallowers of the world. Could you really think [they] are "swallowers of the world"? Ravina said: For they are morah halakhah from their repetition of the law. There is a a beraisa like this: R' Yeushua said, "And are they 'swallowers of the world? Aren't they settlers of the world, as it says 'halikhos olam lo' (Chavaquq 3)? Rather, because they are moreh halakhah from their repetition of the law. You can't pasqen from codes, from legal knowledge. It takes knowledge of how the codes reached their conclusion -- both textual knowledge obtained from the meforshim, and the skills to pasqen obtained by shimush. As R Yochanan quotes besheim Rashbi (Berakhos 7b), "gedolah shimushah shel Torah yoseir meilimudah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 22 16:06:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 00:06:16 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:41:09PM +0100, RMB wrote: :> Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the :> Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The :> parshan connects the past to the now. I replied: : That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. : Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation : handed over to the next. And RMB further replied: <> I read the quote and the original RGS posting before commenting on the thread because I generally try not to jump in mid-conversation without understanding what has previously been said. And that is precisely what I am objecting to. Because the RGS piece (including the quote) - is actually about our mesorah *regarding learning* (ie a much narrower slice of the wider definition). In that, as I said, I think it correct - our mesorah regarding how to learn - how to sit in Yeshiva and deal with the texts owes far more to Rashi and Tosphos than to the Rambam. But as stated in the quote, this suddenly becomes "our mesorah" in general and that is what I find problematic as I will try and articulate below. So let us look at the quote again: RGS quoted Qinot Mesorat haRav. The quote is long, so I'm just giving part: Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebe'al peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... The point I am making is that "any mesorah, "any chain of tradition" is much, much wider than what is done in Brisker yeshivas as part of the learning process. <> Now, if the point you are making is that RYBS was addressing yeshiva bochrim within a yeshiva setting (albeit explaining kinos on Tisha B'av) and hence explaining what it is that they do all day learning-wise- then the use of such language is probably excusable without the modifier - ie in this context mesorah is simply short for "mesorah with regard to how to learn". But the problem is that this language has now been pulled, by way of RGS's article (and lends itself to being pulled by its sheer breadth), into a wider application and wider audience, and not modified as such. It was then pulled across into Avodah, and the reference questioned, which I think it should be, because RGS's argument is implicitly if not explicitly far wider. And that I think is a problem, because what is true for one slice of "the mesorah" is not necessarily true for the whole. Whether this imprecision is RYBS's or RGS's is hard for me to be sure, as you say, this is a quote taken out of context. <> And this is where this slide from discussing one slice of the mesorah - what to do in Yeshiva, to a much wider slice of the mesorah becomes problematic, because of the implication you have just made which is that what is true of the section applies to the whole. And in this context you are dealing with what is called in common parlance the mesorah, not about conversations down time. So by slight of hand what you are doing is taking a definition which you acknowledge is a very limited and idiosyncratic one, but then sliding the conclusions that arise from that definition into the more standard debate, and claiming that was RYBS's opinion regarding the debate about what is more commonly known as "the mesorah". Let us therefore back up for a minute and discuss that aspect of RGS's post which in my view is unquestionably correct, even using the usual definition of mesorah: RGS comments that he and his father tried to learn meseches Nedarim just using the meforash, in the absence of Rashi, and were not able to do so (they were then only able to do it using the Ran, a much later commentary) - thus demonstrating the point of the post, which is, without Rashi, most of the Talmud Bavli would be a closed book to most people of average, and even above average, intelligence (like the Talmud Yerushalmi). This is unquestionably true. The Rambam was also aware of this problem (after all he learned all of Talmud Bavli without Rashi and everybody he knew either did so or tried to do so). His solution to RGS's problem was to tell RGS and his father, and people like him, not to try and learn Talmud Bavli, but to learn his, the Rambam's, Code instead. Ie instead of trying to tackle Maseches Nedarim, he would suggest that RGS and his father learn Hilchos Nedarim from the Mishne Torah. Now the truth is that if RGS and his father had in fact learnt all of Hilchos Nedarim from the Rambam, and all of the rest of the Mishne Torah, backwards and forwards and inside out - they are likely then to be well set up to tackle the Talmud Bavli without Rashi. Ie you *can* use the Rambam as a guide back into the Talmud if you are bright enough (because you have most of the concepts already explained by him), but it is not an easy way to do it. The Rambam assumed that the average person would stop with his Code, and only the best and brightest would need then to go back to the Talmud, to help determine the ambiguous cases not caught by his code, in a method not a million miles away from the one use by smicha students in learning Hilchos Shechita or Kashrus - first learn the Shulchan Aruch, then work your way back to the underlying gemoras so you are in a position to posken those cases the Shulchan Aruch doesn't catch. Our mesorah is like Rashi in this regard and not the Rambam (except when it comes to smicha students). We open up the Talmud Bavli even to children using Rashi and hundreds of thousands are sitting in yeshiva following Rashi. The problem is that people (it would appear including you) then generalise from "how we learn" to "how we posken" - which is what really is involved in the discussion regarding Open O and feminism. And they are not the same thing at all. Indeed, the fact that smicha students (those that are being set up to posken) are taught in a totally different way to the more general way of learning in yeshiva, and one that owes far more to the Rambam than to Rashi and Tosphos should alert you to that. I am then going to diverge a bit to discuss RAM's post, because he is discussing something completely different again: I wrote: > Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more of > them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the Rambam, were > able to formulate their halachic conclusions. And RAM replied: <> But you here (and it is even more explicit later) are discussing something completely different to what I was and am discussing. To best differentiate, I would say that you are discussing *content* and I am discussing *process*. Yes with regard to *content* it makes a difference which particular one of the Tosphosim were included on the page, and which weren't - but that is not what I am discussing. Rather I am discussing *how to learn* - ie how to make sense of this Talmud Bavli which (as RGS elucidated so eloquently) is so difficult for people to get into without help. What Rashi did was to provide a clear and simple explanation of the words on the page. What Tosphos did (and in this regard the whole commentary called Tosphos - despite the fact that it was made up of many different people, in fact teaches pretty much the same thing) was to teach people to say "hold on a minute, if we take the simple explanation provided by Rashi, then: a) there is a contradiction with what the gemora says somewhere else; or b) there is a contradiction with what in fact people do - so therefore we need to try and solve this problem. I then further goes on to teach people to say: very commonly we can solve this problem by: (i) re-interpreting this gemora; and/or (ii) reinterpreting that gemora; and/or (iii) finding some way of harmonizing the two gemoras, or the gemora and people's practice, or if we cannot manage to that (but only in extremis), (iv) working out that a certain gemora is more authoritative or the people are wrong. Note that when you are considering the process, it doesn't matter which particular sets of Tosphos' questions made it onto the page and which didn't - what is far more important is the fact that the commentary in general teaches people to ask these questions and mechanisms for trying to answer them. That is what a (eg child) who is first taught to study the gemora with Rashi suddenly encounters when he moves on to Tosphos. Hold on, Rashi's commentary may make a lot of sense in localised context, but we now have to try and consider the whole. Now of course the Rambam had not only to be his own Rashi, but he had to be his own Tosphos. He could not have written his Code if underneath the surface he did not deal with the fact that the gemora appears to contradict itself all over the place, and also to contradict what people are actually doing. The fundamental job of most meforshim on the Rambam is therefore (a) to explain how the Rambam understood the simple explanation of the gemora (ie what the Rambam would have said if he had written Rashi) and (b) how the Rambam resolved the contradictions in the various gemoras and with common practice (ie how the Rambam deals with the kinds of problems raised by the Tosphosim). But all of this is under the surface. All we have from the Rambam is the result, what we have from Tosphos are the questions. And it is the questions which give people a better window into how to learn gemora. So that is why, when discussing *process* it does not matter that: <> Because while we might have different Tosphos questions (ie content) on (or off) the page if hashgacha had gone in a different direction, or if there were gemoros on some of the mesechtos on which we have none, the process of *how* Tosphos (or the Rambam) would have dealt with that content is still the same. But if we would have had no Rashi and no Tosphos at all, ie the process they originated, but only the Rambam, we would all have learnt the code backward and forward, and a few bright sparks would have then used that to understand the gemora - a very, very different process of learning. In that regard our mesorah of learning comes from Rashi and Tosphos. On the other hand, RET is correct: <> Although I would modify that statement not to say "and not be bound by any text", as most at that point agreed that they should be bound by the gemora (and the Tanach as understood by the mishna/gemora), just not beyond that. And that is the point. There are two different concepts being discussed here, the mesorah of "how to learn" and the mesorah of "how to posken" (which then leads into what it is that people do). And when the Shulchan Aruch came out a lot of people strongly objected to the way of poskening that is a consequence of the codes. They thought that each posek should re-learn the relevant underlying gemoras, and work out their own harmonisation of them without being influenced, and certainly not bound, by what the Shulchan Aruch said. Some people perhaps thought that was a bit extreme, and that at least they should learn the underlying gemoras with all the rishonim, and, to the extent there was rishonic view, at least make a judgement within that spectrum (but not necessarily prioritise eg the Rambam, Rif and Rosh, or the Trumas HaDeshen and the Mordechai, being the most recent, over the others). The problem you have though is that - well, according to the gemora there are at least 50 ways of determining that a sheretz is kosher. Even if you then say that the gemora draws certain lines in the sand, there is no question that - well, let us take the hair covering question as illustrative. There are clearly (at least) two ways of reading the question: (a) hair covering for married women is an absolute and immutable d'orisa principle; (b) hair covering for married women is a tznius related convention - and given the convention at the time of the gemora (and earlier) it is required in those societies where it is practiced by modest Jewish women by virtue of rabbinic decree. If you can't see that the underlying sources (eg the mishna and gemora) *could* lead to either interpretation, then you are either wilfully blinding yourself or you can't learn. If you purely follow Rashi and Tosphos, then *if* you can read the underlying gemora sources in such a way as to harmonise with common practice today (even if you believe it is a bit of a dochek), then you would be free to do so, or at least, have no basis to criticise others who do this. However, nobody has that conversation today. The conversation you are having is about "how authoritative" are the various poskim (and from which tradition) who do appear to rule in one way or another. The power of Rav Broyde's article for example - is that he argues that the Rosh (and hence the Tur) and even the Rambam actually posken (b) out of the options, and this can be seen in the Shulchan Aruch. That is the kind of conversation we have today - with others of course rejecting that this is what can be read into the Shulchan Aruch. Hence I said: : It is only those who also have an eye to the : codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in : the light of common practice. And RMB replied: <> But neither Rashi nor Tosphos gave us any method of limiting where psak went, and indeed the Ri can hold one thing and Rabbanu Tam another within the same Tosphos. The Codes are far less open. And the language of the Shulchan Aruch is in the vast majority of cases the language of the Rambam thereby leading back to the thought process of the Rambam. The Rema then picks up a few of the cases where Ashkenazi practice differs and used a Code process to insert Rashi's explanation into the Code (although often where it had already been filtered through the Rosh and the Tur first). That is taking Rashi content and using it in a Rambam like way. Which is why the mesorah for how we posken is much closer to the Rambam than it is to Rashi. And what we do outside of the yeshiva is more about how we posken than about how we learn. Which is why I disagree: >Without the parshanim, there is no way to fill in the holes between se'ifim, to know how the conclusions were reached so that halakhah can survive beyond the limited set of cases in the Rambam >or SA. Of course there is, you have to go back to the original gemora - having first learnt through all of the related si'ifim in the Codes, and then make sure you understand how the rulings that are in the Codes relate to the underlying gemora. Once you have done that you can start to fill in the gaps, But only the select few who need to actually posken need to know this method - which is why it only needs to be taught to smicha students. But it is obvious that is the method used by the Rambam when answering questions outside of his own code in his teshuvos. <> And if you don't find it, it probably doesn't matter - because without the attitude of the codifiers, you really only need Rashi to understand the gemora and if you can do it without him, then great. And if you can't understand the gemora without him you wouldn't have a hope of formulating any ruling as the gemora would be a closed book. >Micha Shavuah tov Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 04:38:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:38:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Daf HaKashrus August 2015 Message-ID: <20150823113822.1203D183A0B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/daf_hakashrus_aug_2015.pdf This issue includes articles about bishul on Shabbos and dairy bread as well as other topics. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 02:10:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:10:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: [Email #1, in reply to R' Akiva Miller.] > My point is that while RMB and RCL are trying to imagine what Torah would > look like without Tosaphos, as I see it, even the Tosaphos that we do have > is a somewhat random document. I believe this is somewhat of an exaggeration. The school of Tosafot was basically begun by Rabbenu Tam followed by Ri (haZaken). Unfortunately we don't have much of their notes and Sefer haYashar is fragmentary. However, from Tosfat Shantz through Tosafot Tuch we have several manuscripts. It is true that the early publishers (or more exactly the rabbis chosen by these publishers) used whatever material they had however, I don't think that in most cases the differences between different talmidim were that great. Obviously some were more verbose and some less so and each included their individual rebbes and their own opinions. Nevertheless on the whole they were similar. Tosafot haRosh was the main version used in much of Spain. For reasons that are not clear to me this version was lost for many centuries before reappearing relatively recently. In individual cases one learns something new from Tosafot haRosh but I am not sure that on the whole it is that dramatically different from the printed versions [Email #2, in reply to me. -micha] > To pasqen mar'os, a rav must also have a mesorah in that sense. It's > a skill, a craft, that is learned from practice under the guidance of > a mentor. Usually called "shimush". I recall seeing recently (on avodah?) a machloket of poskim whether one needs shimush in order to pasken on maaros or it is sufficient to learn from seforim. In general some poskim feel that for many areas shimush is no longer needed now that we have detailed seforim. A number of gedolim of the 20th century essentially learned alone with minimal input from teachers. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 07:20:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 17:20:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] child conversion Message-ID: The recent court to allow conversion of under bar/bat mitzvah children is controversial. The bone of contention is whether it is considred a zechut for children to become Jewish when they grow up in a non-religious setting. R. Rosen recently gave a list of rabbis that allow it (at least bideved) and those that forbid it. I found the list interesting and not what I would have guessed Machmirim and not allowing the conversion: R Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor, Sridei Eish,R. Kook and R. Yisraeli Mekilim (at least bideved) Bet Yitzchak, Mateh Levi, Achiezer, RMF, R. Elyashiv, ROY -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 15:03:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:03:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150823220352.GA13158@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:10:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : In general some poskim feel that for many areas shimush is no longer : needed now that we have detailed seforim. A number of gedolim of the : 20th century essentially learned alone with minimal input from teachers. Well, RYBS's notion of "mesorah" is broader than that, as Rashi and Tosafos are considered part of it. Yes, shimush is more central to relaying a feel for how halakhah should be decided, but books that spell out past decisions also apparently play a role. But the truth is most of the gedolim in the 20th cent (Slabodka alumni aside) learned one-on-one often moving in with their rebbe. What you call "minimal" I would call "short and intense". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 25 18:27:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:27:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion Message-ID: The assumption is that it is better to be a non-religious Jew (thereby violating numerous halakhos) than a moral non-Jew. (I am being over simplistic as being non-Jewish citizen in Israel is more of a liability than elsewhere, so there may be a zechus to be a non-religious ger katan.) The irony as many have noted is that those who are most lenient about child conversion tend to be those who are also lenient in accepting that one could lead a perfectly good life as a non-Jew. Those who think that it is better to be Jewish than non-Jewish by extension should accept the conversion of a ger katan who will be raised by a non-religious family. The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for reasons of Nationalism. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 25 18:50:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:50:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) Message-ID: To parachute into an ongoing discussion, I have found that people use Mesorah in four different ways: 1) Personal Mesorah from a Rebbe to a Talmid. What a scholar or layman learns from his teacher. 2) Mesorah as the unbroken chain of Torah going back to Sinai. Rambam zt"l has the most famous mesorah chart, though I like Micha Berger's. (Parallels can be in Hadith transmission traditiona, Sufi traditions or the Catholic Church's assumption of an unbroken chain back to Peter). 3) Communal norms and traditions. This is how the term is commonly used in the Chareidi communities and also how it is being used in the ongoing discussion. This is the idea that there are legitimate practices, norms, values or halakhic understandings. For example different methodologies of learning. Or, as my brothers-in-law say to me, well if that is the mesorah of your community, then it is legitimate, even if they don't relate to this practice. (Personally, I do not relate to such a usage. Either an approach is valid/true or not valid/true.) I discussed the last category in an essay that Gil was kind enough to post: http://www.torahmusings.com/2011/07/two-types-of-orthodox-judaism/ There are probably other uses of the term *mesorah*, but I cannot think of them at the moment. Best wishes, Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 26 00:43:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:43:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] smart lighting Message-ID: can one use smart lighting on shabbat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_lighting -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 05:00:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:00:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov Message-ID: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? KVCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 10:37:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:37:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:00:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party : to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not : actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) My own lexicon: hakaras hatov: realizing that a good thing came into your life hoda'ah: acknowledging the one who / One Who provided that good Say Avi gives Berakhah a ball. Berakhah's hakaras hatov has an primary object, which is the ball -- the tov she received from Avi. Not taking life's gifts for granted. But her hoda'ah has a primary object -- which is Avi, and a secondary object, the ball. As in the grammar of "Modim anachnu Lakh al..."; the prespositional phrase giving you the secondary object is a list of all the things Hashem does for us. I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. Which, if you think about it, is what Chazal say about the early makos and how Moshe would not be the one to launch a makah that afflicts the water that saved him as a baby or the sand that hid the body. I'm not thrilled with the whole idea of exchanging favors, creating a market. It turns everything back on self-service -- every positive act is tainted by expectation of being repaid. : How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? Perhaps kibud av va'eim and kavod harav are their own concepts for a reason. And that hakaras hatov might explain the issur against hurting or cursing one's parents, but not kavod and yir'ah. I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 10:55:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:55:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". Tir'u baTov! -Micha Zechiyah uMattanah - Chapter Seven Translated by Eliyahu Touger Halacha 1 It is a universally accepted custom in most countries that when a man marries, his friends and acquaintances send him money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Then the friends and acquaintances who sent him this money come and eat and drink with the groom during all - or part - of the seven days of wedding celebration; everything should be done according to the accepted local custom. The money that he is sent is called shushvinut, and the people who send the money and then come and eat and drink with the groom are called shushvinin. Halacha 2 Shushvinut is not an outright gift. For it is plainly obvious that a person did not send a colleague 10 dinarim with the intent that he eat and drink a zuz's worth. He sent him the money solely because his intent was that when he would marry, he would send him money as he has sent him. Therefore, if the sender marries a woman, and the recipient does not return the shushvinut, the sender may lodge a legal claim against the recipient and expropriate the money from him. KVCT 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 12:01:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:01:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55DF5E92.9020405@sero.name> On 08/27/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". I believe the reference is to the law of shushvinin. But that is not a matter of hakaras hatov; it's an explicit quid pro quo arrangement. If you don't pay it back when it falls due, you're cheating the person of a quantifiable amount of money that you explicitly owe him, so he can sue you for it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 12:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <55DF64EA.6000201@sero.name> On 08/27/2015 01:55 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Mistranslation: This should be "...the expenses of the feast." -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 11:40:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 11:40:40 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus Message-ID: if there is a general assumption that one eats in another shomer shabbos' house without going thru their pantry, does the same hold in a shmitta year in israel where there are also multiple minhagim ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 14:08:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:08:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> On 08/28/2015 02:40 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > if there is a general assumption that one eats in another shomer > shabbos' house without going thru their pantry, does the same hold > in a shmitta year in israel where there are also multiple minhagim ? Lich'ora, since there is no consensus about shmita standards among shomrei shabbos, one who has a stricter practise can't assume that a randomly selected shomer shabbos is at least as strict as his. Therefore, without ascertaining this he can't eat those things which (according to his practise) are subject to shmita, but can eat those things which are not. Most importantly, though, he *can* eat from the other person's kelim, even if he *knows* that his shmita practices are more lenient than his own; for this purpose he can rely on "stam keilim einam benei yoman", even though normally one may only rely on this bediavad. This is the famous kula of "keilim divnei rhenus". -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 13:56:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:56:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov Message-ID: R' Micha Berger: <<< I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. >>> "Mah ashiv laShem, kol tagmulohi alai?" Akiva Miller On Aug 28, 2015 2:46 PM, "via Avodah" wrote: > Send Avodah mailing list submissions to > avodah at 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 at lists.aishdas.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." > > > A list of common acronyms is available at > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi > (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Child Conversion (Kaganoff via Avodah) > 2. Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) (Kaganoff via Avodah) > 3. smart lighting (Eli Turkel via Avodah) > 4. hakarat hatov (Rich, Joel via Avodah) > 5. Re: hakarat hatov (Micha Berger via Avodah) > 6. Re: hakarat hatov (Rich, Joel via Avodah) > 7. Re: hakarat hatov (Zev Sero via Avodah) > 8. Re: hakarat hatov (Zev Sero via Avodah) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:27:59 -0400 > From: Kaganoff via Avodah > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion > Message-ID: > oOARsdknGfHD5uwwUfKrmZGA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > The assumption is that it is better to be a non-religious Jew (thereby > violating numerous halakhos) than a moral non-Jew. > > (I am being over simplistic as being non-Jewish citizen in Israel is more > of a liability than elsewhere, so there may be a zechus to be a > non-religious ger katan.) > > The irony as many have noted is that those who are most lenient about child > conversion tend to be those who are also lenient in accepting that one > could lead a perfectly good life as a non-Jew. > > Those who think that it is better to be Jewish than non-Jewish by extension > should accept the conversion of a ger katan who will be raised by a > non-religious family. > > The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious > Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also > for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for > reasons of Nationalism. > > Yonatan > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150825/68f7e72c/attachment.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:50:52 -0400 > From: Kaganoff via Avodah > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) > Message-ID: > JWwz1eftmfgGuULn71A at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > To parachute into an ongoing discussion, I have found that people use > Mesorah in four different ways: > > 1) Personal Mesorah from a Rebbe to a Talmid. What a scholar or layman > learns from his teacher. > > 2) Mesorah as the unbroken chain of Torah going back to Sinai. Rambam zt"l > has the most famous mesorah chart, though I like Micha Berger's. (Parallels > can be in Hadith transmission traditiona, Sufi traditions or the Catholic > Church's assumption of an unbroken chain back to Peter). > > 3) Communal norms and traditions. This is how the term is commonly used in > the Chareidi communities and also how it is being used in the ongoing > discussion. This is the idea that there are legitimate practices, norms, > values or halakhic understandings. For example different methodologies of > learning. Or, as my brothers-in-law say to me, well if that is the mesorah > of your community, then it is legitimate, even if they don't relate to this > practice. (Personally, I do not relate to such a usage. Either an approach > is valid/true or not valid/true.) > > I discussed the last category in an essay that Gil was kind enough to post: > http://www.torahmusings.com/2011/07/two-types-of-orthodox-judaism/ > > There are probably other uses of the term *mesorah*, but I cannot think of > them at the moment. > > Best wishes, > Yonatan > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150825/4814ca39/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:43:29 +0300 > From: Eli Turkel via Avodah > To: Avodah > Subject: [Avodah] smart lighting > Message-ID: > < > CAGDtJ1GVgO0Ez55DoorrtQw_kfhbpGcPtQS8J8mV2rq-8rjYAA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > can one use smart lighting on shabbat > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_lighting > > -- > Eli Turkel > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150826/394e7ffd/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:00:05 +0000 > From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" > To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group (avodah at lists.aishdas.org)" > > Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: > <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de at VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party to > return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not > actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) > How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? > KVCT > 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. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150827/99422da9/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:37:32 -0400 > From: Micha Berger via Avodah > To: "Rich, Joel" , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <20150827173732.GA29088 at aishdas.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:00:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > : Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party > : to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not > : actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) > > My own lexicon: > hakaras hatov: realizing that a good thing came into your life > hoda'ah: acknowledging the one who / One Who provided that good > > Say Avi gives Berakhah a ball. > > Berakhah's hakaras hatov has an primary object, which is the ball -- > the tov she received from Avi. Not taking life's gifts for granted. > > But her hoda'ah has a primary object -- which is Avi, and a secondary > object, the ball. As in the grammar of "Modim anachnu Lakh al..."; > the prespositional phrase giving you the secondary object is a list > of all the things Hashem does for us. > > I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although > there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, > Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an > obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. > > Which, if you think about it, is what Chazal say about the early makos > and how Moshe would not be the one to launch a makah that afflicts the > water that saved him as a baby or the sand that hid the body. > > I'm not thrilled with the whole idea of exchanging favors, creating a > market. It turns everything back on self-service -- every positive > act is tainted by expectation of being repaid. > > > : How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? > > Perhaps kibud av va'eim and kavod harav are their own concepts for a > reason. And that hakaras hatov might explain the issur against hurting > or cursing one's parents, but not kavod and yir'ah. > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, > micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just > http://www.aishdas.org beginning. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:55:37 +0000 > From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" > To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group (avodah at lists.aishdas.org)" > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: > <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7 at VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > > Zechiyah uMattanah - Chapter Seven > Translated by Eliyahu Touger > > > Halacha 1 > > > It is a universally accepted custom in most countries that when a man > marries, his friends and acquaintances send him money to support the > expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Then the friends and > acquaintances who sent him this money come and eat and drink with the groom > during all - or part - of the seven days of wedding celebration; everything > should be done according to the accepted local custom. > > The money that he is sent is called shushvinut, and the people who send > the money and then come and eat and drink with the groom are called > shushvinin. > > > Halacha 2 > > > Shushvinut is not an outright gift. For it is plainly obvious that a > person did not send a colleague 10 dinarim with the intent that he eat and > drink a zuz's worth. He sent him the money solely because his intent was > that when he would marry, he would send him money as he has sent him. > > Therefore, if the sender marries a woman, and the recipient does not > return the shushvinut, the sender may lodge a legal claim against the > recipient and expropriate the money from him. > > KVCT > 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. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:01:38 -0400 > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > To: Micha Berger , The Avodah Torah Discussion > Group > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <55DF5E92.9020405 at sero.name> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > On 08/27/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > I believe the reference is to the law of shushvinin. But that is not > a matter of hakaras hatov; it's an explicit quid pro quo arrangement. > If you don't pay it back when it falls due, you're cheating the person > of a quantifiable amount of money that you explicitly owe him, so he > can sue you for it. > > -- > Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you > zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in > the street and commands me to surrender my purse, > I have a right to kill him without asking questions > -- John Adams > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:28:42 -0400 > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > To: "Rich, Joel" , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <55DF64EA.6000201 at sero.name> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > On 08/27/2015 01:55 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > > money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. > > Mistranslation: This should be "...the expenses of the feast." > > -- > Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you > zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in > the street and commands me to surrender my purse, > I have a right to kill him without asking questions > -- John Adams > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Avodah Digest, Vol 33, Issue 117 > *************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 30 20:32:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 23:32:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz - Lu'ach 5776 Message-ID: <20150831033207.C42DF1831DF@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 00:33:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 03:33:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz - Lu'ach 5776 Message-ID: <20150831073325.1618E182644@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 18:44:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 21:44:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: <20150901014419.GA6761@aishdas.org> Something I noticed... After the animal is shechted, a lung could be hollow, or full of liquid, and it's still kosher. But if there is a pinhole in both membranes around the lung, it's treif. Similarly the brain -- if the outside is solid, the inside could be rotten and the animal is still kosher. These are laws of tereifah that we refuse to change recardless of whether veterinary medicine disagrees about survivability. So I assume there is some point being made about chiyus in general in all this. However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is more important than penimius. Maybe something more like "fake it till you make it" -- as long as you keep the externals going, there is hope that the internals will fill in. But I'm fishing for better suggestions. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 19:18:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 22:18:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Factory Farming and Panicking the Animals Message-ID: <20150901021819.GA14109@aishdas.org> If the lung is tzemuqah (dried enough to be wrinkly like a raisin, but not dry enough to be called yeveishah)... There is a halakhah leMoshe miSinai that if it was due to fright caused by a person, the animel is tereifah if it's caused by HQBH (eg a lion attack), the animal is kosher. (AhS YD 36:70) If you do not know what the cause was, you check the lung -- man-made rei'ah tzemuqah won't rehydrate when soaked in water for 24 hours. But, this test is only used if the cause of the fright wasn't known (se'if 74); the cause of the stress is the iqar, not the dryness. Interesting is a comment at the end of se'if 70: Therefore it is correct that shoechtim be careful not to shecht one ba'al chai in front of another ba'al chai so that the lungs not get wrinkly and will require checking, ae will be explained. Also, there is tza'r ba'alei chaim in it ve'issur gamur hu and so wrote a number of gedolei ha'achronim. So I'm wondering, is our factory-style slaughter mutar? Can you say that this speed is a tachlis that makes the tza'ar needful, and thus mutar? Do people disagree with the AhS and his unnamed acharonim? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 20:52:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 05:52:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus In-Reply-To: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> References: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> Message-ID: <55E5210A.9050302@zahav.net.il> I would just add that like any other kashrut issue, a lot depends on why one has a particular practice. If one refuses to eat heter michira vegetables (that is the real issue) because he feels the HM is simply invalid, that is quite different than not using HM products because one wants to be machmir (assuming of course that not relying on the HM is a chumra). Ben On 8/28/2015 11:08 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > Lich'ora, since there is no consensus about shmita standards among > shomrei shabbos, one who has a stricter practise can't assume that > a randomly selected shomer shabbos is at least as strict as his. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 10:49:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 13:49:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another Tereifos Observation Message-ID: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> As I mentioned yesteday, any hole in the surface of the lung large enough to leak air would make the animal tereifah. What if the hole heals? AhS YD 36:7 (and elsewhere) says that a qerum (membrane) she'alah machmas makkah doesn't count. In se'if 14 he learns peshat in Rashi (Yavamos 76a "eino qerum") that there are two sevaros: 1- because this kind of closure isn't permanent 2- the closure is new. Akin to Chullin 68b "kivan shenitrefah, shuv ein lah heter) But in reality, the AhS says, "be'emes chad ta'amah hu" -- what makes the closure temporary is that it is made from the liquids of the makah. And therefore once the makah is healed, it has no cause. RYME notes that this is bedavqa when a new membrane is closing the hole. But if the side grow in until it closes, the lung is kosher. What about "kivan shenitrefah"? He writes "keshehaheter hayah mukhan be'eis hatarfus, lo chal alahh sheim tarfus ba'olam." Continuing what I wrote yesterday, that there must be much lehislameid from the halakhos of tereifos, given how we etched them in stone despite many of the rules losing their veterinary explanations.... We are told to have bitachon that before sending troubles, "Ein HQBH makeh es Yisrael ela im kein borei lahem refu'ah techilah" (Megillah 13b) This rule of tereifos, that the chalos sheim "tereifah" doesn't apply if the means by which the hole would close were pre-existing, seems to imply something further. In a sense, the makah itself isn't real because the refu'ah is already prepared. It is not that the bad times cause the good ones. Because they aren't permanent enough to be the root of permanent solutions. Rather, it is because it's all one process, the bad times being a bump in a road that from the moment you strarted traveling it leads to good. Or as Nachum ish Gam Zu said, "gam lu LEtovah" (emphasis mine), not "gam zu tovah". What redeems the bad times is that the route from them to tov is there before they even begin. ---- Language note: I noticed that rei'ah means "lungs", even though the term is in the singular and the translation is in the plural. There is no term of art for a single lung -- the main body of each lung is an omah and the lobes are onos or in Hebrew "aznayim". Tir'u baTov! -Micha Off-topic PS: I am seriously finding the beginning of YD turning me off to meat. -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 09:55:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 19:55:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Kosher Switch, Grama and Rav Osher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://podcast.headlinesbook.com/e/8-15-15-headlines/ where Rav Osher Weiss explains in detail his approach to grama, and electricity on Shabbos in general. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 11:17:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 14:17:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another Tereifos Observation In-Reply-To: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> References: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55E5EBB7.7060400@sero.name> On 09/01/2015 01:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Language note: I noticed that rei'ah means "lungs", even though the term > is in the singular and the translation is in the plural. There is no > term of art for a single lung -- the main body of each lung is an omah > and the lobes are onos or in Hebrew "aznayim". Yes, Chazal conceived of the lungs as a single organ. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 18:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 21:45:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > Similarly the brain -- if the outside is solid, the inside > could be rotten and the animal is still kosher. > ... > However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that > chitzonius is more important than penimius. > > Maybe something more like "fake it till you make it" -- as > long as you keep the externals going, there is hope that > the internals will fill in. > > But I'm fishing for better suggestions. I will offer another data point which also seems to suugest that chitzonius is more important than penimius. Mechaber 78:1 and Mishne Brurah 78:2,3 are obviously talking about a person who unfortunately suffers from incontinence. If he urinates while davening, he must pause, but can continue when the flow stops. This applies even if his legs and undergarments are totally wet, but NOT if the urine is on his outer garments. It seems that the cleanliness of one's outer garments is more important than the cleanliness of his undergarments, or even of his body itself. Similarly, if one needs to defecate, but he can hold himself for 4 mil, he will be yotzay davening b'dieved -- Mechaber 92:1. But that leniency is because it is mere pnimius; Mechaber 76:4,5 seems to be stricter once the tzoah has gone external. (Note: I think that it would not be difficult to show that chitzonius *is* important. The problem as I see it is that we've found some cases where it is *more* important than pnimius.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 00:17:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 10:17:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] bavli variants Message-ID: We are pleased to announce the launch of a new version (1.2) of the ' *Hachi **Garsinan*' Site for Variant-Readings of the Talmud Bavli. The site is freely accessible to all through the Friedberg portal: http://jewishmanuscripts.org . Version 1.1 of the website shows all hand-written text witnesses of the Talmud Bavli from the Cairo Genizah, with digital images (more than 4,600) and their transcriptions, in the framework of a software that allows the display of all text-witnesses of a specific Talmudic text in parallel columns in small units. Identical excerpts in a specific text-witness and in the Vilna can be marked, in order to spare the user the effort of comparing the texts. There are also additional helpful functions such as Save and Print, as specified in the website Homepage. *In the new version (1.2) - text witnesses from the following early printings have been added:* - *Guadalajara**(1480?), Spain / Portugal (Toledo? 1480-1490), Portugal (Faro? before 1498), Faro (1497?), Fez (1516-1521)* - *Soncino (1484-1489), Italy (1489-1498), Barco (1498-1499), Pesaro (1509-1516), Constantinople (1505-1509)* - *Venice** (1520-1523) * *(for details on tractates included in early printings - see Homepage). * *Furthermore, a function has been added to enable the user search for **terms or expressions in the Vilna** edition and each of the text witnesses that take part in the current version (Genizah and early printings) as well as a function to display the lexicon (**list of different words and their frequency**) of Vilna and of each of the other text-witnesses. Finally, the new version allows each user to alter the way that the text units are displayed on the variant-readings screen, using special editing tools designed for this purpose.* -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 05:05:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 08:05:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In my previous post, I cited some halachos which seem to demonstrate - surprisingly - that externals are *more* important than internals. Perhaps the source pasuk for those halachos might help us out. Devarim 23:15: "... v'hayah machanecha kadosh, v'lo yir'eh v'cha ervas davar..." "... your *camp* will be holy, and nothing unseemly will be seen in *you*..." We learn much from each of these phrases, but does anyone compare the relative importance of the reisha to that of the seifa? Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 08:31:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 11:31:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150902153128.GB27954@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 09:45:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Mechaber 78:1 and Mishne Brurah 78:2,3 are obviously talking about a person : who unfortunately suffers from incontinence... : Similarly, if one needs to defecate, but he can hold himself for 4 mil, he : will be yotzay davening b'dieved -- Mechaber 92:1. But that leniency is : because it is mere pnimius; Mechaber 76:4,5 seems to be stricter once the : tzoah has gone external. I am not sure these are examples. It may have to do with when tzo'ah smells, or when it starts being "tzo'ah" rather than part of the person. : (Note: I think that it would not be difficult to show that chitzonius *is* : important. The problem as I see it is that we've found some cases where it : is *more* important than pnimius.) Thinking about it more, I have more confidence in my earlier guess, that chitzonius is a better indicator of future penimius than current penimius is. Someone who is a passionate eved H', but for some reason isn't acting on it will likely lose that passion, and someone who develops the right habits in attempt to develop the feelings, mitokh shelo lishimah, ba lishmah. So it's not that it's more important; it's still of derived value. And yet, this reasoning explains Yahadus's focus on halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 18:30:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 21:30:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In Avodah V33n118, R'Micha wrote: > However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is more important than penimius. < Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what can be seen? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 06:30:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:30:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We recently had a thread which discusses the meaning of the word "mesorah". Coincidentally or not, I'd like to ask about the meaning of the verb "moser" as it occurs in the context of the Prozbul. I'd like to begin by giving two different *colloquial* uses of "moser": It can refer to the act of literally handing a fellow Jew to the authorities, but it can also refer to merely informing the authorities about a fellow Jew. My question about Prozbul is this: When the Prozbul says that the lender is "moser" the loans to Beis Din, does he actually hand them over, or does he merely inform? For decades, I had thought that the lender actually gives the loans to the Beis Din, in a manner similar to how anyone can use a commercial collection agency: Usually, if someone owes me money, I can sell that debt to a collection agency, but in the context of Shmitta, I give it as a gift to the beis din. Then, the beis din authorizes me to collect the debt on their behalf, and will allow me to retain 100% of it as my service fee. With the above, I have accomplished three important things: (1) When Rosh Hashana arrives, no one owes me anything, so I have no possibility of violating any halachos of Shmitas Kesafim. (2) When I collect from the borrower, I'm merely acting as an agent of beis din, to whom Lo Yigos does not apply, so I'm not violating anything. (3) Although the lender did not repay anything to me directly, my finances did not suffer, and future Shmitos will not influence to me avoid lending. BUT - From what I've learned, when a Prozbul is done, no kinyan ever occurs between the lender and the Beis Din, not even a kinyan sudar of the sort that I do when authorizing the rav to sell my chometz. Without a kinyan, I can't see how the loan ever leaves the ownership of the lender. So it is clear to me that Prozbul does NOT follow the "collection agency" model. Is there some other model that it does follow? The Mechaber Choshen Mishpat 67:8 talks about a situation that I will presume occurs before Erev Rosh Hashana: "If one claims money, and the other denies it, and the first sues in beis din and wins, and the psak din is that the second one must pay - this is a gibui, and shmita does not cancel it." If I'm understanding this correctly, then when a court verdict declares the A must pay B, this is not the sort of debt that shmita cancels, because the requirement to pay does not come from any interaction between the two men, but directly from the beis din's power. In other words, the lender can ask the borrower for money, but he is not asking for the loan to be repaid; rather, he is enforcing the court's ruling. This is a new obligation upon the borrower, which was created by the court, and is therefore exempt from Shmitas Kesafim. Perhaps this is how Prozbul works: Without any evidence or documentation, or even an itemized list, a person approaches the beis din and tells them that there are debts which are owed to him. The beis din responds with a court order that those debts must be paid. He can now collect them, because it is the *Beis Din* that wants them to be paid (irrespective of the fact that the lender wants them paid). This explanation solves the problem of Lo Yigos: The lender is not pressing the borrower for repayment of a personal loan; he is pressing the borrower to pay the court judgment. But the personal loan does still exist, doesn't it? The lender would still have an obligation to be personally m'shamet the loan at some point, but I think most people think that the Prozbul relieves them of that obligation. I'm stumped. When the lender is "moser" the loan to Beis Din, exactly what is happening? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 11:26:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 18:26:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0b20dda77d534fbdbec18095eaf0ce72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> We recently had a thread which discusses the meaning of the word "mesorah". Coincidentally or not, I'd like to ask about the meaning of the verb "moser" as it occurs in the context of the Prozbul. Akiva Miller ================================= Listen hear for discussion on point http://www.torahbase.org/prozbul-concept-halachos-5775/?lang=en Rav Asher Weiss-Prozbul ? Concept and Halachos 5775 Kvct 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 13:07:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:07:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch Message-ID: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> S"A O"C 55:11 as recorded in the 1st volume of the mishna brurah (it's not in my regular S"A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of the S"A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn't apply "now" because dina dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? KVCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 14:41:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2015 23:41:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What am I missing? Message-ID: <55EB6184.5050706@zahav.net.il> Re prozbul, I seem to be missing something. Personally I haven't loaned out any huge sums such that if I don't get them back, I would be reticent about loaning in the future. If I did loan out something small, why should I sign the prozbul? If the borrower doesn't pay me, well he doesn't have to (right?). If the borrower does pay me, he gets a bracha and everyone is a winner. What am I missing? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 21:10:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 00:10:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <55EBBC9C.9070304@sero.name> On 09/04/2015 04:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > S?A O?C 55:11 as recorded in the 1^st volume of the mishna brurah (it?s not in my regular S?A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of the S?A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn?t apply ?now? because dina dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? The note appears in the first edition, so presumably it was put there by the original publisher, in order to get it past the censor. Or perhaps it was inserted at the censor's insistence. In any case it houldn't need saying that it was not intended to be taken seriously by the intended audience. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49623&pgnum=170 (BTW, the censor's approval is dated 23-Dec-1882, the Hebrew date on the front page is 5683, but the secular date on the front page is 1884. Presumably that's how long publishing took.) -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 21:04:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 00:04:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Factory Farming and Panicking the Animals Message-ID: From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> If the lung is tzemuqah (dried enough to be wrinkly like a raisin, but not dry enough to be called yeveishah)... There is a halakhah leMoshe miSinai that if it was due to fright caused by a person, the animel is tereifah if it's caused by HQBH (eg a lion attack), the animal is kosher. (AhS YD 36:70) ....Interesting is a comment at the end of se'if 70: Therefore it is correct that shoechtim be careful not to shecht one ba'al chai in front of another ba'al chai so that the lungs not get wrinkly and will require checking, ae will be explained. << Micha Berger >>>> I remember reading that Temple Grandin had designed a spiral ramp with high walls for cattle to walk along before reaching the slaughtering spot. The design was such that the animal could not see out the sides or very far ahead as it walked, and would thus not witness other animals being slaughtered. This was meant to keep the animal calm and not frightened. I did not find the article with a quick google search but I am sure it's available somewhere. Temple Grandin is a famous expert in humane methods of animal slaughter. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 01:19:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 11:19:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? Message-ID: Most of selichos is us beseeching Hashem (poetically) for forgiveness and declaring that we are unworthy and sinners. However, the main part of selichos is the recitation of the 13 middos. However, the recitation of the 13 kiddos seems like almost magic, something we say because Hashem told us to as we say in the preceding paragraph "Hashem you commanded us to say the 13 [middos] ... as you told Moshe [the anav] ...". What is our kavannah supposed to be when we say the 13 middos? What should we be thinking? Why is saying the 13 middos so important? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 16:25:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 19:25:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150906232531.GA15175@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 11:19:51AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Most of selichos is us beseeching Hashem (poetically) for forgiveness and : declaring that we are unworthy and sinners. However, the main part of : selichos is the recitation of the 13 middos. However, the recitation of the : 13 kiddos seems like almost magic, something we say because Hashem told us : to as we say in the preceding paragraph "Hashem you commanded us to say the : 13 [middos] ... as you told Moshe [the anav] ...". What is our kavannah : supposed to be when we say the 13 middos? What should we be thinking? Why : is saying the 13 middos so important? Actually, the wording in the gemara is Whenever Israel sins *ya'asu* lefana keseder hazaeh, and I will pardon them. The point isn't to say the 13 Middos, they're just a reminder that we're supposed to do them. If we remember the essential, to be merciful people in His Image, HQBH is ready to pardon everything else. (I am defining "mocheil" as pardon as in being mochel a debt, in contrast to full forgiveness. That's a choice among how acharonim take selichah, mechilah and kapparah, so your mileage may vary.) I passionately recommend printing up and keeping it with your selichos and YK Machzor. It's a summary of the 13 Middos as per Tomer Devorah mapped to the version of the Thirteen Middos in Shemos that we say in Selichos. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 16:58:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 19:58:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 08:07:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : S"A O"C 55:11 as recorded in the 1st volume of the mishna brurah (it's : not in my regular S"A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of : the S"A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting : for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn't apply "now" because dina : dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. However, the MBs Poland wasn't it. Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 07:31:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 10:31:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: Let's go back to one of the sources: Yoma 72b - "Any talmid chacham whose tocho (inside) is not like his baro (outside) is not a talmid chacham." Is this speaking only of one who appears fine externally, but is deficient internally? Or does it also apply to one who is fine internally, but doesn't look it to an outside observer? If it applies to both, does anyone compare the two? I have always presumed that the one who is not-so-good on the inside is a bigger problem than the one who is okay on the inside. But if I understood them correctly, RMB and RMP brought independent reasons why one should focus on the externals. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 01:32:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 11:32:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What am I missing? Message-ID: R' Ben Waxman asked: > Re prozbul, I seem to be missing something. Personally I haven't loaned > out any huge sums such that if I don't get them back, I would be > reticent about loaning in the future. If I did loan out something small, > why should I sign the prozbul? If you have money in the bank in Israel then you have lent the bank money and therefore Shemitta will cancel your loan and the bank could keep your money. Now, the fact is that all the banks in Israel have a hater iska so that they can pay interest, but even with a heter iska half the amount is an iska but half is a loan, so the half that is a loan would be cancelled by shemita. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 17:56:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 20:56:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> I passionately recommend printing up . It explains the 13 Middos as found in Shemos and therefore Selichos in terms of the version in Michah and the Tomer Devorah thereon. Rather than repeating the same words / names over and over throughout selichos and much of Yom Kippur, it can become an opportunity to commit and recommit to emulating them. As the gemara (RH 17b) says Whenver Israel sin, they shall perform before Me like this structure (ya'asu lefanai keseider zeh), and I will forgive them. Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:27:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:27:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 08:56 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > As the gemara (RH 17b) says > Whenver Israel sin, they shall perform before Me like this structure > (ya'asu lefanai keseider zeh), and I will forgive them. > > Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:18:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:18:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55ECF3DF.8090003@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 04:19 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > However, the recitation of the 13 middos seems like almost magic, > something we say because Hashem told us to as we say in the preceding > paragraph Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we say them and invoke that promise. Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a magical power that the holy ketores has. The Malach Hamaves told Moshe Rabbenu about this trick, and when the occasion arose Moshe told Aharon to use it. "There are more things in heaven and earth..." -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:22:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:22:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was > written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? No. > Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law > and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't > practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. > > However, the MBs Poland wasn't it Yes, it absolutely was. > Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 12:08:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 15:08:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dr. Leo Deutschlander - Father of the Bais Yaakov Movement Message-ID: <20150907190830.A1951181640@nexus.stevens.edu> The name of Sarah Schneirer is invariably associated with the Bais Yaakov Movement. However, she was not the only one who was responsible for the success of the movement before WW II. Sarah Schneirer was an idealist who decided that religious schools for girls were needed in Poland and who set out to found such schools. However, WADR to Sarah Schneirer, she had a very limited academic background and her Jewish education was quite basic. (This was the case for most girls who lived when she did.) Thus others were needed to assist her in the development of the Bais Yaakov Movement. One such person was Dr. Leo Deutschlander. Up until today I knew very little about him. I did know that there had been an article in the Jewish Observer about his life, but I did not have access to it. Today a friend mine, who has a complete collection of all issues of the JO, brought me a copy of the article about Dr. Deutschlander. I have put it at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/deutschlander.pdf Note that other people who helped Sarah Schneirer with the development of the Bais Yaakov movement are mentioned and almost all of them have a Frankfurt background which means they attended the school that RSRH started in Frankfurt that educated both boys and girls. Thus in a certain sense RSRH is to be considered the grandfather of the Bais Yaakov Movement. Judith nee Rosenbaum Grunfeld played a key role in the development for the Bais Yaakov movement. See her article about Sarah Schneirer at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/sara_schenierer.pdf Anyone really interested in the history of the Bais Yaakov movement should read Rabbi Abraham Atkin's PhD thesis which is titled The Beth Jacob Movement in Poland 1917-1939. I have put this document at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/beth_jacob_movement_poland.pdf Note that the article about Dr. Deutschlander says that he never had children. To the best of my knowledge, he never married, yet he taught Bais Yaakov girls of seminary age and perhaps even younger, something that would be considered scandalous today! Given that Dr. Deutschlander never married, I find him being characterized by Chaim Shapiro as the "Father of the Bais Yaakov Movement" somewhat amusing. >:-} YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 11:41:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 14:41:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar Message-ID: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> Please click here to download a back issue of Halachically Speaking on eating before Shofar. ---------- From the article Custom of Some Gedolim The Steipler zt"l used to recite the zohar and other tefillos during the break. In his later years he recited portions of tehillim.[1] He did not make kiddush before tekios.[2] Harav Moshe Feinstein zt"l did not eat before tekios.[3] Harav Elyashiv zt"l [4] and Harav Yisroel Belsky Shlita do not eat or drink before tekios. [1] Orchos Rabbeinu 2:page 182:4. Refer to Darchei Chaim V'sholom 716:page 251. [2] Orchos Rabbeinu 2:page 181:1. Refer to Chelek Levi 189. [3] As related by Harav Aron Felder Shlita. [4] As quoted in Chag B'chag page 113:footnote 79. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 14:13:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 17:13:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar In-Reply-To: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <55EDFE13.7010505@sero.name> I have to admit that this is one of the Lubavitcher customs that puzzle me. All year, not just on Shabbos but also on weekdays, the official Lubavitch minhag is to allow eating before davening (after saying sh'ma, on weekdays in tefillin), on the grounds that it's difficult to daven properly without it. In the Tzemach Tzedek's words, "it's better to eat in order to daven, than to daven in order to eat". If you find that you're davening in order to get to breakfast, you'd do better to get breakfast over with and then daven with kavanah. And yet on Rosh Hashana, when one often doesn't get to kiddush until 2 or 3 in the afternoon, and when one needs kavanah in davening more than ever, Lubavitchers fast until kiddush! I don't understand it. If you can make it on Rosh Hashana, why not on any other day? And if you can't daven on an empty stomach on a weekday without thinking about breakfast, then how can you daven on an even emptier stomach on Rosh Hashana without thinking about lunch? -- Zev Sero KVChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 16:32:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:32:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:18:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. : Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we : say them and invoke that promise. : Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores : to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a : magical power that the holy ketores has.. Where is this made explicit? On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:27:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. : That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". Who said that remembering something in tefillah, unlike lekhishah, talks about the words themselves without internalization? What's the verb for tefillah, anyway? In any case, the idea that it's about saying the words until we're committed to emulating them isn't mine, it's R' Elimelekh miLetzhinsk's, the Chafeitz Chaim's and R YL Chasmin's. The latter two relate this gemara to "mah Hu 'Rachum' af atah..." Hashem is not only just, He's not a Vatran. The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 16:43:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:43:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:22:37PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was :> written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? : No. Source? :> Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law :> and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't :> practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. :> However, the MBs Poland wasn't it : Yes, it absolutely was. Again, source? Actual excommunications were commonplace. Comes up in teshuvos on agunah. :> Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. : Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could : be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the : MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. In the CC's hayday, Radun was in the Vilna Voivodship, Poland. And I didn't ask about censortship, I asked about autonomy, as in having courts empowered to punish, and the Jewish community certainly did. At least, azoi shteyt YIVO The Polish government never recognized Jewish communal autonomy de jure, but autonomy existed de facto in hundreds of local communities, school systems, and youth movements during the interwar period. Because regardless of whether this appeal to dina demalkhusa was real or to satisfy a censor, the mileau that created this footnote had to have such a law. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 17:42:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 20:42:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EE2EF6.2060509@sero.name> On 09/07/2015 07:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:18:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. > : Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we > : say them and invoke that promise. > > : Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores > : to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a > : magical power that the holy ketores has.. > > Where is this made explicit? It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell? Also, the gemara deduces that this is where Moshe must have got it, because how else could he possibly have known about it? Now if it was about the kavanos or the zechus of the mitzvah stopping plagues, then why couldn't Moshe Rabbenu have worked it out from first principles? This shows that it isn't anything that could be worked out, there's no reason why it should be so, it just is. In other words, magic. > > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:27:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. > > : That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". > > Who said that remembering something in tefillah, unlike lekhishah, talks > about the words themselves without internalization? What's the verb for > tefillah, anyway? "Lehazkir" doesn't mean to remember, it means to mention, to pronounce words. For that matter, the word "yaasu" that you're basing yourself on refers not to the midos themselves but to the "seder tefillah", i.e. the ritual of naming the midos. > Hashem is not only just, He's not a Vatran. The notion of magic words > that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah > would be very problematic. But that is what the gemara seems to say. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 18:06:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 21:06:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EE34A8.7060303@sero.name> On 09/07/2015 07:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:22:37PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was > :> written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? > > : No. > > Source? There is no source that it was banned then. Why would you even imagine that it would be? There is no such note in any edition of the Shulchan Aruch. In any case, the concept of banning cherem doesn't seem to have come up until the late 18th century. http://t95.el.sl.pt > :> Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law > :> and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't > :> practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. > > :> However, the MBs Poland wasn't it > > : Yes, it absolutely was. > > Again, source? Actual excommunications were commonplace. Comes up > in teshuvos on agunah. Catherine the Great banned cherem in 1795. Of course they ignored the law and did it anyway, but to get a sefer past the publisher they had to pretend to be obeying the law, so if the sefer mentioned cherem they had to note that this was written before it became illegal. > :> Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. > > : Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could > : be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the > : MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. > > In the CC's hayday, Radun was in the Vilna Voivodship, Poland. What Poland? There was no such place as Poland. It was Russia, and there was no autonomy. > And I didn't ask about censortship, I asked about autonomy, as in having > courts empowered to punish, and the Jewish community certainly did. > At least, azoi shteyt YIVO > > The Polish government never recognized Jewish communal autonomy de > jure, but autonomy existed de facto in hundreds of local communities, > school systems, and youth movements during the interwar period. Read what you just wrote: "The Polish government". What period could this paragraph possibly be talking about? The period when there was a Poland and a Polish government. IOW not the time we are discussing. And indeed if you look at the page again, you will see that it is explicitly discussing the interwar period, after Polish independence. > Because regardless of whether this appeal to dina demalkhusa was real > or to satisfy a censor, the mileau that created this footnote had to > have such a law. Yes, it did. Catherine's law that I mentioned above. And it also had a strict censorship law, which this sefer was subject to. If you need any further convincing, note the language of the censor's stamp. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 20:16:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 23:16:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Joel Rich wrote: > Listen hear for discussion on point > http://www.torahbase.org/prozbul-concept-halachos-5775/?lang=en > Rav Asher Weiss - Prozbul - Concept and Halachos 5775 Thank you very much for showing me this. I listened to it a few times, and it seems that he gives his conclusions right at the beginning: (00:42 to 01:05) "The takana of Pruzbul is that there is no need to physically give over your notes to Beis Din and there is no need Beis Din should be the ones to collect your money. Hillel was metaken: it is enough if you declare, either orally or in writing, Mosrani lachem..." (02:00-02:24) "The takana of Hillel was: It is enough if you write 'Mosrani lachem ploni v'ploni'. It is considered AS IF you transferred your notes to Beis Din, and when you collect the money, you would be considered AS IF you would be shliach of Beis Din even though it's not really the real thing in practicality. But that was the takana of Pruzbul." But how does it work? He clearly says (at 8:40 to 9:23) that the functions of a Beis Din do not include acting as a collection agency. There ARE (9:49 to 10:30) are very limited circumstances where Beis Din does have that function, such as collecting for yesomim, because that *is* one of the roles of the Beis Din, as "avi yesomim". One the other hand, (10:30 to 10:52) yesomim do not need to make a pruzbul at all, because Beis Din is *automatically* the Avi Yesomim, and their loans will not be cancelled by shmitta. So he suggests (12:19 to 12:40) that although it is not Beis Din's practice to accept the responsibility of collecting loans except for unusual cases, perhaps the difficulties posed by Shmitta put other loans in this category, and so if someone would be moser his loans to Beis Din, then Shmitta will not cancel them. But exactly why are such loans exempt? He explains (14:20 to 14:40), "You have to be m'shamet loans, but the moment you gave your notes, your loans over to Beis Din, it is k'gavui dami - it is as if those monies were already collected." He then compares this situation to the case where the lender has collateral for the loan, and that too is "already collected" and exempt from Shmitas Kesafim. It seems to me that this is how Rav Weiss understands the Pruzbul: The loan was and remains property of the lender, but Beis Din accepts the responsibility to go to the borrower to demand payment. From that point, it is considered as "already collected". Since it is already collected, not only is he allowed to request the money after Rosh Hashana, but there's no need to even state "M'shamet Ani". There is no need for any kinyan, because the loan remains property of the lender, and the role of Beis Din is simply to accept responsibility for collecting the loan; this occurs automatically at the inception of the loan where the lender is an orphan, and it also occurs automatically at the execution of a Pruzbul per Ezra's takana. ON THE OTHER HAND, over Shabbos a friend lent me his copy of Sefer Dinei Shviis Hashalem, published by Keren Hatarbut Degel Yerushalayim, which contains a photo of a pruzbul on the stationery of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and (apparently) in his handwriting, dated 29 Elul 5754. It contains a very interesting clause. Other pruzbuls avoid details, and simply say something like "I am moser my loans to beis din", but this one adds some very significant points. Here is the full pruzbul, as best as I can render it: "[B'mosav tlasa bei dina k'chada havinu] We were three dayanim sitting together, [uva l'faneinu...] and R' Aharon Dovid Goldberg came [v'amar lanu] and said to us: [Hen shana zu hee shnas hashviis] This year is the seventh year, [v'yesh li chovos b'shtar uv'al peh] and I have loans - both in writing and orally - [al ayzeh anashim] against certain people. [V'hareni moser lachem pruzbul] I am now moser a pruzbul to you, [viyhavis l'chon b'matana] and give it to you as a gift [b'kinyan dalet' amos karka] with a kinyan of four amos of land, [me'arah d'ees li] from the ground that is mine. [V'al gabayhon] And through that, [arshees yas'chon] I give you permission [limigbah kol chovos] to collect all my loans, [d'ees lee al inshee] which I have against people. [Mayatah t'havoon li daiyna] Henceforth you will be my dayanim, [v'sagbuhu uskabluhu li] and you will collect and accept payment for me. [V'im lo tagbuhu atem] And if you do not collect it yourselves, [mayata kayvan shemasarti lachem pruzbul zeh] then since I was moser this pruzbul to you, [ani goveh kol chov] so I can collect any loan [sheyesh li ad hayom etzel kol adam] which I have up to today against anyone, [kol zman she'ertzeh] any time I want. [next paragraph] - "[Anachnu beis din] We the court [shamanu dvarav] heard his words, [veefinu kocho] and affirm its validity, [shelo t'shamet lay] that he will not have a cancellation, [v'yigbeh kol chovosav] and he can collect all his loans, [al ydei pruzbul zeh] via this pruzbul, [k'takanas Hillel v'Chazal] in accordance with the takana of Hillel and Chazal. [next paragraph] - "[Banu al hechasum] We have signed below [yom kaf"tes l'chodesh Elul, shnas heh-tav-shin-nun"dalet] this day, 29th of Elul 5754 [poh Ir Hakodesh Yerushalayim] here, the holy city of Yerushalayim. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach [I cannot read the other two signatures]" (end of pruzbul) I don't understand the purpose of the four amos of land. (Yes, I'm quite aware of the requirement in halacha, I just don't understand why that requirement was included. That's a topic for another thread.) And I quite likely made some errors in the transliteration and the translation. But I think that I understood it well enough to state with confidence that it seems that RSZA does indeed subscribe to the "collection agency" model, which Rav Asher Weiss had so clearly rejected. RSZA explicitly uses the word "kinyan". One could argue that the "matanah" which the lender is giving to the beis din is merely the pruzbul and not the loans. One could also point out that after the kinyan has occurred, the lender continues to refer to the loans (which beis din would collect) as "MY loans", suggesting that they are still owned by the lender and not the beis din. But if that is so, then what does it mean to make a kinyan on the *pruzbul*? This pruzbul is merely a record of the court proceedings, and it seems very likely to me that the intent is for the court to acquire the loans themselves, in very much the same way that a modern collection agency works. If anyone disagrees, and feels that RSZA does *not* subscribe to the "collection agency" model, please explain how you think this pruzbul works. And if anyone does agree with me, then I wonder if any other poskim hold that way, because every explanation of pruzbul that I've seen describes the document itself, and no one ever mentions any requirement of kinyan. Thank you Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 02:10:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 05:10:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar Message-ID: And if you can't daven on an empty stomach on a weekday without thinking about breakfast, then how can you daven on an even emptier stomach on Rosh Hashana without thinking about lunch? Kal v?chomer, how can you daven on T?B and Y?K when you wake up without having even drinking or eating and then must go another good 12 hours on an empty stomach? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 03:51:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:51:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote; > "It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that > ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to > have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there > the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so > obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. > How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell?" Rashi in Chumash quoting the Mechilta offers a second explanation of why the ketores was used to end the plague. Bnei Yisrael were complaining about the ketores that it was a sam hamaves, that it killed people. The ketores killed Nadav and Avihu, it killed the 250 people, therefore Hashem said watch that it can stop the plague and that sin is what really kills people. We see clearly from this explanation that there was nothing magical about using the ketores, rather Hashem wanted to make a point to the Jewish people about the ketores. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 07:35:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:35:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very problematic. (Or perhaps "confusing" would be a better description, as it moves the focus away from a "problematic halacha", chalila, and towards my obligation to understand it.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 08:14:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 11:14:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:35:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a : measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very : problematic... And I don't believe there is such a thing, so I have no problem. I suggested twice now 2007 http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol23/v23n174.shtml#12 and 2010 http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n130.shtml that itzumo shel yom mechaperes only someone who acknowledges and embraces the etzem shel yom. >From 2007: > My understanding is that itzumo shel yom is mechapeir, but without inuyim, > one isn't connected to that etzem. IOW, someone who eats on YK doesn't > get kapparah, but someone who observes YK gets kapparah from YK itself, > not the zekhus of observance. > And it's clear from R' Elazar ben Azaryah on Yuma 86a that YK is never > effective in and of itself. > - For an asei, teshuvah is effective > - For a regular lav, teshuvah must first achieve selichah (removal of > onesh) before YK can effect kaparah > - For a chayav kareis, one needs teshuvah and YK for selichah, and onesh > brings kaparah > - For chillul Hashem, only misah brings kaparah. > The philosophical problems are > (1) The justice in YK being mechapeir > (2) Given a ba'asher hu sham approach, why would onesh or misah in and > of itself help? > I couldn't make heads or tails of it without stretching the notion, > and saying that YK is mechapeir to the extent that one allows oneself to > experience the soul-changing nature of YK, and thus change the ba'asher > hu sham. Similarly oneshim or misah. I know all this could be seen as dachuq BUT, Divine Justice is the 11th iqar. I would prefer to take a number of chazal's statements as colloquial shorthand for more nuanced ideas than to dismiss what we have blessed as a defining feature of Yahadus. Or IOW, given that Ani Maamin and Yigdal made it into the siddur, I feel the burden rests on those who take itzumo shel yom in its simple sense. (And yes, "problematic" should be tken as "a problem for us to understand.") Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 10:08:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:08:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 midos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55EF15F0.8060200@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 06:50 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote; >> "It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that >> ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to >> have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there >> the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so >> obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. >> How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell?" > Rashi in Chumash quoting the Mechilta offers a second explanation of > why the ketores was used to end the plague. Bnei Yisrael were > complaining about the ketores that it was a sam hamaves, that it > killed people. The ketores killed Nadav and Avihu, it killed the 250 > people, therefore Hashem said watch that it can stop the plague and > that sin is what really kills people. > > We see clearly from this explanation that there was nothing magical > about using the ketores, rather Hashem wanted to make a point to the > Jewish people about the ketores. Yes, this is an alternative explanation, offered because the primary explanation leaves some question unanswered. But it is the second explanation rather than the first, because the problem with it is obvious: Hashem didn't tell Moshe to do this. Moshe told Aharon on his own initiative, which is why the gemara wonders how he knew that it would work. This is also why the Malach Hamaves challenged Aharon's right to stop him; if the instruction had come from Hashem he would have had no reason to object to being stopped. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 12:04:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:04:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55EF3124.3060704@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 05:10 AM, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: > Kal v?chomer, how can you daven on T?B and Y?K when you wake up > without having even drinking or eating and then must go another good > 12 hours on an empty stomach? Absolutely. But you don't have a choice. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 12:07:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:07:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> References: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EF31E7.5090303@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 11:14 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:35:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > : True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a > : measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very > : problematic... > > And I don't believe there is such a thing, so I have no problem. > > I suggested twice now 2007 > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol23/v23n174.shtml#12 and 2010 > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n130.shtml that > itzumo shel yom mechaperes only someone who acknowledges and embraces > the etzem shel yom. Rebbi is the one who says Itzumo shel yom mechaper, and he explicitly says that one who eats on YK is automatically forgiven the moment he swallows the food, so that the only way to get kares for eating on YK is to choke on the food and die before swallowing it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 10:18:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:18:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] thermostats Message-ID: as thermostats for the house get more sophisticated do they present a shabbat problem? http://www.cnet.com/products/nest-learning-thermostat-third-generation/?ftag=CAD1acfa04 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 10:37:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:37:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 12:11:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 15:11:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> References: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F08476.8010605@sero.name> On 09/09/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay > (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan. Whether it's allowed is a different question from how it works. Moser Shtorosav leveis din worked even when shmitah was d'oraisa. Tosfos says that Hillel didn't invent it, he merely legitimised it. Before his day it was known, but it was considered unethical, and no reputable beis din would go along with it. To do it required finding a fly-by- night beis din willing to entertain it, so upstanding lenders didn't take advantage, and instead were reluctant to lend. Then Hillel decreed his "solution for rich and poor", which was to instruct botei din to accept and even encourage such applications, so that people would be willing to lend. And he only felt comfortable doing so because shmita was d'rabonon. -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 15:32:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 18:32:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 09:30:46PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V33n118, R'Micha wrote: :> However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is :> more important than penimius. : Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what can : be seen? How is the surface of a lung or brain more visible than the innards? The only difference is how much cutting is required. In general, halakhah only deals with what can be seen in principle, not what happens to be visible in this instance. You can't eat unchecked lettuce any more readily because the light bulb blew in the room you're in. And in principle, these things can be checked. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 17:23:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:23:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> Re: Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom - Rabbi Natan Slifkin From: Ben Rothke via Areivim <_areivim at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:areivim at lists.aishdas.org) > >> "The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom" is the latest book by Rabbi Natan Slifkin. I found it to be a fascinating work. My review is here: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/book-review-the-torah-encyclopedia-of-the-ani mal-kingdom Let me know what you think. << --Ben Rothke >>>>> I think the book is magnificent. I've seen the first volume and read a good chunk of it (the projected second volume is not out yet). It is a fascinating work based on tremendous research, and also aesthetically beautiful. The first volume is about wild animals mentioned in the Torah. The projected second volume I believe is about domestic and kosher animals. The book definitively answers, at least to my satisfaction, a question I've wondered about for a long time: What is a re'em? According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). In Moshe's brachos to the shevatim he says Yoseph has "the horns of a re'em" (Dev. 33:17). Bil'am says when Hashem took the Jews out of Egypt He had "like the strength of a re'em" (Bamidbar 23:22). R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs, a huge and powerful horned animal, a wild ox, nearly the size of an elephant, that lived in Europe, Asia and North Africa. It went extinct only about 400 years ago. The last recorded aurochs died in Poland in 1627. BTW a description and drawing of the aurochs can be seen on pages 17 - 18 of a lovely 28-page monograph that is particularly appropriate for this season. See *Exotic Shofars: Halachic Considerations* by R' Natan Slifkin. http://zootorah.com/assets/media/essays/ExoticShofars.pdf --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 21:37:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:37:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> ------------------------------ I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem?s love for His people: ?If you sin, even if you?re not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here?s a ?ticket? of sorts that I?m giving you _now_ to show my love for you, that if you ?remind? me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate that you see yourselves as close to me, and I?ll give you some measure of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah.? The best Mashal I could think of for this is a PBA placard ? you buy it and put it in your car, and when the cop pulls you over for speeding, you show it to him and he goes easy on you, because he sees that you?re really a friend of the police. NOT because you demonstrated regret for speeding, necessarily. Does that make sense? KT, MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:14:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:14:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Thinking about, knowing about, and knowing G-d In-Reply-To: <000601d0eb81$09d77c90$1d8675b0$@gmail.com> References: <20150901180343.GC11612@aishdas.org> <20150903002115.GA1793@aishdas.org> <55F08884.3010503@sero.name> <000601d0eb81$09d77c90$1d8675b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150910191452.GD3345@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:27:43AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Areivim wrote: : R' ZS: :> The Nachum in your story is too busy to think about HKBH, and that's not :> good, but OTOH HKBH Himself said "I wish they would forget me and keep my :> Torah", so this Nachum is better than someone who is constantly :> thinking about HKBH but doesn't keep mitzvos. But this is why Tanya :> (ch 41) says to interrupt ones learning once an hour to think about why one :> is learning. : This discussion reminds me that there's another step - not only to think : about Hashem, but to _know_ about Hashem, as in the old story (excerpted : from a piece I wrote for "A Daily Dose of Torah"): : R' Levi Yitzchok of Berditchev studied for an extended period of time with : the Maggid, R' Dov Ber of Mezeritch. When he returned, his father-in-law - : who did not approve of R' Levi Yitzchok's leanings towards chassidus - asked : him, "What did you learn there?" R' Levi Yitzchok answered, "I learned that : Hashem exists." His father-in-law, annoyed, protested that everyone knows : that, and to prove it, asked the maid, "Does Hashem exist?" She answered, : "Certainly!" : "She says it," R' Levi Yitzchok responded, "but I know it!" : Certainly pertinent to Malchiyos. I often quote something R/Prof Shalom Carmy wrote in (Aug '01): > [RGStudent: ] >> However, in his Al HaTeshuvah (pp. 195-201), R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik >> investigates what it means to "know" God. As he points out, it is >> impossible to know God. Rather, the Rambam means that we are obligated to >> constantly recognize God's existence. As it says in Mishlei (3:6), "In all >> your ways know Him." Cf. Rabbeinu Yonah's commentary to Mishlei, ad loc. > People who throw around big words on these subjects always seem to take > for granted things that I don't. > The people who keep insisting that it's necessary to prove things about > G-d, including His existence, seem to take it for granted that devising > these proofs is identical with knowing G-d. > Now if I know a human being personally the last thing I'd do, except as > a purely intellectual exercise, is prove his or her existence. RMYG's point is similar to that in the quote from RGS. There is a difference between knowing about Gcd and knowing Gcd. The latter is experiential, and doesn't demand proof. And IMHO more related to Malkhios. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:23:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:23:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150910192331.GA25852@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 04:56:04PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger: :> I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although :> there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, :> Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an :> obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. : "Mah ashiv laShem, kol tagmulohi alai?" I do not see obligation here. Rather, how can I possibly repay, given that everything I have is from Him. Even if voluntarily. Therefore (next pasuq), I will simply recognize what He gave me (kos yeshu'os esa) and that He was the One Who gave it (uvsheim H' eqra), follow through on what I already promised.... Do you see new obligations in this pereq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:47:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:47:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:02:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. : I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear as : ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) ... It's an intersting point, but relating it to RYBS's position just confuses the matter. You're using the word "ceremony" in nearly the opposite sense. And while you note that: : I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview it. : Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not : ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view This isnt' merely an answer, it's an indication that you're discussing two different topics. There is no question, just a miscommunication. Anyway, the contrast between the usages of the word "ceremony" interested me. You listed a number of cases where a halachic legality can be accomplished through something the lay-person considers meaningless ritual: pruzbul, mechiras chameitz, heter isqa, ha'aramos, etc.. RYBS made that statement about ceremony in the sense of ritual in which the person finds meaning, but lacks halachic structure. The two examples that most readily leap to mind are (1) his disparaging kiruv that focuses on white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos candelabra, and (2) his modifying the minhagim of the Three Weeks and Nine Days because leshitaso, the minhagim must follow the same forms as ones found in hilkhos aveilus. I posted about this in Aug '08 at . I also noted in 2011 that RYBS's position that minhag must mirror halachic structure is in opposition to the Brisker Rav's (his uncle's) shitah. RYZS holds that one makes berakhos on minhagim that have a cheftzah shel mitzvah (eg lighting a Chanukah menorah in shul), and that the Rambam and Rabbeinu Tam don't argue about that. What they do argue about is whether Chatzi Hallel is close enough to Hallel to qualify for a berakhah. However, leshitas RYBS, there are no such minhagim that wouldn't require a berakhah. If Chatzi Hallel didn't require a berakhah because it's not close enough to the cheftzah shel mitzvah, it would be "ceremony", and not a valid minhag. He therefore would have to reject his uncle's chiddush. Neo-Chassidus is basically a MO rebellion to this kind of Halakhic Man approach to Yahadus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 10:54:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:54:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle Message-ID: <20150910175503.5E910182948@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6500 Picture, if you will, the hallowed halls of almost any Yeshivah, almost anywhere in the world, on Rosh Hashanah morning. As the strains of Shiras Chanah conclude, followed by the post-Haftarah brachos, there suddenly is a loud bang on the Bimah and the Gabbai calls out "Kiddush!" Most of those assembled take a break for a quick Kiddush and then return for the day's main Mitzvah - the Tekiyas Shofar, the Blowing of the Shofar. The reciting of 'Lamnatzeach' soon reach a crescendo, not unlike a deafening roar, as the congregation eagerly anticipates and prepares for the Shofar Blowing. Although this is indeed the common custom in almost every Yeshivah, curiously, the idea of making Kiddush and eating prior to the main Mitzvah of the day is considered an anathema to some. In fact, the Matteh Efraim, who is considered the authority on issues relating to the Yomim Nora'im, writes that it is actually prohibited to eat before Tekiyas Shofar, barring if one is weak, and, even only then, a small 'Te'imah', tasting of food, in private, is allowed.[1] If so, why do so many make Kiddush[2] and eat before Tekiyas Shofar? To sum up the matter, and although this dilemma is quite complicated, one must ascertain from his knowledgeable halachic authority, as well as taking his personal situation, strength level, and minhag into account, as to what to do on Rosh Hashanah morning.[23] Postscript: One interesting upshot of this machlokes seems to be the recent proliferation of Vasikin Minyanim on Rosh Hashanah. In this way, it is possible to daven all of Shacharis and Mussaf and still be able to make Kiddush after completing davening but still before Chatzos, as well as gain all the spiritual benefits of 'Davening Haneitz'.[24] A seemingly excellent way to avoid spiritual conflict on the Day of Judgment, all the while literally fulfilling the Rambam's famous dictum (Hilchos Teshuvah Ch. 3: 4) of 'Uru Yesheinim Mi'shnascham, Wake up you slumberers, from your sleep', for the clarion call of the Shofar. See the above URL for more. ---------- Any one living in Flatbush is welcome to come to the YI of Ave J Haskama Minyan on RH morning. We start at 7:15 and davening will be over by 11:30 (with Musaf). Then there is plenty of time to go home and make kiddush before Chatzos. Davening is on the second floor in the Simcha Hall. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 08:46:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:46:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha responded to me: >> Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what >> can be seen? > How is the surface of a lung or brain more visible than the innards? > The only difference is how much cutting is required. And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an external tool is required in order to 'see' something. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 13:00:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:00:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:46:32AM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: : And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external : magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an : external tool is required in order to 'see' something. You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying glass. To me that seems obvious. But to articulate it, I find myself going to words like cheftzah, which is a bit too technical to be appropriate language for relaying why I find it self-evident. The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. The magnifying glass compensates for the fact that water bears and other microscopic beasties are not in the realm of experience. We aren't getting the situation right, we are compensating for something with the cheftzah itself. To put it another way, maggot eggs do not have halachic existence. Do tiny crustaceans cease to exist and come back into existence if you flip the light off or on? (This is just different kind of appeal to cheftzah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 13:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:19:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha noted: > You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. < I omitted the blown lightbulb because IMHO the level of required light is a murky subject (poor attempt at humor :)). > I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying glass. < And I am disagreeing: you need an external tool to reach that inside area. Since you're pushing your "kasuv hashelishi", you also need to define what level of light is "normal" -- surely you're not saying that a bug which can only be 'seen' when the level of light exceeds *olam-hazeh* norms (e.g. the lumen level exceeds that of the sun at its strongest) qualifies as visible? > The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. < I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:46:32AM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: > : And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external > : magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an > : external tool is required in order to 'see' something. > > You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen > by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. > > I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing > the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying > glass. > > To me that seems obvious. But to articulate it, I find myself going > to words like cheftzah, which is a bit too technical to be appropriate > language for relaying why I find it self-evident. > > The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, > the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside > the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an > aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is > within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. > > The magnifying glass compensates for the fact that water bears and > other microscopic beasties are not in the realm of experience. We aren't > getting the situation right, we are compensating for something with the > cheftzah itself. > > To put it another way, maggot eggs do not have halachic existence. > Do tiny crustaceans cease to exist and come back into existence if > you flip the light off or on? (This is just different kind of appeal > to cheftzah.) > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole > micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." > http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, > Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 17:40:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:40:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911004049.GA29555@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 05:20:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> The recent court to allow conversion of under bar/bat mitzvah children is :> controversial. The bone of contention is whether it is considred a zechut :> for children to become Jewish when they grow up in a non-religious setting. I thought we dissuade geirim (non-qetanim) in part because this is not true. Alternatively: How do the meiqilim justify this practice, particularly in venues (Golden Age of Spain, much of the world today) where there is comparatively little antisemisim? Rashi (Yevamos 74a, "de'amar) is concerned about the sinning convert's influence on other Jews. This being R' Chelbo's "qasheh ... kesapachas". Tosafos understand R' Chelbo as referring to the extra issurim of mistreating a geir, or that they make us look bad. The Semag (Lav 116, quoted by the BY YD 268) says we dissuade the ger to make sure he knows exactly what he is accepting, avoiding a "meqach ta'us" (my term). On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:27:59PM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious : Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also : for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for : reasons of Nationalism. Or, that being a Jew in Israel is so much better that zakhin le'adam shelo befanav applies. IOW, not by reasons of nationalism, but by taking nationalism into account as part of the metzi'us. Similar to those who rule that we do not dissuade a non-halachic convert, since they will be living among the Jews and their children will quite likely marry Jews either way. And in the latest volume of IM (vol 9, EhE 14), RMF similarly tells a BD to be proactive in convertain someone who thought until now they were Jewish. He even invoked the case of Timna, saying that to not do so would be to be repeating the avos' mistake. So we do see that facts on the ground about whether it is beneficial for the life they will be leading do matter. The bigger problem I have is qabbalas ol mitzvos. RnCL and I argued at length about whether the following qualifies as QOM, but whatever you want to call it.... Upon reaching adulthood, the geir has to affirm their acceptance of the mitzvos. While people pictures this means coming to BD on their 12th or 13th birthday, that is impossible -- the affirmation would have to be tokh kedei dibur of growing shenei sa'aros. Instead, BD sees if during that span of their lives they were observant, and if they were, we consider the geirus affirmed. This din is real enough that the gemara asks about a giyores from when she was less than 3, who is married of to a kohein as a qetana may be given terumah. After all, she might annull the geirus, in which case should would retroactively not have been an eishes kohein! The gemara answers based on rov (most children do not choose to convert out of the religion they were raised with), not that the affirmation is optional. So, what's going to happen to these qetanim when they reach adulthood? How can they be said to have effectively accepted ol mitzvos? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 17:20:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:20:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan >>> Agreed. But there still has to be rules, logic, framework. My original post was a request for help in identifying those rules. (And for now, Rav Asher Weiss' explanation seems quite plausible.). Example: If the streets in my town are a reshus harabim, there's no way to carry on Shabbos without actual walls. If the streets are merely karmelis, then we can make a haarama to say that the area is surrounded by a series of doorways. But they have got to be real halachic doorways; if even one lechi has the string on the side instead of above, forget it. So too here. I don't mind being moser to beis din, if only I was clear on what it is that I'm giving them, and how that happens, and what it accomplishes. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:04:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:04:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911010426.GA12008@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 08:20:47PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I actually thought pruzbul only works because : ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan >>> : : Agreed. But there still has to be rules, logic, framework... I was mostly dismissing your mentioning the lack of qinyan sudar. We can make a shaliach without one, for a ha'aramah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:25:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:25:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> References: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150911012558.GA18449@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:37:41AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: :> The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without :> necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> : I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem's love for His people: "If you : sin, even if you're not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, : here's a "ticket" of sorts that I'm giving you now to show my love for : you, that if you 'remind' me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate : that you see yourselves as close to me, and I'll give you some measure : of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah." But spending time demonstracting our desire for or actual closeness to HQBH is itself arguably a measure of teshuvah. And in any case avoids my problem with ascribing power to a sequence of syllables in and of themselves. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:29:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:29:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:23:44PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job : 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and : 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). : R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs... He argues that it's an auroachs. Calling any identification of this sort a "demonstration" is overly confident. Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we can use mythical creatures as metaphors. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 20:00:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:00:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I was mostly dismissing your mentioning the lack of qinyan sudar. We can make a shaliach without one, for a ha'aramah. >>> I presume you mean like how I can make the rav my shaliach for mechiras chometz without any kinyan. (In practice we do make a kinyan, but only as a chumrah.) So I don't need a kinyan at pruzbul either, and I can make the beis din a shliach without any kinyan. Okay. But if so, then exactly what is it that I'm making the beis din my shaliach FOR? What are they doing on my behalf? If I am making them my shaliach to collect my loans on my behalf, then that sounds like Rav Asher Weiss' explanation. Sure, beis din is patur from lo yigos, but it was a big chidush to me that that's enough to exempt me from being m'shamet a loan that I still own. (But if one wants to go with the Collection Agency idea, then shlichus is irrelevant - beis din would need to own the loan.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 20:51:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:51:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: <1a9316.271c37fb.4323a9c7@aol.com> In a message dated 9/10/2015 9:29:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, micha at aishdas.org writes: Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. >>> That is a fascinating and insightful point! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 02:00:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:00:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha In-Reply-To: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> References: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > Please elaborate BTW The Jewish Action had a recent article on the popularity of MO neo-chassidut. I went to a wedding this week where the chatan learns in a yeshiva from Ofra. To my sight it looked like a Breslov Yeshiva. Big white kippot with extreme dancing. The boys mostly has long peyot. The Rosh Yeshiva/mesader kedushin put on a tallit for the chuppa which I had never seen. He stressed that the chatan's tallit had techelet and he should make a shecheyanu but no bracha on the tallit since it was night, etc However, this was a RZ wedding with a bracha for the soldiers etc. On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:02:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > : RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. > : I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear > as > : ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) > ... > > It's an intersting point, but relating it to RYBS's position just > confuses the matter. You're using the word "ceremony" in nearly > the opposite sense. And while you note that: > : I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview > it. > : Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not > : ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view > > This isnt' merely an answer, it's an indication that you're discussing > two different topics. There is no question, just a miscommunication. > > Anyway, the contrast between the usages of the word "ceremony" interested > me. > > You listed a number of cases where a halachic legality can be accomplished > through something the lay-person considers meaningless ritual: pruzbul, > mechiras chameitz, heter isqa, ha'aramos, etc.. > > RYBS made that statement about ceremony in the sense of ritual in which > the person finds meaning, but lacks halachic structure. > > The two examples that most readily leap to mind are (1) his disparaging > kiruv that focuses on white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos candelabra, > and (2) his modifying the minhagim of the Three Weeks and Nine Days > because leshitaso, the minhagim must follow the same forms as ones found > in hilkhos aveilus. I posted about this in Aug '08 at > . > > I also noted in 2011 that RYBS's position that minhag must mirror halachic > structure is in opposition to the Brisker Rav's (his uncle's) shitah. RYZS > holds that one makes berakhos on minhagim that have a cheftzah shel > mitzvah (eg lighting a Chanukah menorah in shul), and that the Rambam > and Rabbeinu Tam don't argue about that. What they do argue about is > whether Chatzi Hallel is close enough to Hallel to qualify for a berakhah. > > However, leshitas RYBS, there are no such minhagim that wouldn't require > a berakhah. If Chatzi Hallel didn't require a berakhah because it's not > close enough to the cheftzah shel mitzvah, it would be "ceremony", and not > a valid minhag. He therefore would have to reject his uncle's chiddush. > > Neo-Chassidus is basically a MO rebellion to this kind of Halakhic > Man approach to Yahadus. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, > micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just > http://www.aishdas.org beginning. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 09:03:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:03:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> I have been asking this question to various people, and several have suggested that the answer is somewhere in the range of "hefker bes din" and "amiraso legavoah kimsiraso lahedyot". IOW, beis din doesn't need to make a kinyan; its inherent power is sufficient to take possession of your loans as soon as you verbally relinquish them. -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 08:02:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:02:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony Message-ID: <> It would seem that RYBS's definition of a ceremony is almost a tautology. If it is anything of religious significance then its not a ceremony. Otherwise who cares. It is only modern customs that present a difficulty because we don't establish new categories. In the old days customs like lighting the menorah in shul or havdala in shul became invested with religious significance because they were public customs Question minyana d-yoma Is the custom of "simanim" on RH a ceremony? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:53:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:53:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911175305.GC18449@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 06:02:04PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : It would seem that RYBS's definition of a ceremony is almost a tautology. : If it is anything of religious significance then its not a ceremony. If a ritual is of halachic significance then it's not a ceremony (as RYBS used the word in coining the aphorism we're discussing). Now, to Halakhic Man, one can say there is no Yahadus except halakhah, and therefore ceremony is not part of Yahadus. So, RYBS's position on ceremony is a natural consequence of Halakhic Man, but they aren't a tautology according to other derakhim. To other hashkafos, white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos licht may not define Shabbos, but they can for many help foster the atmosphere hilkhos Shabbos create. Which is why I mentioned the spread of Chavaquq-like Judaism in YU. Because Chassidus is big on ritual. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 05:49:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:49:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. >>> R' Michael Poppers responded: <<< I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. >>> The lungs of a *dead* cow are easily accessible if one has a knife; no super-vision is needed there. It is only the lungs of a *living* cow where one would need super-vision (especially if I need the cow to stay alive for more milk next week). Hmmm... Do we consider the lungs of a living cow as visible like a large insect, or as nonexistent like beitzei kinim? The nafka mina is the kashrus of that cow's milk. I would *like* to say that the lungs are invisible and inconsequential. But IIRC we can drink the milk because of rov - most lungs are kosher. There is a real possibility that the lungs are treif, and we deal with that possibility in a manner *other* than "lo nitna Torah l'malachei hashareis". Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 09:47:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:47:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] asmachta Message-ID: see point 5 , on the idea that could asmachta be a talmudic example of , well let the reader decide http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/09/artscroll-and-more.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:23:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:23:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? Message-ID: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, but again whatever Hashem does is good.) Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 11:06:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:06:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150911180646.GE18449@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 01:23:04PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" : (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever : Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the : year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, : but again whatever Hashem does is good.) >From my blog post at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov :-)BBii! -Micha Shetir'u baTov The Bostoner Rebbe (of Boston) commented once on the expression "Shanah tovah umsuqah - a good and sweet new year", which is related to the famous custom of having apple and honey on Rosh haShanah.What does "umsuqah -- and sweet" add, beyond the notion of "tovah -- good"? As Rabbi Aqiva often said, "All that the All Merciful does, He does for the good". An echo of the words of one of his rabbeim, Nachum ish Gamzu, who would greet events that would disappoint or depress most of us with "Gam zu letovah -- this too is for the best." So actually, wishing one another a good year could be thought of as being redundant. Everything is good, how could this year be any different? However, not everything I was told was "for my own good" was particularly pleasant. Therefore, the rebbe teaches, we wish that the year not only be tovah, good, but also be mesuqah, sweet to our perception as well. Along the same lines, I had a thought about a phrase in Shabbos and Yom Tov davening : Our L-rd, and the L-rd of our fathers, sanctify us bemitzvosekha (through Your mitzvos), and put our portion beSorasekha (in Your Torah), satisfy us mituvekha (from Your Goodness), and make us (or: our souls qua living force) biyshuasekha (in Your salvation)... The predicate prefix has an oddity: it says bemitzvosekha, beSorasekha, and later, beyshu'asekha. But by goodness, the prefix is "mituvekha" -- "from", not "be-" ("in" or "through") like by the others. The reason, I believe, is because we are asking for something inherently different. We can ask G-d to make us more holy by allowing us to do more mitzvos, or give us the opportunity to learn more Torah, or make us happier by saving us more often. This is "be-", we are asking for more of a gift by asking for more of the vehicle He uses to give it to us. Since everything G-d does is good, we can't be asking for G-d to give us more good, and thereby make us more satisfied. There is no more good for us to get. Rather, we are asking for more satisfaction with the goodness He already provides. This is why the "mi-" prefix is used. This is also in contrast to Rebbe's words (Berakhos 50a) about benching, that a wise person says "uvtuvo chayinu -- and through His good we live", and a boor, "umituvo chayinu -- and from His good, we live". Rebbe says that "umituvo" is incorrect because it says that we live through some of His Good, implying that Hashem gives meagerly. Perhaps it's different here, when we ask for happiness, because the truth is that if we had a full realization of even a small part of His Good would be enough to satisfy. Like the piyut we sing at the seider. We list fifteen things Hashem did for us when taking us out of Egypt. But had He done any one of those 15 alone, "Dayeinu"! R Shelomo Wolbe^zt"l would part someone's company wishing him "shetir'u batov -- may you see the good!" Because the tense of "tir'u" is ambiguous, this is both a berakhah and a mussar shmuess. Taken in the future tense, "May you see", it becomes a blessing that Hashem allow him to see all that's good in his life. In the imperative, the same work becomes "Look", advice to the person to take the initiative and seek out the good of every situation. To aspire to the middah of Nachum ish Gamzu and Rabbi Aqiva of realizing the Hand of G-d in everything, and looking to see how even the tragedies in our lives are necessary steps to something bigger which He has in store for us. The two together yields a profound combined meaning. Live is the product of a partnership between myself and G-d. It is the sum of my free-willed decisions and the hand Hashem deals me. "Shetir'u beTov" addresses both at the same time, by praying that Hashem show the person good, and that the person look to find it. A greeting that recognizes the fundamental covenant by which man is redeemed. It's a beautiful greeting, one worth adopting. Wishing others could taste the sweetness. Shetir'u baTov! (With thanks to RYGB for helping me find the gemara.) Like this: Like Loading... Related You may also like... * [13]3 [14]The Devastating Power of Leitznus ? ???? ???? - December 28, 2006 * [15]0 [16]The Desire to Desire ?? ????? ???? - August 28, 2007 * [17]0 [18]Nine Qavim at the Buffet ?? ????? ???? - March 27, 2008 2 Responses * [19]Comments1 * [20]Pingbacks1 1. Anonymous says: [21]? ????? ???? - September 29, 2006 at 1:25pm Possibly related - stolen waters are described as sweet, which tells us something unpleasant about the human condition. Perhaps what we are requesting is not only an objectively good year, but the ability to appreciate that goodness, similar to the way in which we regrettably now enjoy the prohibited. - Moishe Potemkin [22]Reply 1. [23]Aspaqlaria ? Blog Archive ? ?? ???? ???"? ?? ????? ???? - September 5, 2007 [...] berakhos for a Shanah tovah umsuqah, as the Bostoner Rebbe put it, a year that is we not only conceptually know to be good, but has a sweetness we can taste and [...] And your thoughts...? [24]Cancel reply IFRAME: [25]jetpack_remote_comment Follow: * * * * * [26]Next story Sweet Charoses * [27]Previous story Nine Qavim at the Buffet ____________________ Subscribe Name: ____________________ email: ____________________ * [28]Entries * [29]Comments * [30]PodCast New & Popular * [31]Recent Posts * [32]Popular Posts * [33]Recent Comments * [34]My Life as a Pendulum ? ????? ???? - September 3, 2015 * [35]Copyright ?? ??? ???? - August 13, 2015 * [36]What does Hashem ask of you? ?? ??? ???? - August 7, 2015 * [37]?? ?????? ???? ? ??? ???? - July 23, 2015 * [38]Gratitude and Thankfulness ?? ????? ???? - July 16, 2015 * [39]Emunah Peshutah vs Machashavah ?? ????? ???? - November 30, 2004 * [40]Balancing Simplicity and Authenticity ? ????? ??? - July 1, 2010 * [41]The Kuzari Proof, part I ?? ???? ???? - December 22, 2004 * [42]What is Frumkeit? ? ???? ? ???? - February 9, 2014 * [43]The Curriculum at Volozhin ? ????? ???? - May 23, 2012 * David Zalkin says: [44]Regarding giving precedence to the Aruch HaShulchan over the MB, my... * Eliezer Eisenberg says: [45]Excellent. Thanks for sharing. * Ilana Sober Elzufon says: [46]Intriguing. I really value the all-women's spaces that Orthodox Judaism provides,... * micha says: [47]You're right. A poor choice of words. Correcting.Thank you. * Dr. Yitzchok Levine says: [48]You wrote, "Shul looks like a boy's club because it was... Aspaqlaria ? 2015. All Rights Reserved. Powered by [49]WordPress. Theme by [50]Alx. * * * * IFRAME: [51]likes-master %d bloggers like this: References Visible links 1. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/feed 2. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/comments/feed 3. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov/feed 4. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 5. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/sweet-charoses 6. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ 7. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/category/mussar/middos 8. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#comments 9. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/author/admin 10. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#stbt 11. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/01/vetaheir-libeinu.shtml 12. http://www.aishdas.org/rygb 13. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus#comments 14. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus 15. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire#comments 16. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire 17. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet#comments 18. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 19. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#commentlist-container 20. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#pinglist-container 21. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov/comment-page-1#comment-72 22. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov?replytocom=72#respond 23. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/09/%d7%9b%d7%92-%d7%90%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%9c-%d7%aa%d7%a9%d7%9e%d7%90.shtml 24. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#respond 25. http://jetpack.wordpress.com/jetpack-comment/?blogid=11004584&postid=134&comment_registration=0&require_name_email=1&stc_enabled=1&stb_enabled=1&show_avatars=1&avatar_default=identicon&greeting=And+your+thoughts...%3F&greeting_reply=Leave+a+Reply+to+%25s&color_scheme=light&lang=en-US&jetpack_version=3.7&sig=04e58004b358ee700890b798c328f7cfd8e7fee6#parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aishdas.org%2Fasp%2Ftireh-betov 26. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/sweet-charoses 27. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 28. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/feed 29. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/comments/feed 30. http://feeds.feedburner.com/AspPodCast 31. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-recent 32. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-popular 33. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-comments 34. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/my-life-as-pendulum 35. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/copyright 36. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask 37. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/%d7%91%d7%9f-%d7%97%d7%9e%d7%99%d7%a9%d7%99%d7%9d-%d7%9c%d7%a2%d7%a6%d7%94 38. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gratitude-thankfulness 39. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/emunah-peshutah-vs-machashavah 40. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/balancing-simplicity-and-authenticity 41. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/kuzari-proof-part-i 42. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-is-frumkeit 43. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-curriculum-at-volozhin 44. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/textualism-mb/comment-page-1#comment-60227 45. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask/comment-page-1#comment-60184 46. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60105 47. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60102 48. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60101 49. http://wordpress.org/ 50. http://alxmedia.se/ 51. http://widgets.wp.com/likes/master.html?ver=20141028#ver=20141028 Hidden links: 53. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus 54. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire 55. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 56. http://www.facebook.com/micha.berger 57. http://www.linkedin.com/in/rmsberger 58. https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MichaBerger 59. http://www.twitter.com/aishdas 60. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/textualism-mb/comment-page-1#comment-60227 61. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask/comment-page-1#comment-60184 62. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60105 63. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60102 64. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60101 65. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov 66. http://www.facebook.com/micha.berger 67. http://www.linkedin.com/in/rmsberger 68. https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MichaBerger 69. http://www.twitter.com/aishdas From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:01:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:01:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> Message-ID: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when shmitta is d'Orayta again? On 9/11/2015 7:03 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > I have been asking this question to various people, and several have > suggested that the answer is somewhere in the range of "hefker bes din" > and "amiraso legavoah kimsiraso lahedyot". IOW, beis din doesn't need > to make a kinyan; its inherent power is sufficient to take possession > of your loans as soon as you verbally relinquish them. > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:05:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:05:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F56682.4070005@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 04:01 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when > shmitta is d'Orayta again? Why wouldn't it? Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din declares it unethical. And I don't think that will happen, because such a declaration wouldn't stop it, it would just drive it to the disreputable batei din. Now that everyone knows about it you can't make people forget it; Hillel uncorked the idea and it can't be pushed back into the bottle. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:05:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:05:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> On 9/11/2015 4:29 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:23:44PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: > : According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job > : 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and > : 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). > > : R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs... > > He argues that it's an auroachs. Calling any identification of this sort a > "demonstration" is overly confident. Agreed. > Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever > sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim > who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we > can use mythical creatures as metaphors. How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty plural to me. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:02:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:02:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you won't experience that as a good thing. On 9/11/2015 8:23 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A > good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever > Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the > year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, > but again whatever Hashem does is good.) > > Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." > > Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. > > YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 02:22:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 05:22:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:02 AM 9/13/2015, you wrote: >On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But if >you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you won't >experience that as a good thing. Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries. If your injuries are not severe, and you collect a hefty sum from the driver's insurance company, then you may indeed view it as a good thing! All things have to be considered in context. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:57:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:57:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 05:22:08AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: :> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But :> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you :> won't experience that as a good thing. : Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries... We're getting off point. I believe Lisa's reponse was similar to my repeating the distinction between "shanah tovah" and "umsuqah", without leading to the problem of the "wrong" word being used in "Leshanah tovah tekhaseivu". We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- what ra? I thought there is no ra? It would seem we often speak of tov vara in terms of how they're experienced, rather than some abstract reality in which we know (or should know) "gam zu letovah". Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:57:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:57:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 05:22:08AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: :> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But :> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you :> won't experience that as a good thing. : Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries... We're getting off point. I believe Lisa's reponse was similar to my repeating the distinction between "shanah tovah" and "umsuqah", without leading to the problem of the "wrong" word being used in "Leshanah tovah tekhaseivu". We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- what ra? I thought there is no ra? It would seem we often speak of tov vara in terms of how they're experienced, rather than some abstract reality in which we know (or should know) "gam zu letovah". Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 06:39:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:39:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. In RM's opinion, shmitta won't be d'Orayata again until the Messiah comes. Ben On 9/13/2015 10:01 AM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when > shmitta is d'Orayta again? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:46:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:46:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: <<< Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din declares it unethical. >>> Perhaps. But I would think that the impropriety of using pruzbul in a d'Oraisa time was pretty implicit (perhaps even explicit) in how Hillel promoted it, and there is no need for a future beis din to point it out. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 06:41:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 09:41:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor Message-ID: <09a801d0ee29$ef34d030$cd9e7090$@com> The sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor is avail for free download at - http://hebrewbooks.org/53838 review of sefer - http://seforim.blogspot.ca/2015/09/review-of-dovid-bashevkins-sefer.html Review of Dovid Bashevkin's Sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor By Rabbi Yitzchok Oratz Rabbi Yitzchok Oratz, a musmach of Beth Medrash Govoha, is the Rabbi and Director of the Monmouth Torah Links community in Marlboro, NJ. God knows the nature of every generation, Rabbi Dovid Bashevkin has written a Sefer uniquely appropriate for the nature of ours[1]. Take a trip to your local Jewish bookseller during this time period, and you will find numerous seforim, old[2] and new[3], on the themes of sin and repentance. Although they certainly vary in style and quality, a common denominator among many is the heavy reliance on Rambam's Hilchos Teshuva and Sha'arey Teshuva of Rabbeinu Yonah of Gerondi[4]. And this is to be expected. Timeless classics, these works of the great Rishonim are unmatched in their systematic and detailed discussion of sin and punishment, free will[5] and repentance, and are a prerequisite study for any serious discussion of Teshuva. But therein lays the dilemma. For although Rabbeinu Yonah maps out the exalted levels of Teshuva that one should certainly strive for, they seem not to be for the faint of heart. Is our generation really up to the task of embracing the sorrow, suffering, and worry, the humbling and lowering oneself[6], without allowing for the concomitant sense of despair[7] and despondence[8]? And how many of us can honestly stand before the Creator, and proclaim that we will "never return" to our negative actions, to the extent that God Himself will testify that this is the case[9]? If confession without sincere commitment to change is worthless[10], does repeating last year's failed commitments not require choosing between giving up and fooling ourselves? This is where B'Rogez Rachem Tizkor comes in. Based heavily on the thought of Izbica in general, and Reb Tzadok ha-Kohen of Lublin in particular, it discusses the value of spiritual struggle, the interplay between determinism and free will, the redemptive potential of sin, and the status of those who have not yet arisen from their fall. Overall, the sefer is a good introduction to R' Tzadok for those who are not familiar with his thought, and offers many insightful and fascinating comments even for those who are. My main critiques are that some of the discussion of the more controversial statements of Izbica required more elaboration[14], the lack thereof leads to a seeming conflating of two similar, yet far from identical, concepts, and more contrasting and supporting texts (both from within Izbica and R' Tzadok's thought and without) would have made for a stronger case and deeper understanding. My hope is to fill in these gaps in some small measure. Hopefully it will further enlighten those whose appetite was whet by this fine work. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:05:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:05:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F59EAF.30104@sero.name> See Tanya chapter 26. There is really no such thing as bad; there is merely the good that we can see and the good that we can't see. But we'd much prefer the kind that we can see, and we ask Hashem to give us that kind of good rather than the other kind. http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7905/jewish/Chapter-26.htm -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:11:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:11:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F5A021.4040809@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 08:46 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The >> only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right >> to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when >> shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din >> declares it unethical. > > Perhaps. But I would think that the impropriety of using pruzbul in a > d'Oraisa time was pretty implicit (perhaps even explicit) in how > Hillel promoted it, and there is no need for a future beis din to > point it out. How so? He didn't say anything about it being improper when shmita is de'oraisa, he merely said here is a solution we can use. The question is why nobody did it before, and the answer is because batei din considered it unethical. Now when were these batei din considering it unethical? In the time of Bayit Rishon?! No, it was in Hillel's day, which is why he needed to make his takanah. And in his day it was already derabbanan. The only relevance of it being derabanan is that had it been deoraisa in Hillel's day, he would not have felt he had the right to promote a way around it, no matter how great the need he saw. But since it was derabanan, and he saw a problem that needed fixing, he was bold and publicised this trick, and declared that nobody should feel guilty about using it. There's no indication that he mentioned shmita's drabanan status at all. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 08:52:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:52:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In Avodah V33n123, RAkivaM responded to me: >> I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. << > The lungs of a *dead* cow are easily accessible if one has a knife; no super-vision is needed there. It is only the lungs of a *living* cow where one would need super-vision (especially if I need the cow to stay alive for more milk next week). < A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the human eye without opening it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 11:55:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:55:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150913185550.GC10636@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 08:57:35AM -0400, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: ::> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But ::> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you ::> won't experience that as a good thing. ... : We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- : what ra? I thought there is no ra? Addenda in response to private email: Well, I didn't mean to get all Izhbitz... I meant the evil we experience, the tragic, and not the evil that we do, the wrong.. But I did buy into more univeralistic models of hashgachah peratis, that at least every person's fate is subject to HP (pace the Rambam or Or haChaim), and thus the tragic has a point. If not itself tovsh, it is letovah. Which still leaves us with R/Prof Levine's original question sbout blessing others with shanah tovah. ... : Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be : experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even : that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) But even the evil that we do is more like a missed opposrtunity for good than a beryah. Much the way Yeshaiah pairs evil with darkness "yotzeir or uvorei choshekh ... uvorei es hara." Althouh it's possible that Yeshiah considered darkness to be a beryah, the way Chazal talk about the thick darkness of makas choshekh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 12:00:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:00:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:52:48AM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the : human eye without opening it. The sun is also an external tool. This is wh I think we need more nuance here. It might depend on whether a hollow inside the lung is judged as a lung that is defective in a way we can't see without a knife, or the hole is a mum that we could be able to see ourselves if the ourside of the lung weren't in the way. But in either case, I still csn't articulste what seems to me to be a obvious difference. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 07:07:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 10:07:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akeidah of the Mind Message-ID: <20150913140741.CE67A180E46@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from pages 588 - 590 of Rav Schwab on Chumash. Please note the words "Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave the human being a mind to understand Him. Whatever one studies in the world, be it science, history, economics, mathematics, or anything else, it is actually the study of the revelations of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Our mind is given to us to enable us to understand as much about C-d as is humanly possible. This is borne out in many places throughout Torah and Nach ... This means that we are not merely to accept that which our forefathers have taught us about C-d but we are to attempt to know, to understand as much as we can about Hashem ... The Rav (Rav Shimon Schwab, ZT"L) was firmly convinced that since Moshe emes v'Toraso emes, the Torah and our Rabbinic mesorah are inviolable and, one day, answers would be found answers these questions. He would say that sometimes one must offer his mind as an "akeidah" to Hakadosh Baruch Hu where human reasoning has not yet found answers to apparent contradictions between the inviolable eternal truth of the Torah, the truthful writing (Daniel 10:21), and historical or scientific finds which are subject to change. In his lectures on Iyov, he offered the following comments on this subject. "... By accepting C-d's command, Avraham Avinu had sacrificed his own mind to comply with the will of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. While Avraham attempts to understand C-d, nevertheless, when C-d1s command contradicts that understanding, Avraham sacrifices his mind to the will of C-d, just as one would forfeit his life if the halachah required it, rather than violate the three cardinal sins. "Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave the human being a mind to understand Him. Whatever one studies in the world, be it science, history, economics, mathematics, or anything else, it is actually the study of the revelations of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Our mind is given to us to enable us to understand as much about C-d as is humanly possible. This is borne out in many places throughout Torah and Nach ... This means that we are not merely to accept that which our forefathers have taught us about C-d but we are to attempt to know, to understand as much as we can about Hashem ... "... This is why the mitzvah of learning Torah is so important; in fact it is our most important mitzvah. When we learn Torah, we employ our mind in the service of Hakadosh Baruch Hu by studying C-d's will as revealed to us in the Torah. And if we have questions or contradictions, we must use our mind to the best of our capacity to attempt to resolve them within the parameters of Torah study. "... So, while we are encouraged to use our mind, as much as reason allows, to serve C-d, to understand Him, and to answer questions, nevertheless, when all reason fails us, and we cannot go any further with human understanding, when our mind is staggered, we must be prepared to I/sacrifice our mind/I to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. We must throw up our hands and say that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is right whether we understand it or not. One could call this 'the akeidah of the mind.' "When science poses questions which seemingly contradict our basic truths, we must make an effort to answer these questions. But if the answers are elusive, we must sacrifice our mind and subjugate it to the revealed truths of the Torah. Fortunately, baruch Hashem, as yet, I have not found any questions of this sort- for instance, regarding the age of the universe, evolution, ancient civilizations- for which I have not found possible answers. But it could happen, and one has to be ready for it. If suddenly a scientific discovery were to arise which clearly seems to contradict the Torah, we would then have to admit that the question is excellent but nevertheless, the Torah is right because it is the revealed wisdom of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. It is "Toras Emes, 11 absolute truth, all questions notwithstanding. Answers will no doubt eventually be found to such contradictions, but in the meantime, by accepting the veracity of the Torah without reservations, we will have offered our mind as an 'akeidah' to Hakadosh Baruch Hu.'' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 11:36:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:36:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? Message-ID: <1f9d87.3cc2b5a7.43271c34@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, but again whatever Hashem does is good.) Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. YL >>>>> When others wish you well you should wish them well too, mipnei darkei shalom. A long philosophical treatise about how even illness, accidents and financial losses are actually all good things will not endear you to anyone. Another answer to your question is: we wish our friends (and ourselves) brachos from the Ribono Shel Olam that are sweet and obvious even to our limited human eyes, and not the other kind. Certainly we appreciate that the dentist's drill or the surgeon's knife is doing us a favor and repairing what needs repairing, but we prefer not to have the cavity and not to need the surgery in the first place. However if you simply cannot bring yourself to utter a blessing that seems philosophically dubious to you, I would suggest that you overcome that feeling, bentsh your fellow Jews anyway, and may Hashem in turn overcome His philosophical doubts and bless you and all of us in kind. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 07:15:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (RCK via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 17:15:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty > plural to me. >Lisa Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book *Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew * [image: Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] [image: Academia.edu] [image: Google Scholar] [image: LinkedIN] [image: Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:00:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:00:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F59DB4.6080103@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 04:05 AM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >> Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever >> sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim >> who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we >> can use mythical creatures as metaphors. > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty > plural to me. Because Yosef is a shor, not a re'em, even if each of his horns is that of a re'em. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 12:29:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:29:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 10:15 AM, RCK via Avodah wrote: > Lisa wrote: >> How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty >> plural to me. > Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=11650&pgnum=227 I don't understand the Bachur's comment. Surely the Radak explicitly addressed his objection, so why does he still raise it? (Unless these notes were not written on the Shorashim at all, and some printer decided to mash them together at random.) -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 13:59:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 16:59:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> References: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha replied: > The sun is also an external tool. < Which is why I previously differentiated between the sun _or_ a substitute light source no brighter than it and between what I call "external tools." > This is wh I think we need more nuance here. < My theory is that anything we, a 6th-Day "creation", can see with the tools provided as part of the *b'riyah* (or, again, a fair substitute) is within our Halachic field of vision. Best wishes for a *shanah tovah umsuqah* from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:52:48AM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: > : A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the > : human eye without opening it. > > The sun is also an external tool. > > This is wh I think we need more nuance here. > > It might depend on whether a hollow inside the lung is judged as a lung > that is defective in a way we can't see without a knife, or the hole is > a mum that we could be able to see ourselves if the ourside of the lung > weren't in the way. > > But in either case, I still csn't articulste what seems to me to be > a obvious difference. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea > micha at aishdas.org of instincts. > http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter > Fax: (270) 514-1507 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 15 10:01:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (RCK via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:01:11 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> References: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> Message-ID: It's a good question, in fact, the Bayis HaGadol (also known as Biur) on Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer (end of ch. 19) asks this on HaBachur. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book *Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew * [image: Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] [image: Academia.edu] [image: Google Scholar] [image: LinkedIN] [image: Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/13/2015 10:15 AM, RCK via Avodah wrote: > >> Lisa wrote: >> > > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty >>> plural to me. >>> >> > Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. >> > > http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=11650&pgnum=227 > > I don't understand the Bachur's comment. Surely the Radak explicitly > addressed his objection, so why does he still raise it? (Unless these > notes were not written on the Shorashim at all, and some printer decided > to mash them together at random.) > > -- > Zev Sero KvChT > zev at sero.name > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 15 17:45:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:45:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150916004501.GA21666@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 04:59:29PM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: :> This is wh I think we need more nuance here. : My theory is that anything we, a 6th-Day "creation", can see with the tools : provided as part of the *b'riyah* (or, again, a fair substitute) is within : our Halachic field of vision. You mean, like a sharp rock? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 01:43:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:43:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: R' MYG wrote: "I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem?s love for His people: ?If you sin, even if you?re not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here?s a ?ticket? of sorts that I?m giving you _now_ to show my love for you, that if you ?remind? me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate that you see yourselves as close to me, and I?ll give you some measure of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah.? The best Mashal I could think of for this is a PBA placard ? you buy it and put it in your car, and when the cop pulls you over for speeding, you show it to him and he goes easy on you, because he sees that you?re really a friend of the police. NOT because you demonstrated regret for speeding, necessarily. Does that make sense?" Not really, Hashem is perfect and all knowing, you can't bribe him. Why should you need to remind him of anything? Hashem knows exactly who you are and how close you are to him. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 02:35:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:35:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916093543.GA10685@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:43:35AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Not really, Hashem is perfect and all knowing, you can't bribe him. Why : should you need to remind him of anything? Hashem knows exactly who you are : and how close you are to him. That's ust an inherent limitation in the mashal. (Any mashal where the nimshal is G-d, is going to be limited for the same reason you give.) Lemaaseh, He may Remember everything, but I don't. Going through the exercises keep my own beliefs more conscious and reinforces them. Setting up a pointless reminder to remind Him has function in that it reminds me. Which is how I understood RMYG's original answer: that reciting the 13 middoes is "more of a symbol of Hashem's love for His people: 'If you sin, even if you're not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here's a 'ticket' of sorts that I'm giving you _now_ to show my love for you...'" We need to remember the closeness, to keep it real in our minds, which then deepens our belief in it. Which is why I then said that this in itself is a minimal teshuvah, and not merely reciting words. IOW, if someone said the 13 Middos and didn't even think "these are G-d's 13 Middos of lovingkindness that He gave us", would they still be guaranteed not to leave empty-handed? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 01:58:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:58:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > There's no indication that he mentioned shmita's drabanan status at all. The simple reading of the Gemara in Gittin 36a-b which is the source of pruzbul says that pruzbul only works when shemitta is d'rabbanan and in fact this is how the Rambam understands the Gemara and how he paskens. The Gemara first states that Hillel was mesaken pruzbul and then asks how could Hillel be mesaken pruzbul and say that loans are not cancelled when the Torah says that they are? Abaye answers shemitta nowadays is derabban. The Gemara then asks how could the Chachamim be mesaken shemittas kesafim medrabban (and cancel loans) and Rava answers hefker beit din hefker. The simple reading of the Gemara is that the whole takana of pruzbul only works when shemitta is derabbanan. Rashi and the Raavad however understand the Gemara that Rava's answer also answers the first question of how could Hillel be mesaken pruzbul when the Torah cancels loans based on hefker beis din hefker and that pruzbul works even when shemmita is d'oraysa. [Email #2] R"n Lisa Liel asked: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when shmitta > is d'Orayta again? and R' Zev Sero asked why wouldn't it? Actually this is an explicit machlokes the Rambam and the Raavad and Rashi and Tosafos (Gittin 36a-b). The Rambam writes in Hilchos Shemitta V'Yovel (chapter 9) v'ein haprozbul moeel ela b'shmitas kesafim shehee midvrei sofrim aval shemitta shel torah ayn haprozbul moeel bo The Raavad there argues that prozbul will work even when shemmita is d'oraysa based on his understanding of Rava's answer of hefker beis din hefker (like Rashi in Gittin). From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 02:50:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:50:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916095007.GD14423@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:00:56PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : If I am making them my shaliach to collect my loans on my behalf, then that : sounds like Rav Asher Weiss' explanation. Sure, beis din is patur from lo : yigos, but it was a big chidush to me that that's enough to exempt me from : being m'shamet a loan that I still own. (But if one wants to go with the : Collection Agency idea, then shlichus is irrelevant - beis din would need : to own the loan.) The big problem is that the difference in sevaros may make a particular pruzbul text valid or not. For example, how does hefqer BD hefqer work today, when courts do not have a central Sanhedrin organizing them? I am giving the loan to three hedyotos. Which 3? The three I named? (Are we invoking Beis Shammai's notion that one can be mafqir only to a given person or set of people? [Ymi Pei'ah 6:1 19b]) Then how is it HBDH and not a simple matanah? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 03:09:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:09:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20150916100941.GE14423@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 03:39:14PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey : wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of : Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all : those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the : number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. : : In RM's opinion, shmitta won't be d'Orayata again until the Messiah comes. Also, the machloqes Rashi and Tosafos as to whether "kol yosheveha aleha" is by sheivet. I don't know what Tosafos do with the machloqes (Sanhedring 110b) about whether the lost shevatim will ever be restored. If they hold like R' Aqiva, this would have to refer to the descendents of those refugees from Malkhus Yisrael who fled to Malkhus Yehudah. Or, is that in itself enough reestablishment of the shevatim to contradict R' Aqiva? The masqanah of the gemara appears to be Rabba bb Chana (citing R' Yochanan) refuting R' Aqiva's position in favor of R' Eliezer -- that the missing shevatim will be restored (quoting Yirmiyahu 3:!2). Maybe they just consider the question closed. The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority of Benei Yisrael. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 05:08:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:08:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: from wikipedia Thus, if one would agree that shmita does not apply when Israelites are dispersed,[6] Hillel, great as he was, would not have changed a law of the Torah in order to fit the needs of his time. He and his beth din would have enacted a rabbinic exception to a rabbinic law. As the Rambam notes in Shmita V'Yovel chapter 9, when most Jews again live in the Land of Israel and the observance of the sabbatical and jubilee years are Toraitic commandments, the prozbul will no longer be able to be used. According to this theory, Prozbul, like `eruv , is a rabbinic exception to a rabbinic enactment. Prozbul cannot be used to get around the Torah commanded shmita and yovel, just as `eruv cannot be used to get around the fact that Torah prohibited carrying in the public domain. I recently saw the opposite question: There are many ways to avoid the problem of shmitta annulling laws without resorting to prozbul. One simple example is to make the loan end immediately after RH of this year. There are many other options. So the question is why the need for prozbul The only answer I saw was that the general population was not aware of the alternatives or else they were too cumbersome [Email #2] > In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench > that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the > true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people > who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is > much higher than we believe it to be. I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even for direct maternal descendants. i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. I would assume that a descendant of annusim would be Jewish since they kept their Jewish identification through various customs -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:40:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:40:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:36:20PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were :> exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on :> Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority :> of Benei Yisrael. : How do you know? (I assume you mean the reisha about yovel and therefore shemittah de'oraisa ending when eiver hayardein was conquered, not my last sentence.) Eirachin 32b Rambam, Hil Shemitah veYovel 10:8. GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 09:36:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:36:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> On 9/13/2015 4:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey > wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of > Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all > those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the > number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. On the contrary. The number of people who identify as "Jewish" in polls who are actually non-halakhic "converts" or children of non-Jewish mothers is vast, so the number of Jews is much *lower* than we believe it to be. [Email #2] On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were > exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on > Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority > of Benei Yisrael. How do you know? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:40:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:40:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F9A97D.2080405@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 08:08 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> >In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench >> >that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the >> >true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people >> >who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is >> >much higher than we believe it to be. > I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that > once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with > yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even > for direct maternal descendants. > > i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim > through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. That is an extreme daat yachid, with a very tenuous basis. Nobody else agrees with him, so there's no reason to expect R Melamed to take this view into account, or even to be aware of it. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:49:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:49:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Moderator Vacation Message-ID: <20150916174900.GC6146@aishdas.org> While Areivim has a team of mods, Avodah is still entirely dependent on me. Which makes me feel an obligation to forewarn y'all before I go on vacation. Tomorrow I will be leaving for 3 weeks in Yerushalayim ih"q. (Barring messianic intervention, to leave again the day after chutznik Simchas Torah.) I do not know what my internet access will be like, but it's quite likely moderation approval delays will increase. Please be patient. Yerushalayim crew: Avodah/Areivim Simchas Beis haSho'eivah anyone? Discussion on Areivim...) GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 11:30:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:30:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916183023.GD6146@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 03:08:53PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that : once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with : yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even : for direct maternal descendants. This was his famous teshuvah on the Brother Daniel case. That there are limits even on maternal descent. I found a nice summary by R/Dr Judah Goldberg : i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim : through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. >From there, RAL's meqoros in shas: In Yevamot 16b, Rav Assi states that if a gentile betroths a Jewess, we cannot dismiss the validity of the marriage, for perhaps he descends from one of the ten lost tribes. When Shmuel heard this ruling, however, he responded, "They did not move from that place until they made [the descendants of the lost tribes] into absolute gentiles, as it says, 'They have betrayed God, for they have begotten alien children' (Hoshea 5:7)" (17a). Similarly, Chullin 6a tells how Rav Ami and Rav Assi discovered that the Samaritan community, which had long been suspected of engaging in pagan worship, was no longer observing Jewish law at all. In response, They did not move from that place until they made [the Samaritans] into absolute gentiles. He cites three shitos from rishonim, although the Rambam's pesaq is as explacated by R' Chaim Brisker. 1- Rashba: The Samaritan's conversion was annulled, not that one can stop being a Jew. R Pinchas Horowitz (Sefer Ha-mikna) applies parallel reasoning to the 10 shevatim -- they didn't stop being Jews, they are just an ignorable mi'ut that only a derabbanan kept us from ignoring. And that was repealed. 2- A mi'ut hold that the geir who stops believing ceases being a geir, but we have to worry about what's really going on in his head, so lechumerah we have to acknowledge his marriage. 3- The Rambam as explained by RCB (contrasting Ishus 4:15 with peirush on Niddah 7:4, where he says a dead Samaritan is not metamei tum'as ohel) that someone who gives up his self-identity as a Jew and acts on it is But in either case, the hypothetical Ephramite is a machloqes amoraim. Unless you agree with the author of the Hafla'ah that it's just an issue of mi'ut, and therefore the one who could prove he is in the mi'ut would be Jewish. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless micha at aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 13:39:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:39:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Moderator Vacation In-Reply-To: <55F9B9EA.70600@sero.name> References: <20150916174900.GC6146@aishdas.org> <55F9B9EA.70600@sero.name> Message-ID: <43db8966934f6c727f16a67e6896f9cb@aishdas.org> It is much easier when my mechutan's work address is "1 Kotel Plaza" -- Yeshivat Netiv Aryeh. Thanks for the _berakhos_. _Gemar chasimah tovah_! On 2015-09-16 2:50 pm, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/16/2015 01:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > >> Tomorrow I will be leaving for 3 weeks in Yerushalayim ih"q. > > Mazal tov. Even if Moshiach doesn't come in the next week or so, > you can still fulfil a zecher to hakhel. I was there 14 years > ago at the "hakhel" rally at the kotel, but unfortunately I was > unable to be there 7 years ago, and barring either Moshiach (and > the real hakhel) or a lottery win I will not be able to be there > this year either. > > (Actually I'm not aware of any source that Moshiach will provide > transportation, so even if he comes today it may be impossible > for everyone to get there in time for hakhel.) _Tir'u baTov_! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 11:54:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:54:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> On 9/16/2015 8:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:36:20PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: > : On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were > :> exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on > :> Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority > :> of Benei Yisrael. > > : How do you know? > > (I assume you mean the reisha about yovel and therefore shemittah de'oraisa > ending when eiver hayardein was conquered, not my last sentence.) Actually, I meant your last sentence. How do you know that the area of the 2.5 shvatim didn't include a majority of Bnei Yisrael? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:47:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:47:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 09:54:59PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : Actually, I meant your last sentence. How do you know that the area : of the 2.5 shvatim didn't include a majority of Bnei Yisrael? Because the gemara has to explain why 2-1/2 shevatim needed as many arei miqlat as the rest of BY. And the answer is because those who settled for land on that side of the Yardein built a more careless culture. (See Rashi Bamidbar 35:14 which is based on Abayei Makos 10a, and the Maharal on the Rashi to explain that Rashi [and Abayei] assume that the number who need galus will be greater whent he number of murderers does.) Notice the answer was NOT "because HQBH knew there would be at least as many people Mei'eiver haYardein before bayis rishon ended". It would also take a notable statistical anomaly for the largest population to grow out of a small initial state, and yet never get a navi telling them anything, etc... GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your micha at aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender, Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:41:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:41:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question Message-ID: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: > Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking around at books and online. I see no > discussion whatsoever on whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, e.g. books > I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an > obligation to return a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? Thanks, Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:54:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:54:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F9E518.5090701@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 05:47 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Because the gemara has to explain why 2-1/2 shevatim needed as many arei > miqlat as the rest of BY. And the answer is because those who settled > for land on that side of the Yardein built a more careless culture. Do you understand that question and answer? How do the population *or* the number of manslaughterers affect the number of arei miklat needed? Surely the only determinant is geography. A manslaughterer has to cover the same distance regardless of how sparse the population, or how careful they are. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 12:37:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:37:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: I was asked to provide a list of (me-possible) mitzvaot which were considered kiyumit. Does anyone know of such a list? GCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 15:07:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:07:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 05:41 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: > >> Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking >> around at books and online. I see no discussion whatsoever on >> whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, >> e.g. books I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that >> addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an obligation to return >> a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? > I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? Shemita applies only to halva'ah, not to she'elah. English uses the same word, but they are very different transactions. It's actually strange that English, which is usually the most precise language, does not distinguish them. A book is a she'elah; the book remains her property, and she expects the borrower to return it. Thus it is not at all affected by shemita. It is also not subject to the prohibition on ribbis; not only is there absolutely nothing wrong with charging people to borrow your stuff, the Torah explicitly endorses it as one of the four forms of shemirah. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 15:29:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:29:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Li Nir'eh Message-ID: <20150916222914.GE26081@aishdas.org> In AhS YD 39:48, RYME draws a conclusion from the fact that the Rama in Darkhei Moshe says "nir'eh li" rather than "veli nir'eh". "Veli nir'eh" implies he is choleiq with the BY? Anyone hear before of a distinction between the two idioms? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 16:20:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:20:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:06:16AM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> I intend to write a post on the meaning of the word "mesorah" as developed :> in RYBS's and RHS's thought as the start of its own thread. See http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/what-does-masorah-mean : And this is where this slide from discussing one slice of the mesorah - what : to do in Yeshiva, to a much wider slice of the mesorah becomes problematic, : because of the implication you have just made which is that what is true of : the section applies to the whole... Well, that's sort of it, isn't it? You're making a distinction between learning in a semichah shiur and learning how to pasqen. I don't think RYBS would. IOW, his whole point about needing mesorah is because he denies your premise. Leshitaso, you pasqen more from lomdus than from codes; or to put it more clearly -- you need a Rashi and a Tosafos to teach you how to fill in between the data points of a Yad or SA. For that matter, this is clearly the AhS's approach to pesaq. And the entire school which runs from Gemara to Rambam vs Rosh (at al) to Tur, BY, SA, Rama, Shach, Taz (et al)... This is how pesaq comes to be. Not from deciding between codes but from using the flow of mesorah to decide between them. Otherwise, shu"t would read like surveys; and even ROY doesn't end with his survey. : RGS comments that he and his father tried to learn meseches Nedarim just : using the meforash, in the absence of Rashi, and were not able to do so : (they were then only able to do it using the Ran, a much later commentary) - : thus demonstrating the point of the post, which is, without Rashi, most of : the Talmud Bavli would be a closed book to most people of average, and even : above average, intelligence (like the Talmud Yerushalmi). Actually, RYBS said that. : This is unquestionably true. : : The Rambam was also aware of this problem (after all he learned all of : Talmud Bavli without Rashi and everybody he knew either did so or tried to : do so). His solution to RGS's problem was to tell RGS and his father, and : people like him, not to try and learn Talmud Bavli, but to learn his, the : Rambam's, Code instead... Not really. His code is mishnah, not gemara. He tells beginners to do their shelish bemiqra in his code. And then you should be able to graduate from it, and from the whole need to divide one's time into thirds. ... : Our mesorah is like Rashi in this regard and not the Rambam (except when it : comes to smicha students). We open up the Talmud Bavli even to children : using Rashi and hundreds of thousands are sitting in yeshiva following : Rashi. Huh? Rashi didn't expect kids to start with Tanakh? Where does this come into the whole discussion? : The problem is that people (it would appear including you) then generalise : from "how we learn" to "how we posken" - which is what really is involved in : the discussion regarding Open O and feminism. And they are not the same : thing at all. Indeed, the fact that smicha students (those that are being : set up to posken) are taught in a totally different way to the more general : way of learning in yeshiva, and one that owes far more to the Rambam than to : Rashi and Tosphos should alert you to that. I do not believe the closing sentence. RYBS was giving one shiur to cover both. But that's RYBS, not my own leanings. I do see lomdus, in which the goal is to justify every opinion, and pesaq, in which the goal is to decide which opinion is most justified, to be different. But again, one doesn't pasqen from codes without the tools learned from lomdus. For that matter, if it's a halakhah pesuqah, one isn't pasqening at all. : What Rashi did was to provide a clear and simple explanation of the words on : the page. : What Tosphos did ... And the Me'iri opened the gemara in a third way. That seems to be a pretty complete taxonomy of parshanim. Then there are codes. Then there is shu"t. And most recently, encyclopedias / collections. ... : On the other hand, RET is correct: :> Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against :> the concept. :> Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own :> interpretation and not rely or be bound by any text. : Although I would modify that statement not to say "and not be bound by any : text", as most at that point agreed that they should be bound by the gemora : (and the Tanach as understood by the mishna/gemora), just not beyond that. The Maharal's actual objection: To decide halakhic questions from the codes without knowing the logic of the ruling was not the intent of these authors [Rambam, Tur, SA, et al]. Had they known that their works would lead to the abandonment of Talmud, they would not have written them. It is better for one to decide on thebasis of the Talmud even though he might err, for a scholar must depend solely on his understanding. As such, he is beloved of God, and preferable tothe one who rules from a code but does not know thereason for the ruling; such a one walks like a blind person. See Nesivos Olam, Nesiv haTorah ch 15. (I invoked the above thought about shelish bemishnah only being for beginners [from Hil TT] and the MT only being a replacement for the hoi palloi to justify the Maharal's statement WRT the Rambam. See RMRabi's and my months-long discussion.) Actually, what I think won the day for the SA was that the SA stopped being a code when they started publishing everyone on the sides. That's what it seems from the Maharal. Presumably his brother, the Yam shel Shelomo, would agree. ... : And RMB replied: :> Actualy, it's only those who have an eye on common practice. After all, we :> discuss machloqesin between Rashi and the Rambam in halakhah lemasseh :> contexts all the time. And if Ashkenazim accepted Rashi's ruling, or one :> found in Tosafos, the Rama has no problem limiting his pesaq to that rather :> than that of the Rif, Rambam or Tur. And had there not been a Rama, then :> some shu"t or parshan could as well. : : But neither Rashi nor Tosphos gave us any method of limiting where psak : went, and indeed the Ri can hold one thing and Rabbanu Tam another within : the same Tosphos. The Codes are far less open... But they only cover specific cases. They don't teach how to extent beyond those cases. So in general, the codes are more open than Rashi, the Ri or Rabbeinu Tam who help you by providing a why that tells you how far to take the point. A code is way open except for the cases they covered. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 16:38:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:38:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: References: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150916233829.GA3601@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 08:01:11PM +0300, RCK via Avodah wrote: : It's a good question, in fact, the Bayis HaGadol (also known as Biur) on : Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer (end of ch. 19) asks this on HaBachur. Since you clearly saw it, and some of us are kind of busy (and about to take leave of my library), could you please summarize the discussion there? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 18:31:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:31:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55FA17E2.6020200@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 07:20 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > That's > what it seems from the Maharal. Presumably his brother, the Yam shel > Shelomo, would agree. The Maharshal was not a brother of the Maharal! AFAIK they were not related. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 19:19:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:19:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel quoted Wikipedia: > ...According to this theory, Prozbul, like > `eruv , is a rabbinic exception > to a rabbinic enactment. Prozbul cannot be used to get around the > Torah commanded shmita and yovel, just as `eruv cannot be used to get > around the fact that Torah prohibited carrying in the public domain. As few days ago, I was thinking about comparisons between Prozbul and Eruv, and it seems clear to me that while Eruv *is* an exception to an enactment, Prozbul is a whole 'nother thing. I think it makes no sense for Prozbul to be "an exception to an enactment", because "why bother?" If the agricultural Shemitta stops being d'Oraisa, then Chazal can certainly enact it on a d'rabanan level. But to do that for Shemitas Kesafim means to legislate the following three things simultaneously: 1) Enact a law requiring cancellation of loans 2) Loans are exempt from cancellation if Prozbul is done 3) For the benefit of both poor and wealthy, everyone should do a Prozbul Why enact such a set of laws? Wouldn't it be far simpler to just let Shmitas Kesafim lapse, and NOT be enacted on a d'rabanan level? Regardless of whether one holds Prozbul to work on a d'Oraisa level, I think everyone can agree that Prozbul was enacted specifically because (as the Torah feared) too many people refrained from lending money as Shmitta got near. Therefore, it seems clear to me that IF Shmitas Kesafim was enacted as a d'rabanan, THEN Prozbul was enacted LATER, and not at the same time. In sharp contrast, I understand that Eruvin was a real "exception to an enactment": Simultaneously to the new law which prohibited carrying in a karmelis, an exception was included exempting certain areas under certain condiitons, allowing the carrying there. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 20:25:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:25:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55FA328E.1080708@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 10:19 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > In sharp contrast, I understand that Eruvin was a real "exception to > an enactment": Simultaneously to the new law which prohibited > carrying in a karmelis, an exception was included exempting certain > areas under certain condiitons, allowing the carrying there. An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. I don't know who prohibited carrying in a karmelis, but there's no reason to suppose it was Shlomo. Shlomo prohibited carrying in a *reshus hayachid with multiple owners*, and instituted eruv as a way around that prohibition. (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 05:01:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:01:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and > thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. My language was not precise. I apologize. What I meant was that prior to the establishment of these d'rabanans, one was allowed to carry from an unwalled non-thoroughfare to either a walled area or to a major thoroughfare. But it was easy to get confused between the general outdoors and a main road, so the general outdoors was made into a Reshus Harabim D'rabanan, with the following exception: Whereas a Reshus Harabim d'Oraisa requires actual walls to allow carrying, for a Reshus Harabim d'Rabanan it is sufficient to surround an area with doorways (tzuras hapesach). > I don't know who prohibited carrying in a karmelis, > but there's no reason to suppose it was Shlomo. Shlomo > prohibited carrying in a *reshus hayachid with multiple > owners*, and instituted eruv as a way around that > prohibition. I'm fuzzy on the history too. The law as I described it above may or may not have been part of the same legislation that RZS described here. What we have here are two distinct - but easily and often confused - d'rabanans within the melacha of hotzaa. It doesn't really matter which came first, or if they came together. My point was that they are excellent examples of an exception being built into the law from the very beginning, as opposed to Prozbul, which (if shmitas kesafim is d'rabanan) was a separate enactment from shmitas kesafim (because if they were done at the same time, the goal of Prozbul could have been acheived even more easily by simply not enacting shmitas kesafim). > (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an > eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple > owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) I'm not sure if there is a rigorous definition of "loophole". (The wikipedia article is a great place to start.) I tend to think that it is a general pejorative to describe any leniency that one has an emotional objection to. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 05:17:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150917121734.GA8567@aishdas.org> Li nir'eh the difference is that by eruv, it was all done in one sitting of beis din -- when they assered a karmeelis, they also promulgated the idea of eruv. IOW, explicitly they only assured a karmelis that didn't have an eruv. (A conscious exemption more than a loophole, as I would use the terms.) Pruzbul was a loophole in an earlier taqanah and that was and promulgated by a later beis di GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 09:58:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:58:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55FAF148.5080904@sero.name> On 09/17/2015 08:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and >> thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. > My language was not precise. I apologize. > > What I meant was that prior to the establishment of these d'rabanans, > one was allowed to carry from an unwalled non-thoroughfare to either > a walled area or to a major thoroughfare. But it was easy to get > confused between the general outdoors and a main road, so the general > outdoors was made into a Reshus Harabim D'rabanan, with the following > exception: Whereas a Reshus Harabim d'Oraisa requires actual walls to > allow carrying, for a Reshus Harabim d'Rabanan it is sufficient to > surround an area with doorways (tzuras hapesach). Mid'oraisa a set of four tzuros hapesach works in reshus harabim too. It was the rabanan who said "ein me'arvim reshus harabim bekach", and only allowed it in a karmelis. Whether they did this at the same time that they forbade carrying in a karmelis, I don't know. My impression is that it was later, because the first we hear of it is in a braisa, and it's subject to machlokes, whereas the concept of karmelis is taken for granted by all. > My point was that they are excellent examples of an exception being > built into the law from the very beginning, as opposed to Prozbul, > which (if shmitas kesafim is d'rabanan) was a separate enactment from > shmitas kesafim Yes, this is clear. > (because if they were done at the same time, the goal of Prozbul > could have been acheived even more easily by simply not enacting > shmitas kesafim). You don't need to go there. It's obvious that shmitas kesafim midrabanan preceded Hillel, because if it hadn't then how could he have observed the problem that resulted? Clearly it long predated him, presumably all the way back to the end of shmita d'oraisa, or at least to the return from Bavel. But the *efficacy* of pruzbul is not Hillel's takana at all. It's de'oraisa (Sifri, quoted by Tosfos Gittin 36a dh Mi Ika Midi) >> (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an >> eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple >> owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) > I'm not sure if there is a rigorous definition of "loophole". > (The wikipedia article is a great place to start.) I tend to > think that it is a general pejorative to describe any leniency > that one has an emotional objection to. The WP article is seriously defective (WP:OR for one thing) and needs to extensive a rewrite for me to bother with. A loophole is built into a wall; it's *meant* to be there. There's nothing pejorative about it. An exception to a law is a case where the law doesn't apply; a loophole is where the law *does* apply, and this is how it applies. It's not that an eruv permits one to carry in a RHY with multiple owners, it's that an eruv turns it (for this purpose) into a RHY with a single owner. Similarly eruv techumin doesn't allow you to walk more than 2000 amos from your residence, it merely moves your residence. That's not an exception, it's a loophole. If you want an example of an exception, look to eruv tavshilin. The chachamim, whether because of kevod shabbos or kevod yomtov, forbade the ha'arama of cooking for guests whom you aren't really expecting, *unless* you make an eruv. The eruv is an exception built into the original takana. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 03:33:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 13:33:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "I think it makes no sense for Prozbul to be "an exception to an enactment", because "why bother?" If the agricultural Shemitta stops being d'Oraisa, then Chazal can certainly enact it on a d'rabanan level. But to do that for Shemitas Kesafim means to legislate the following three things simultaneously: 1) Enact a law requiring cancellation of loans 2) Loans are exempt from cancellation if Prozbul is done 3) For the benefit of both poor and wealthy, everyone should do a Prozbul Why enact such a set of laws? Wouldn't it be far simpler to just let Shmitas Kesafim lapse, and NOT be enacted on a d'rabanan level?" If you look at the sugya of pruzbul (Gittin 36a-b) these points are all addressed: The Gemara starts out with the fact that Hillel was mesaken pruzbul. Then the Gemara asks how could he do that if the Torah (shemitas kesafim) cancels the loan? Abaye answers that Hillel only made his takana of pruzbul when shemittas kesafim was derabbanon. The Gemara then asks how could the Chachamim be mesaken shemmitas kesafim derabbanon if min hatorah the lender has to pay back the loan? Rava answers hefker beis din hefker. We see clearly from the Gemara that the historical progression was 1. Shemmita ceased being min hatorah 2. Chachamim were mesaken shemitta miderabbonon including shemittas kesafim 3. After shemitta derabbonon was already established Hillel saw that people were not lending money and therefore was mesaken pruzbul In other words these things did not happen simultaneously, pruzbul was enacted after shemmitas kesafim was already established. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 06:03:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 09:03:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] An Important Clarification Regarding Some Relevant Halachos for Yom Kippur Message-ID: <20150921130412.485F3183A12@nexus.stevens.edu> [] Some Relevant Halachos for Yom Kippur: A Clarification The following is an excerpt from the article on selected halachos relative to Yom Kippur: "At the conclusion of Yom Kippur, one may not do melachah (labor prohibited on Shabbos/ Yom Kippur) until one recites (or hears) Havdalah over wine (or the equivalent) or recites A ttah Chonantanu in Ma'ariv, or says Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol. Although reciting any of these allows one to do melachah, one may not eat until after reciting (or hearing) Havdalah over wine (or the equivalent). Accordingly, married men should hurry home after Ma'ariv on Motza'ei Yom Kippur to recite Havdalah so that their wives will be able to eat." Clarification : Following the conclusion of Yom Kippur, after one recites Attah Chonantanu in Ma'ariv or says Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol, one may drink water even before reciting (or hearing) Havdalah. Thus (for example), a woman whose husband is delayed in coming home after Ma'ariv on Motza'ei Yom Kippur may recite Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol after nightfall and drink water before hearing Havdalah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 15:18:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 23:18:00 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> Message-ID: A summary of Pruzbul I have in front of me (written by Rabbi D Tugendhaft, London) says: "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" On 16 September 2015 at 23:07, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 09/16/2015 05:41 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > >> A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: >> >> Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking >>> around at books and online. I see no discussion whatsoever on >>> whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, >>> e.g. books I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that >>> addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an obligation to return >>> a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? >>> >> > I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? >> > > > Shemita applies only to halva'ah, not to she'elah. English uses the > same word, but they are very different transactions. It's actually > strange that English, which is usually the most precise language, does > not distinguish them. > > A book is a she'elah; the book remains her property, and she expects > the borrower to return it. Thus it is not at all affected by shemita. > It is also not subject to the prohibition on ribbis; not only is there > absolutely nothing wrong with charging people to borrow your stuff, > the Torah explicitly endorses it as one of the four forms of shemirah. > > -- > Zev Sero GChT > zev at sero.name > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 06:53:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:53:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Haqeil Message-ID: <55FC174B.6090900@zahav.net.il> Anyone here understand sound? Assuming best case scenarios (loud voices, no background noise, good hearing), how many people could possibly hear the king read at Haqeil? It would seem that there is no way the king could project his voice so that most could hear him (????). If few actually came to the tekes, OK, but if most people came how could it possibly work? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 07:57:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:57:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] From Medieval Ashkenaz Techinah Supplication to Iconic Segulah: The Chasidic Transformation of G-d of Abraham Message-ID: <20150918145828.8F30C183A9B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/pwg839c From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 10:20:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 20:20:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] vort on teshuvah Message-ID: 1) Rambam in hlichot teshuva (7:6) discusses the effect of teshuva yesterday (emesh) i was far from G-d hated ... and now I am beloved RYBS asks why the Rambam here uses such poetic language in particular using "emesh" instead of "etmol" . He asnwers that "etmol" indicates a 24 hour period while "emesh" can be a fraction of second between being hated by G-d and being loved by G-d 2) Someone who marries on a woman on condition that he is a Tzaddik the marriage is valid even if it is known that he is a rasha perhaps (shema) he did teshuva. Someone in the shiur noted that "shema" read backwards is "emesh" . Meaning that rasha who proposed marriage did teshuva a fraction of a second before the proposal -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 10:15:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 13:15:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reciting 100 Brochos Daily Message-ID: <20150918171648.24C57181A25@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/njmnbgn From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 15:12:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shmuel Weidberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:12:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? Message-ID: Hello everybody. I haven't been active on this list in a long time. I just had a look around the internet to see if there was anything new with the Kosher Switch, and I remembered an issue with it that I haven't seen discussed anywhere. The makers say that there is a certain amount of randomization involved in whether the light flashes into the detector and whether the detector detects the light. There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create random numbers. They create pseudo-random numbers which means they take a seed number and perform a complex calculation on it to get the next number, which looks like it bears no relation to the first number, but which in fact is completely determined by the first number. Computer can get real random numbers, by generating the seed by looking at actions that take place that the computer cannot predict such as when somebody presses a key on a keyboard, or when some other sensor is activated. Alternatively, they can get random numbers from a special piece of hardware that is designed to physically make random numbers. However, I believe such pieces of hardware are quite specialized and if there actually was one in the switch it would be advertised. In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. Regards, Shmuel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 10:59:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:59:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> Message-ID: <56004574.4040004@sero.name> On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour > because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in > its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to she'elah. Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 11:29:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:29:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. ------------------------------- Yes, much as a complete understanding of the physics involved would determine the roll of the dice as it left one?s hand. Yet we call this ?random? (and iirc statisticians can?t prove any set of numbers was truly random, only that they appear likely so. Gct 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 22:35:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 01:35:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <063901d0f4f8$8c2cd700$a4868500$@gmail.com> R? Shmuel Weidberg: The makers say that there is a certain amount of randomization involved in whether the light flashes into the detector and whether the detector detects the light. There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create random numbers. They create pseudo-random numbers which means they take a seed number and perform a complex calculation on it to get the next number, which looks like it bears no relation to the first number, but which in fact is completely determined by the first number. In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. --------------------------- Isn?t the lomdus of their approach that you, the person flicking the switch, doesn?t DO anything because you?re only covering a light pulse without knowing when it will come next? So it doesn?t really matter if it?s random, it matters that you don?t know when it will next illuminate. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 07:04:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:04:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56004574.4040004@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> Message-ID: <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. On 9/21/2015 8:59 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > >> "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour >> because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in >> its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" > > Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to > she'elah. > Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 11:00:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:00:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> Message-ID: <56019748.5060907@sero.name> On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 9/21/2015 8:59 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: >>> "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour >>> because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in >>> its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" >> Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to she'elah. >> Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. > But a book, you return the same one. Usually. Not usually, always. There are two utterly different kinds of transaction for which the English language uses the same words: loan, borrow, lend. This is surprising, since usually English is a more precise language than most, but it is so. She'elah: I give you my property, with permission to use it. It remains my property, and you must return it on the agreed-upon date, or when I ask for it, in reasonable shape given the time you had it and the use to which you put it. In other words, in slightly worse shape than when I gave it to you. I may do this as a favour, but there is no mitzvah for me to do so. I am entitled to charge you for it, in which case the transaction is called "sechirus", or in English, "rental". Shemitah does not apply to this transaction. Common examples: a book, a car, a tool, a pen. Halva'ah: I give you my property, and it becomes yours. I do not expect it back, ever. On the agreed-upon date, or when I ask, you must give me something exactly like what I gave you. Since you are a Jew, I have a mitzvah to do this as a favour for you, and am forbidden from charging you anything for it, and you are forbidden from paying me anything for it, in any form. Shemitah applies. Common examples: $100, a cup of sugar, a rubber band. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 12:48:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 22:48:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56019748.5060907@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> <56019748.5060907@sero.name> Message-ID: <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > >> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. > > Not usually, always. Several years ago, we borrowed a book from my brother-in-law. A while later, we wanted to return it, but we couldn't find it. So we bought another identical copy and returned that in its place. So I'm going to stick with "usually." Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 19:11:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 22:11:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> <56019748.5060907@sero.name> <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> Message-ID: <56035BCF.7000400@sero.name> On 09/23/2015 03:48 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> >>> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. >> >> Not usually, always. > > Several years ago, we borrowed a book from my brother-in-law. A while > later, we wanted to return it, but we couldn't find it. So we bought > another identical copy and returned that in its place. So I'm going > to stick with "usually." Your obligation was to return the exact same book. Once that became impossible, you became liable as a shomer; a shomer sachar and a socher are liable for geneiva va'aveida, so at that point you became liable to pay the value of the lost book, and that sum became a milveh, and thus subject to shemitah and ribbis. -- Zev Sero Gut Yomtov zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 12:09:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:09:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a > random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the > time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it > simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. Do you know whether the Star-K-certified "Sabbath mode" ovens use pseudo-random numbers or true random numbers? (Thermal noise would do fine; and many processors, even some embedded ones, have such a random number source.) --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 12:03:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 15:03:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150924190308.GA28981@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 06:12:07PM -0400, Shmuel Weidberg via Avodah wrote: : I just had a look around the internet to see if there was anything new with : the Kosher Switch... : There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't : computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create : random numbers... I don't think this particular distinction makes a halachic difference. The question is whether the person doing the action has a reasonable chance of predicting the outcome. Actual mathematical randomness might not be at issue. As long as I can't know what my flipping the switch would do, I would think it should all be the same. (Think of it as a first cousin to ignoring water bears and other zooplankton that can only be seen with a magnifying glass when drinking water.) ... : Computer can get real random numbers, by generating the seed by looking at : actions that take place that the computer cannot predict such as when : somebody presses a key on a keyboard, or when some other sensor is : activated... Actually, that's not really random, just less predictable because the seed generation is outside the machine. A specially designed can get truly random numbers by using quantum effects. Such as picking up on the brownian motion of molecules due to heat. But really, I don't think we have to worry about the difference between "random" and "not humanly predictable". Also a side note: I might point out that there are numerous hashkafos in which every event, or at least every event that impacts a human being, is subject to hashgachah peratis. And thus, nothing we ever experience is actually random. Or alternatively, that the word "random" needs a different translation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 14:20:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:20:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shemittah beyond Shemittah Message-ID: <20150924212050.B6B10182CED@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://cor.ca/view/720/shemittah_beyond_shemittah.html From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 14:37:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:37:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shemitta Sheilos: Using Arbah Minim of Sheviis - Parts I and II Message-ID: <20150924213723.28661183A0D@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://ohr.edu/6522 and http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6527 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 25 00:32:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:32:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Buying minim from a child Message-ID: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> When I was in yeshiva, we were told to refrain from buying any of the four minim from a child. If the product was stolen, a child can't take possession via shinu reshut or ma'aseh. Therefore the theft falls on the buyer and his minim are pasul. Thinking about during my jog, I had a few questions: 1) Is this a real chashash or simply are we trying to cover all halachik corners? Meaning, if I do buy from a child do I really have anything to worry about? And if it isn't a real concern, then why am I not being oveir on "chosheid b'kesheirim"? 2) If it is a real chashash (the presence of stolen minim in the market) than why buy from an adult? Buying stolen goods is also a sin. At the very least, one can only buy from a place with a heksher. 3) Or can one? Can we assume that the kashrut agencies really check were their minim come from? 4) Who determines if there is a significant presence of stolen goods in the market every year? I assume that the amount of stolen goods has to be above a certain minimum for there to be a real issue? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 21:44:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 00:44:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur Message-ID: In the case where an ill person is eating on Yom Kippur, the Magen Avraham 618:10 brings varying views on whether he needs Lechem Mishne, whether he includes Yaaleh V'yavo in bentching, and whether he must make Kiddush. Kaf Hachaim 618:60 repeats much of that, with some changes and additions, and in 618:61 he points out that the same would apply to children and women who have recently given birth. Similar things appear in the other nosei keilim on that se'if. I got the impression that the pros and cons on these questions were based mostly on practical and halachic concerns, such as whether or not these halachos were ever enacted for Yom Kippur. I'd like to know if the *historical* side is discussed anywhere. I'm focusing now specifically on Lechem Mishne, and I'm now ignoring Kiddush and Birkas Hamazon. Here are my questions of historical fact: During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the children eat? There are several possible answers I can think of: Perhaps mon fell on Yom Kippur, but only at the homes where where children or yoldos live. Perhaps mon did not fall on Yom Kippur, but those homes got a double portion on Erev Yom Kippur. Perhaps neither of the above happened, and the children and yoldos had to make do with whatever other food might have been available. (This possibility seems odd to me, as it throws a curve ball into the whole "40 years of miracles" idea: Exactly once each year, the children had no choice but to eat non-miraculous food, and the day for this chinuch was Yom Kippur.) I suppose I should also include another possibility, which is that everyone received their normal supply of mon on Yom Kippur just like on every other day, but that seems like quite a waste. Perhaps they ate it on Motzaei Yom Kippur. In which case I'd wonder if only a half-portion might have fallen that morning. I also question whether Hashem would have placed such a michshol at the doorways, leaving their mon in the reshus harabim. Does anyone know of any Midrashim or other sources that might talk about this? Akiva Miller (PS: I only asked about children and yoldos in the midbar, and I did not ask about other cholim. That's because I think that in the miraculous Midbar, no one was ever sick, and no one died except on the night of Tisha B'Av. If anyone wants to discuss this, please begin a new thread.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 20:33:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ken Bloom via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 23:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? Message-ID: Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in depth than Sefer HaToda'ah. Does anyone know of something analgous to how the Maharal's Gevurot Hashem explains Pesach, or have other recommendations about the holiday? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 22:19:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 01:19:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: : Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better : understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully : understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in : depth than Sefer HaToda'ah. Does anyone know of something analgous to how : the Maharal's Gevurot Hashem explains Pesach, or have other recommendations : about the holiday? RYHutner's Pachad Yitzchaq. (Although the volumes are arranged around Shabbos & YT, and thus would seem particular to those topics, I would consider it one of the canonical Jewish philoosphy works of the 20th cent. Not to be skipped by anyone serious about learning hashkafah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 30 12:53:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:53:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Whole Hallel on Sukkos Message-ID: <20150930195335.GA18194@aishdas.org> I just noticed something that is likely to be meaningful. We say whole Hallel every day of Sukkos because the qorban mussaf differs each day. The mussaf differs by the number of cows, which total 70 across the YT. The 70 cows are keneged the 70 nations. Among the things we would have otherwise skipped was "Lamah yomeru hagoyim..." So... Because we bring qorbanos on behalf of the 70 nations over the course of Sukkos, we pray for their abandonment of AZ on each day of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 30 13:03:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:03:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Buying minim from a child In-Reply-To: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> References: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <560C400E.6080206@sero.name> On 09/25/2015 03:32 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > When I was in yeshiva, we were told to refrain from buying any of the > four minim from a child. If the product was stolen, a child can't > take possession via shinu reshut or ma'aseh. Therefore the theft > falls on the buyer and his minim are pasul. > > Thinking about during my jog, I had a few questions: > > 1) Is this a real chashash or simply are we trying to cover all > halachik corners? Meaning, if I do buy from a child do I really have > anything to worry about? And if it isn't a real concern, then why am > I not being oveir on "chosheid b'kesheirim"? > > 2) If it is a real chashash (the presence of stolen minim in the > market) than why buy from an adult? Buying stolen goods is also a > sin. At the very least, one can only buy from a place with a heksher. > > 3) Or can one? Can we assume that the kashrut agencies really check > were their minim come from? > > 4) Who determines if there is a significant presence of stolen goods > in the market every year? I assume that the amount of stolen goods > has to be above a certain minimum for there to be a real issue? The chashash is not for actually stolen goods, but that the land on which the minim were grown was stolen hundreds or thousands of years ago, and since karka eina nigzeles it still belongs to the rightful heirs of the original owner. Thus the person who harvests the minim is technically the gazlan, ye'ush happened a long time ago, so we need a shinuy reshus, which happens when you buy from the "gazlan", but not if he's a katan. If he bought it from someone else then this problem doesn't exist, but there's another problem: it won't be shelachem, which it needs to be for the first day. This is also why one should not use minim one cut oneself, but rather sell those and buy ones that someone else cut. All of this only applies in countries where land title is uncertain; where it can be traced directly back to a valid kibush milchama, there is no problem. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 07:15:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 10:15:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <5593124A.2040905@sero.name> References: <20150630.152626.19374.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> <5593124A.2040905@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150701141526.GB24797@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 06:03:54PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/30/2015 03:26 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : >>From what I've seen, it is NOT said even if a minyan says Birkas Hamazon, : : Why would it? When a minyan says Birkhas haMazon, the zimun changes, it creates a minyan one may not break (by benching on their own or with a normal zimun), but no Qaddish. When a minyan says Pesuqei deZimra, nothing changes, there is no specific issur on leaving in the middle, and yet it is closed with Qaddish (even if you lose the minyan during PdZ). I think RAM's question why is quite fair. It would be nice to think the minhag follows some well-defined rule. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 05:35:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:35:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bio of RSRH Message-ID: <20150701123548.93E2D182CC3@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/p5h866u From this URL. When Rav Yisroel Salanter read a copy of The Nineteen Letters in 1873, he said that it should be translated into Russian and Hebrew. He also remarked, "Is there a Gan Eden big enough for Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch?" See the above URL for more. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 14:33:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:33:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakarat Hatov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 03:56:25PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Does Hakarat Hatov engender a measurable "liability" (e.g. require a : marginally greater action) between the recipient and the provider of the : "Tov", or is saying "Thank you, I appreciate it" the only requirement? Moshe isn't the trigger for the first makkos because he "owed" the Ye'or and the sand for saving him in the past. As Chazal put it (BQ 92b) WRT "velo sesaeiv Mitzri ki ger hayisa ve'artzo", it justified the common saying "bira deshasis mineih, lo tashdi beih kala" (into a well from which you once drank, don't throw clods of dirt). That said, I don't think reducing gratitude to *nothing more than* a favor-economics is healthy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness, micha at aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom. http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 14:37:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:37:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakarat Hatov In-Reply-To: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> References: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150701213753.GA24874@aishdas.org> PS: I started with the aggadic story and didn't say why I opened with a medrash rather than a gemara. The Nile and the sand wasn't actors. Moshe didn't really owe them anything. It's like "not embarassing" the challah by covering it. Apparently the notion of repaying a favor is so important, HQBH expects us to practice it for a middah exercise even when the other side isn't a real 2nd party. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 12:08:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 15:08:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish with mixed seating Message-ID: Following up upon my earlier post about the permissibility of saying the *kaddish *of a *siyyum* at a dinner with mixed seating. I spoke to RIETS RY last week and he said that we only require *mechitzah* in a *Shul*, based upon the *Gemara* in *Succos*, which requires separate seating at a *shul*. This is clear from the original textual source of mechitzah, the Gemara in the fifth perek of Succos, that the basis of *mechitzah* is the *Bais ha-Mikdash*. As our Synagogues are modeled after the Bais ha-Mikdash, we apply the principals underlying the *Gemara* in Succos to our Shuls. (Similarly, *Tosfos* justifies the practice of bringing children to Shul using the model of *Hakhel*.) As the Kaddish for a Siyyum has nothing do to with a Shul there is no need for separate seating. I also spoke to one of the Dayanim in our community he did not even think that saying *kaddish* with mixed seating was an issue as he thought that mixed seating was only an issue in a *Shul*. Others told me the same (i.e. that only a *shul* requires separation) in the name of Rav Schachter *shlit?a* . However, I saw Rav Herschel Schachter *shlit?a* at shacharis this week so I asked him my question. He responded that it would be better if they would have the *siyyum* before the dinner. I asked why and he responded ?*Davar She?bekedushah*?. I asked him so why do people recite *Kedushah* after a *siyyum* with mixed seating. And he responded, ?Nu, Nu?. (Which is a common response from Rav Schachter to questions of that sort.) Interestingly enough the Gemara in Succos brings a ?proof? for separation of men and women from a non-?*Davar She?bekedushah*? the funeral in *Zecharyah*. Of course we are not discussing whether a particular practice is good or bad or even ?best practices?, but rather whether it is required or not. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 08:32:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 11:32:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] From Succot to Moshiach Message-ID: Ma tovu ohalecha: ?Tents? are temporary and refer to olam hazeh ?.mishk?nosecha: ?Dwelling places? refers to olam haba. In other words, we are first in the antechamber, the temporary abode, which tents symbolize; then, once we leave our temporary homes, we hopefully ascend to our permanent ?dwelling place.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 14:44:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 17:44:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Historical Bil'am Message-ID: <20150703214448.GA32213@aishdas.org> H/T RYGB, see http://www.livius.org/source-content/deir-alla-inscription He asks on his blog: Why isn't this more widely known? The full article includes an image of the instription and a complete translation. This is just the opening. :-)BBii! -Micha Livius.org Articles on ancient history Deir 'Alla Inscription Deir 'Alla Inscription: inscription, found in the Iron Age town of Deir 'Alla, mentioning the Biblical prophet Balaam. Deir 'Alla is situated in western Jordan, about eight kilometers east of the river Jordan, and about a kilometer north of the Jabbok. The excavators found a very large Bronze Age sanctuary that had suffered in the period of wide-spread destruction in the thirteenth/twelfth centuries. Unlike other settlements, which were abandoned, Deir 'Alla remained in use well into the fifth century BCE. That is remarkable. Even more remarkable, however, was the discovery of a painted text that contained a prophecy by Balaam... (The site of Deir 'Alla is, technically, on the [11]Ammonite side of the river Jabbok.) The text refers to divine visions and signs of future destruction, in a language that is close to that of the Bible. For example, we read about the "Shaddai gods", an expression that is close to the Biblical El Shaddai, "God Almighty". On the other hand, the setting is not monotheistic: we read, for instance, about a gathering of a group of gods. The word elohim, which in the Bible (although plural) refers to one God, refers to more than one god in the Deir 'Alla text. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 15:16:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 18:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> In a recent blog post, R' Aryeh Klapper (Cc-ed) writes http://moderntoraleadership.wordpress.com/2015/07/03/chok-mishpat-and-obergefell Imagine pre-snake Adam and Eve walking into the Jewish camp. They would not praise the Jews for their modesty, and they would have no idea why the tents' openings did not face each other. For Bilaam to praise the Jews' virtue, even in the context of his deep and unremitting hatred, he had to be capable of understanding that modesty was a relevant evaluative category. What would it take for Bilaam to have this capacity? Unlike the prelapsarian original couple, he would have to be conscious of his own sexuality, and experientially aware that sexuality could be associated with shame. He might nonetheless choose exhibitionism for himself, and for his culture. He might decide that sexual shame is the root of neurosis and dedicate himself to its cultural eradication. But he would understand what he was eradicating. Perhaps there would even be moments when he regretted his victory. My tentative suggestion is that the Torah teaches us here that there is a value in making our moral premises intelligible even to our enemies; this is part of our mission to be the light of the nations. I want to be clear that this value is not pragmatic, and that we are not safer, or less likely to be hated, if we are understood. Like Bilaam, the world may use its understanding of our virtue to learn how best to undermine us. It is simply part of our job to enable as much as we can of humanity to make informed moral choices. I suggest further that perhaps we can understand the Seven Noachide Commandments as intended not to provide a formal code of behavior, but rather to identify a set of moral premises. Perhaps our mission is particularly to make those premises universally intelligible. Making premises intelligible is not accomplished through rational argumentation. Rational arguments depend on mutually intelligible premises. ... One core premise: let us identify it with the Noachide commandment against forbidden sexual relationships, or arayot -- that is no longer intelligible to many Americans is that sexuality can be evaluated in nonutilitarian terms, that a sexual act can be wrong even if no one gets hurt. We have replaced sexual morality with sexual ethics. Conversations on topics such as chastity, masturbation, and adultery are wholly changed from what they were even two decades ago, and tracts from back then can seem less contemporary than prehistoric cave art. There are many reasons that traditional rationales in the area of sexuality have moved rapidly from self-evident to unintelligible. Here are two: (1) Effective birth control and in vitro fertilization have broken the connection between intercourse and procreation. It is no longer self-evident to speak of intercourse as potential recreation, or as inevitably associated with the risk of pregnancy. (2) Many human beings with homosexual orientations have told compelling personal stories of pain and alienation. In the secular world, the natural reaction to a premise's social unintelligibility is the repeal of any laws that depend on it. In the Orthodox world, where immediate repeal is rarely a viable option, one reasonable reaction is what I call "chokification," or the declaration that laws that once depended on the now-unintelligible premise should be regarded as either beyond human comprehension or else as arbitrary rules intended to train us to obedience. Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. I utilized the following "Lonely Man of Faith" based idea to open "The Talk" with my sons.I wanted them to understand the sanctity of sex, so before getting into the mechanics of it, I tried to open by setting a religious context. As far as I can tell, the Torah gives two purposes for marriage: 1- In Genesis 1, the goal is to procreate and raise children. This is Adam I's drive "to fill the earth and conqure it", his place at the end of a sequence of creation -- above the animals, but more quatitatively than qualitatively. 2- In Genesis 2, the goal is to reunite the two halves, Adam and Eve, who were originally created as a single unit. Adam II seeks redemption through community. In this case, romantic love. Sex in its role of making a bond between people. And therefore a problem of premarital sex is that one thereby learns to minimize the bond thereby created. It weakens that function of sex, so it won't be as effective once you are married. Either alone -- procreation or the romantic reunification of the two halves of the original Adam (which again, I mean psychologically, not mystically) would be sufficient reason to justify sexual intimacy. But without either, it's the pursuit of our mamalian drives for insufficient reason. The objectification (or at least animalization) of the self. In order to buy into #2, one needs to believe that gender (as opposed to biological sex) is an innate set of existential and psychological differences, and not just a role imposed by convention. And therefore Adam and Eve are distinct and different halves of a whole. That this is an existential and deep-psychological truth, which will hold no matter how much society attempts to change those roles and bury gender differences. Notice that despite the social trends that brought the Supreme Court to conclude last week that traditional sexual morality (in contrast to sexual ethics) is irrational and thus prejudicial bias, the above implies that the Torah's ban on homosexuality can be explained in mishpat terms. On a different note, the shift from morality to ethics is typical for postmodernism. When all narratives are equally valid there is no way to insist there is an absolute moral code. Never mind determine what it contains. Therefore, one encourages a freedom to act as an end itself, rather than as a means to greatness. (Which is a logical progression from the American legal system, the concept of rights-based law taken to its extreme. It's notable that a society that values a "maavir al midosav" would not laud taking rights as far as all that. As a legal philosphy, though, it is the best we've come up with to avoid "ish es rei'eihu chaim bal'o", which is the central role of a secular gov't, no?) However, the lack of establishment of a common moral code is itself damaging to society. No one private violation of moral code, whatever the society holds it to be, will necessarily harm others. But living in a society that doesn't promote morality, that doesn't work toward aiming that autonomy toward some higher end, is harmful. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 15:20:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:20:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> References: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is the purpose to make things even worse? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 16:28:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 19:28:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> References: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150705232816.GA29598@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:20:08PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. : Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a : moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is : the purpose to make things even worse? As I quoted from RAK, because they classically were not considered chuqim. Until our contemporaries took the issue from sexual morality to sexual ethics, these truths were considered self-evident. It's the choqification of dinei arayos that's inauthentic. In any case, since one doesn't pasqen from taamei hamitzvos, the din is the same either way. Nothhing in such exploration can "make things even worse". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 15:57:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:57:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon Message-ID: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> In Pirkei Avot, Hillel HaZaken says: "Be among the talmidim of Aharon, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them close to the Torah." I don't get it. I honestly don't. If we see a bunch of Jews who don't know anything about Judaism, shouldn't we try and get them to keep the mitzvot? If you know that they're more likely to violate the mitzvot if they don't know, it's it our responsibility to teach them what God wants of them? The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this subject. I look at gay people and I see them overwhelmingly part of the nihilism of the left, but I don't think being gay automatically makes people like that. But what else are Jews supposed to do when they're being pushed away from the Torah? Jews have neshamas that were at Sinai. A Jew who was raised without Torah has an empty space inside that's just *begging* to be filled with Torah. But because of the wrongheaded idea that gay people have to either pretend they aren't gay, or they must be ostracized from the Torah community, they wind up filling that empty space with the even emptier slogans of the left. Because of the belief held by so many frum Jews that gay people who acknowledge themselves to be gay are simply *incapable* or unwilling to keep mitzvot, we, as a community *deliberately* withhold the Torah from them. It makes no sense to me. I mean, worst case, you tell someone gay, "There are things you aren't allowed to do according to Jewish law. Are you willing to abide by that?" But we aren't even doing that. We're assuming that the answer is going to be no, and by so assuming, we're *making that happen*. At 120, when you're standing before the Kisei HaKavod and you're asked why you pushed so many Jews away from His Torah, I wonder what you'll answer. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 17:34:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 20:34:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon In-Reply-To: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> References: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150706003423.GB14365@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:57:04PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: : In Pirkei Avot, Hillel HaZaken says: "Be among the talmidim of Aharon, : loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them close : to the Torah." : : I don't get it. I honestly don't. If we see a bunch of Jews who don't : know anything about Judaism, shouldn't we try and get them to keep the : mitzvot?... First, a minor correction. Hillel says "berios", or as in the tradition "loving people and bringing them..." IOW, not only kiruv, but bringing non-Jews to NNoachidism. : The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since : the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of : the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't : get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so : many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this : subject. I'm not so sure. The SCOTUS ruled in favor of a right that is based on the idea that believing the Torah's position about homosexuality is bigotry. But in any case, it's like any other rule of tochachah... You need to tell them what they're doing is wrong n a way that gets constructive change. The usual rule for when you should shut up is "mutav sheyihyu shogegim", but here nearly everyone involved know what we pasqen it's assur. So, you're not turning anyone into meizidim. : It makes no sense to me. I mean, worst case, you tell someone gay, : "There are things you aren't allowed to do according to Jewish law. : Are you willing to abide by that?" But we aren't even doing that. : We're assuming that the answer is going to be no, and by so assuming, : we're *making that happen*. But the US law in question is itself to permit something you aren't allowed to do in Jewish law, and in the Minchas Chinukh's opinion -- nor in Noachide law. The general problem of people hating the sinner rather than the sin isn't limited to this one. Perhaps here things are more extreme because the accusers do not attempt to separate an instinctive loathing from actual halachic concerns. Either we should be getting similar bile when discussing business cheats, or we should be getting quiet on both fronts. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 18:46:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 01:46:19 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Alternate texts for the Prayer for the Government Message-ID: <20150705.214619.1506.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> R' Mordechai Harris wrote: > Here's the one I shard last time from the De Sola Pool Siddur. > www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/deSolaPoolPrayerForGovernment.pdf R' Simon Montagu asked: > Can you also share the publication details and/or title page of > this siddur? What I know as the De Sola Pool Siddur is not the > same as in this link. I have ... RMH's link was for "The Traditional Prayer Book for Sabbath and Festivals", the official siddur of the RCA, published in 1960. A very different, longer version appears in many other siddurim, with rather minor differences: The Hirsch Siddur, published by Feldheim The Authorized Daily Prayer Book by Chief Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz The Daily Prayer Book by Philip Birnbaum The Koren Siddur by Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks and in the new Nehalel beShabbat by Michael Haruni (website and free sample at nehalel.com) I was going to remark that I have found this prayer only in siddurim that have an English translation, but is not correct. First, it would seem to appear in whichever siddur the Hirsch was adapted from. But moreover, this same tefila also appears in my copy of "Siddur Eishei Yisrael al pi daas Maran HaGra." (I know there are many siddurim with similar names; all I can tell about this is that the title page lists no publisher, only "Yerushalayim 5735".) The Nehalel siddur is worth noting for this thread. I have not seen this siddur to be too widespread or popular (yet - it's only from 2013), but I'd like to point out that it has TWO versions of this prayer. The version which is very similar to the others is on a page marked "In the United States of America:". But the following page is marked "In the United Kingdom and Commonwealth:", and is markedly different -- but not nearly as different as the De Sola Pool version. This makes me stop, and wonder, and consider the fact that although my Hertz siddur and my Sacks siddur are both of British authorship, they both used American publishers (Bloch and OU Press respectively), and were possibly designed for an American audience. Which leads me to ask those of the chevra who currently reside in the Commonwealth: What version (if any) is said in your shuls? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5599de50e59b55e504270st04vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 06:29:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:29:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VBM-SICHOT75 - 41: The Philosophical Principles of Inheritance Message-ID: <20150706132902.GB31051@aishdas.org> Just because taamei hamitzvos is supposed to be one of the core topics of this email group's host organization.... BTW, my grandfather a"h was named Pinechas after this week's sedra, his bar mitzvah parashah. When it was time to name my oldest, I checked with my uncle how his name appeared on their kesuvah, as their mesader qiddushin was a key rav in my grandfather's life. (R/Dr Mirsky zt"l met two teenage boys coming off the boat and took them under his wing. My grandfather and great-uncle then earned enough to bribe the rest of the family's way out of Litta before the Nazis came to power.) Anyway, it seems R/Dr Mirsky held my grandfather's name was Pinechas, pei-yud-nun-ches-samekh, as it is spelled in the chumash (ignoring the size of the yud as usually written in the beginning of the parashah). And thus the sheva is na, Pinechas - not Pinchas. If you want to make a derashah out of a Mitzri name, it's Pi Nachas, not Pen Chas. Reason for this tangent... I would have expected "Gushies" to get the sheva in the parashah name right. After all, they have the patach under the reish in Parashat. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov VBM-SICHOT75 - 41: Parashat Pinchas Sicha of HaRav Mosheh Lichtenstein Adapted by Motti Guttman Translated by David Strauss Yeshivat Har Etzion "In Place of Your Fathers Shall Be Your Children": The Philosophical Principles of Inheritance The concept of inheritance arises in a number of contexts in the Torah, most prominently in Parashat Pinchas. It is also the central topic of the eighth chapter of Massekhet Bava Batra, Yesh Nochalin. Naturally, the discussion of the laws of inheritance focuses largely on the financial matters at issue among the heirs, leading to the discussion and clarification of a number of fundamental questions regarding monetary law. For that reason, chapter Yesh Nochalin has an important place in the world of Choshen Mishpat. However, the issue of inheritance is not merely monetary. The yerusha (inheritance) is not simply money that we have to decide what to do with. Of course, it is preferable to award the estate of the deceased to his surviving relatives, and not to the state or the income tax authorities; the gemara itself notes, "Should the town collector be the heir?" (Bava Batra 110b). This, however, is not the essence of the laws of inheritance. Inheritance -- Breaching the Boundaries of the Present At the heart of the concept of inheritance lies a significant principle: that of permanence and continuity. When Avraham Avinu entered the Land, he was forced to pitch his tent in different places and live the life of a wanderer. In contrast, the idea of inheritance establishes that a person should not live a life of impermanence. Moshe expresses the desire for a state of permanence in his words to Israel at the plains of Moav: "For you are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance" (Devarim 12:9). This verse was also expounded as referring to the Temple. The idea of inheritance, in this context, creates existential permanence, which is reflected in Halakha. From the time that Jerusalem was selected, it became the permanent site of the Temple, and from that point on, offering sacrifices on bamot was forbidden due to the damage that this would cause to the idea of the Temple as the chosen inheritance. Inheritance constitutes permanence and it creates continuity because it allows the individual to breach the boundaries of the present. From the time of creation, reality dictates that "One generation passes away and another generation comes, but the earth abides forever" (Kohelet 1:4). Man's days are numbered, and sooner or later he will disappear from the world. By his very definition, he is temporary -- like the flower that fades, the shadow that passes, the dust that floats, and the dream that flies away. He is here today and in the grave tomorrow. In contrast, his inheritance remains and affords him continuity. From parent to child and from child to grandchild and great-grandchild, the chain continues and death does not sever it. To a certain extent, this allows one to overcome death and oblivion. Ownership of property and land in itself does not preventing transience or create continuity; it is the identification of inheritance with the family and its heritage in the past and the present that creates the permanence and continuity. A central concept in Jewish law is the concept of the "house," which denotes a family that constitutes a unit of common heritage -- "After their families, by the house of their fathers." We are familiar with this concept from various realms of Halakha. For example, a man whose brother died without children marries the widow through yibum, levirate marriage, in order to continue the family, and he is thereby able to perpetuate the name of the deceased, since they belong to a common "house." Because of the great importance that the Torah attributes to perpetuating the name of the deceased and continuing his legacy, it established the mechanism of levirate marriage despite the personal, familial and halakhic difficulties entailed in marriage to one's brother's wife. Indeed, the mitzva of yibum takes precedence over the mitzva of chalitza because of the mission of perpetuating the brother's name.[1] The language of the text itself creates a connection between yibum and inheritance, as the purpose of the mitzva is defined as "to perpetuate the name of the deceased on his inheritance." The principle of continuity and its importance in a person's life is further reflected in the statement of Chazal (Nedarim 64b) that includes one who does not have any children among those who are considered as if they were dead. While continuity expresses itself on the concrete level through the transmission of property, much more important, of course, is ensuring continuity on the level of values, goals, and existential aspirations, which constitute the true heritage that a person leaves behind. The prophet Yeshaya emphasized how a person's eternal heritage endures: For thus says the Lord to the eunuchs who keep My Sabbath, and choose the things that please Me, and take hold of My covenant. And to them will I give in My house and within My walls a memorial better that sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. (Yeshaya 56:4-5) Indeed, there is more than one plane on which a person achieves inheritance and continuity. Inheritance is part of the system that turns the transition between generations into something permanent and stable, allowing family identity to be transmitted across the generations. In this light, we can understand Chazal's critique of a person who leaves no inheritance. As we read in a mishna in Yesh Nochalin (Bava Batra 133b): If a person gives his estate in writing to strangers and leaves out his children, his arrangements are legally valid, but the spirit of the Sages finds no delight in him. The reference here is not to a person who did not leave an inheritance due to poverty or distress, but rather to a person who decided to give away his estate for other purposes, as positive as they may be,[2] or based on the perception that his children should fend for themselves. The idea behind this mishna is the need to leave a legacy for future generations. The principle of passing down to the next generation is of central importance. Know From Whence You Come! This perception of inheritance is rooted in a general and comprehensive idea that pervades all of Jewish life -- namely, that we do not live only in the present. Judaism rejects a horizontal perspective on man, according to which man is connected only to his current environment. Our relationship is not only with this generation. Rather, our sights are at all times directed at "the one who stands here with us this day before the Lord our God, and also with the one who is not here with us this day" (Devarim 29:14). The hope is to establish a relationship of shared destiny with the past, on both the national and the personal level. This is why we mourn to this day various historical events that happened to our ancestors. We do not say, "What happened, happened." The sense of pain and tragedy that Jewish law demands of a person indicates that it expects one to experience these things in unmediated fashion, as if they occurred to people he knows, and not only that he relate to them as events of the distant past for the purpose of learning a lesson from history. "In every generation one must see himself as if he went out from Egypt." Just as a Jew is expected to feel the pain of his Jewish brothers injured in terrorist attacks in Argentina, Turkey, Paris, or Afula, regardless of the geographical distance between them, because all of Israel are responsible for and close to one another, he is similarly expected to feel pain over events that took place a long time ago. The ability to draw from our heritage and know what happened to our ancestors is important in itself. The actions of our forefathers interest us, regardless of the spiritual insights that can be derived from them, because of the feeling of existential partnership between us and our ancestors. Avraham and Sara, Yitzchak and Rivka, Yaakov, Rachel and Leah, are not only the nation's patriarchs and matriarchs, but also our forefathers. They are not only lofty figures, but also Grandpa and Grandma -- and for this reason the Torah shared their lives with us. Just as a grandson is interested in hearing from his grandfather or his grandmother about life in Eastern Europe or North Africa a century ago, we want to know what happened in Mesopotamia during the time of Avraham and Sara. A person's life in the present is intertwined with the history of his forefathers in the past. One is intricately connected to his past; one does not grow up in a vacuum. Models of Inheritance The first mishna in Yesh Nochalin presents us with a number of possible models for those who inherit and those who transmit inheritance: Some [relatives] inherit [from] and transmit [to each other]; some inherit but do not transmit; some transmit but do not inherit; some neither inherit nor transmit. Clearly, the ideal is that a person should inherit and transmit inheritance, that he should be numbered among those who are "nochalin u-manchilin." As stated above, the inheritance is not simply property for the heir, but rather constitutes a familial plot filled with existential significance. He inherits -- deciding to connect himself to his past and to his heritage. And he is interested in transmitting inheritance -- adding his contribution to the heritage, the personal layer that he adds to the inheritance and passes down to the next generation. In contrast, there are those who inherit but do not transmit, "nochalin ve-lo manchilin" -- who draw from the past and connect to it, but are not capable of passing their heritage on. Perhaps this is because they do not consider this stage important, or perhaps they lack the capacity to give their heritage over to others and to connect to the next generation. Such a person does not know how to take from the past and interpret it for his children in the future. He is familiar with the world of the past, but he lacks the tools to apply the past and its heritage to the challenges of the present and the future. The reverse case also exists -- "yesh manchilin ve-einam nochalin," there are those who transmit but who do not inherit. They wish to pass on their personal legacy, but they are cut off from the past, or so they imagine. In their eyes, everything began in their generation. Previous generations erred or were weak; there is no need to receive their inheritance, laden with the outdated baggage of Diaspora life. This heir is not prepared to connect to the past or to recognize that he is dependent upon it. Blinded by his present achievements, he is alienated from the past and the weight of tradition. The most tragic group neither inherits nor transmits inheritance, "lo nochalin ve-lo manchilin." They are cut off from every bit of the past. They live only in the present and are utterly devoid of worry about the future -- "After me, the deluge." The concept of inheritance serves as a bridge between the past and the future. In this context, the individual is merely another link in a chain. If we consider the chain of tradition recorded by the Rambam in his introduction to the Mishneh Torah, more important than any particular Sage is the very chain of tradition itself. The value of each link lies in the fact that it allows the chain to continue. This is the connection and bridge between all the generations, from Avraham Avinu until the Mashiach. Spiritual Heritage through Physical Means As noted above, the transmission takes place through tangible means as well. It is obvious to us that it is values and ideas, Torah and mitzvot, that constitute the heritage that passes from one generation to the next. It is easy to understand the statement: "Moshe commanded us the Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov" (Devarim 33:4). It is more difficult to grasp that the Torah also attaches great importance to tangible inheritance, to the transmission of physical property. Chazal teach us that "monuments are not built for the righteous; their words are their memorials" (Bereishit Rabba 82). We do not set up statues or tombstones for the righteous, for it is their spiritual legacy that serves as their memorial. Nevertheless, the ability to touch the past by way of some object bestows additional meaning on that heritage. Touching the physical possession of a deceased relative gives a person the sense of an unmediated encounter with the past. One generation passes away and another generation comes, but an object that remains provides a connection to the earlier period. Man is a physical creature, and contact with material objects is meaningful to him as a reminder of and bridge to the past. Not only is it meaningful to transmit the life story of the deceased to future generations and to talk about his values, but it is also important to be able to connect with him on the most basic level. When a person comes across an object that belonged to his relative, it is important to him even if it lacks monetary value or is in no way unique. The tangible item turns the past into something immediate on a level that cannot be achieved by any other means. A number of years ago, a Torah scroll that belonged to the Ran and a seal that was reportedly that of the Ramban were displayed in an exhibition devoted to Spanish Jewry before the expulsion. It is difficult to describe the thrill that I felt when I understood that this seal was once held by the Ramban himself and that the Ran had once used this Torah scroll. I also remember the feeling of immediacy that I felt when someone showed me an etrog box that had once belonged to R. Akiva Eiger. We are physical beings who come from the dust, and physical things therefore speak to us. Paradoxically, it is precisely material objects, which are essentially transient, that maintain their permanence for centuries, creating a bridge between the past and the future. The need for connection through objects, which is natural and self-evident given that we are humans of flesh and blood, also underlies the Torah and the practical mitzvot. Judaism is not built exclusively on vague and abstract values. In response to the human need for concreteness, a system of practical commandments was created in order to express a system of ideas. The performance of mitzvot creates a channel for religious experience and opens the way for a connection between man and God. The experience associated with taking a lulav or eating matza reflects how much an object plays a role in the human religious experience. In a person's private life, intimate family connections are not based exclusively on profound conversations about noble values, but are rather manifest in shared day-to-day experiences, including the trivial problems that engage an ordinary family in everyday conduct, such as who will wash the dishes or fold the laundry. Similarly, this component of activity that is ongoing but not uplifting plays a role in our observance of the mitzvot. Just as a family lives closely together and creates connections even through banal activities, the mitzvot create a common religious experience with God among all those observing them. Thus, objects can provide existential meaning, but this depends upon the eye of the beholder. A person who relates to an inheritance merely as a set of objects and not as a means to continue the past will not see any unique significance in those objects. The Uniqueness of the Firstborn Thus far, we have discussed the idea of heirs and inheritance in general, the concept of personal and national heritage in the sense of "You are the children of the Lord your God" (Devarim 14:1). We have not discussed any unique status of any of the heirs. This indeed follows the model of the first half of Yesh Nochalin. At this point, we must move on to the second half of the chapter and to the concept of the birthright, the special privileges bestowed upon a firstborn. In addition to the passage dealing with inheritance in Sefer Bamidbar, a passage in Sefer Devarim assigns special status to a firstborn son. The concept of the bechora, primogeniture, is not merely factual but rather value-laden. This is reflected in the gemara's emphasis on the idea of "recognizing" the firstborn (based on the word "yakir" in the verse). The birthright expresses an interpersonal relationship unique to the parent and firstborn; it assumes a certain connection between them. Therefore, a firstborn only inherits a double portion if he was alive during his father's lifetime (Bava Batra 142b) and the father recognizes him as his firstborn son (127a).[3] For this reason, we also maintain that "the Torah calls it [the firstborn's double portion] a gift." In Halakha, a gift is not merely a certain type of acquisition, but rather an expression of intimacy. The firstborn inherits as one who receives a gift, directly from the father and not through the house or family. All of a person's strengths are reflected first and foremost in his firstborn. A father is supposed to feel a partnership with his sons, and the firstborn is the first child with whom this closeness is created. The Concept of Birthright in the Bible The birthright is referred to prominently in three contexts in the Bible: the struggle over the birthright between Yaakov and Esav; the story of Yaakov's two firstborn sons, Reuven and Yosef; and the description of Israel as "My son, My firstborn" (Shemot 4:22). These models point to the importance attached to the firstborn, as well as to the dangers that this status creates. Concerning the opportunity and the danger posed by the birthright, it is appropriate to cite two midrashim from Avot De-Rabbi Natan: Israel were called "sons," as it is stated: "You are the sons of the Lord your God" (Devarim 14:1), and the ministering angels are called "sons," as it is stated: "The sons of God came" (Iyov 1:6), and you do not know which are more loved. When it says: "Israel is My son, My firstborn," [it makes clear that] you are more precious to me than the ministering angels. (44a) The firstborn is perceived here as a clear expression of endearment and special closeness. Another midrash in Avot De-Rabbi Natan speaks in a different tone, recognizing that not every firstborn is dearly loved: Israel is precious, for in His time of anger they are called "sons." In His time of anger they are called sons, and even at a time when the verse says: "Not His is the corruption, but the blemish of His sons" (Devarim 32:5) -- sons in whom I have no trust, corrupt sons. Therefore, the Sages taught that they are called sons of God... But not every firstborn is precious and dear. There is a firstborn who is precious and dear, and there is also a firstborn who is not precious and dear. (8a) This midrash points to the problematic nature of the firstborn. It is simple to speak of the beauty and loftiness of the idea of Israel being "My son, My firstborn." But this does not necessarily reflect reality, as we find in the stories dealing with the birthright in the book of Bereishit. Yaakov vs. Esav -- Values vs. Money Esav views inheritance as a way to acquire property: "Behold, I am at the point of death, and what profit shall this birthright be to me?" (Bereishit 25:32). Ostensibly, the opposite is actually true! It is precisely at the point of death that the birthright acquires greater importance, for through it Esav could be counted as part of the line of the house of Avraham and as a link that transmits the heritage of the past to the coming generations. In this way, his memory would be preserved for generations, even after he dies. But Esav understands that he will derive no monetary gain from the inheritance, as he is about to die, and he is therefore prepared to sell his birthright for a pot of lentils. The commentators discuss the manner in which Yaakov took the birthright from Esav, and the Rishonim deal with the legal question of how Yaakov could acquire the birthright even though it was something that had not yet come into existence ("davar she-lo ba le-olam"). Many explanations have been offered, but it is possible to suggest one very simple answer. Esav did not sell the birthright to Yaakov; he lost it because his actions proved that he was not worthy of it. His very readiness to sell his birthright for a pot of lentils attested to his attitude toward the birthright and to his alienation from the world of Yitzchak. Anyone who scorns the birthright demonstrates that he does not understand its significance, and thus forfeits it. Sometimes, a child relates to his parents as an infinite source of rights. He wishes only to receive benefits and service from his parents; he is not prepared to accept the burden of transferring the legacy of previous generations. It is not for naught that the midrash (Bereishit Rabba 67:8; 75:9) describes Esav as ready to arrange for the murder of Yaakov and Yishmael in order to inherit the entire inheritance of Avraham. When the birthright is perceived not as a responsibility and sacred mission, but as an opportunity to profit at the expense of others, when the attitude toward inheritance is like that toward any monetary matter, it is not surprising to find that a violent man would be prepared to kill the other heirs and to employ a variety of schemes in order to inherit more assets. Yaakov, in contrast, views the birthright not only as a right, but as a mission. He wants to perpetuate Avraham's blessing in the world, and he sees the birthright as a destiny that will confer that mission upon him. It is not by chance that Chazal saw the pot of lentils as a dish denoting mourning over Avraham's passing, for it is around this event that the debate focuses. The test is whether to view this as an opportunity for profit -- on the tangible level, through the eating of the beans, and on the symbolic level, through benefit from the property of the deceased -- or as a call to assume responsibility and accept the authority of the firstborn. Reuven vs. Yosef -- Competition vs. Continuity Another pair of brothers who compete over the birthright presents us with a different model that is problematic for a different reason. On the one hand, "Reuven, you are my firstborn, my might and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity and the excellency of power" (Bereishit 49:3). It is upon Reuven that Yaakov pins his entire future and all of his hopes. On the other hand, "Unstable as water, you shall not excel; because you went up to your father's bed; then you did defile it: he went up to my couch" (ibid. 49:4), and in Divrei Ha-Yamim: "Now the sons of Reuven the firstborn of Israel -- for he was the firstborn, but since he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Yosef the son of Yisrael" (I Divrei Ha-Yamim 5:1). Because he defiled his father's bed, the birthright was taken away from Reuven. Esav was indifferent to the birthright and to the past; he sought in his inheritance only monetary gain. Reuven suffers from the opposite problem -- he sees himself as competing with his father and contending against him. No matter how we understand the specifics of Reuven's sin when he defiled his father's bed, the implication is the same -- it was an attempt to push his father aside and take his place during his lifetime. Reuven challenged his father's standing as head of the family. He rejected Yaakov's authority, and by doing so he impaired his own standing. The way of the world is that at some stage in a person's life, there is a reversal of roles. The strong parent, the firm rock, turns into a frail old man, at which point the sons must help the parent. Sometimes, they are even compelled to make decisions for the parent. Indeed, at the end of Yaakov's life, when he arrived in Egypt a broken and ill man, Yosef made various decisions for him. All this is possible and appropriate when the father is old and weak, when there is no other way, but not when the father is at the height of his strength and is fit to stand on his own two feet. The firstborn is meant to be the continuation of his father, but not his replacement who is in competition with him. The father bestows the birthright -- "The Torah calls it a gift." A son may not take the birthright by force. The similarity between Reuven and Yaakov could have prepared Reuven to be his father's successor. However, when that similarity is interpreted as competition, the firstborn's reward is cancelled out by his loss. Yosef was also similar to Yaakov, but he knew how to actualize that similarity at the proper time and not to replace him while he was still alive. The birthright was thus taken from Reuven, as from Esav, because he was unsuited for it. The transfer of property from an unfit son is the subject of a dispute between the Sages and R. Shimon ben Gamliel (133b), and we rule that property should not be transferred even from a wicked son to a good son. But in such a case, we are not dealing with an impairment in the firstborn's functioning as a firstborn, but rather with a general problem, and we therefore do not want to cancel the birthright. However, when the son sets himself in competition with his father, when he defiles his father's bed, the birthright is removed from him. The Actions of the Fathers are a Sign for the Sons The relationship between God and Israel should be examined in a similar manner. As stated to Moshe, Israel is "My son, My firstborn" (Shemot 22:4). What this means is that on a certain level, all the nations are God's children; the birthright does not negate the standing of the other brothers, but rather bestows a certain advantage on the firstborn while recognizing the others as sons.[4] But how are we to understand our relationship to God as His firstborn? Are we more precious to God than the ministering angels, as is stated in the first midrash cited above? Or are we perhaps like the firstborn who is not cherished and dear, as he appears in the second midrash? Will we be alienated from God? Will we be like a firstborn who is first among his brothers, but aware of his place? Or perhaps, God forbid, we will view ourselves in competition with God? Of course, the desired model is a permanent and meaningful relationship in which the individual feels the presence of the Shekhina, one in which he does not view the relationship between man and God as an interesting idea but nothing more. A child feels the presence of his parent and maintains a strong relationship with him, despite the differences in standing between them; this is also true of the relationship between Israel and their Father in Heaven. This is the challenge with which we are faced. A person who feels the responsibility of being a fitting firstborn to God justifies his birthright, but also assumes responsibility. The greater and deeper the responsibility and purpose, the greater the spiritual achievement. However, the spiritual danger is also greater. The same things that create obstacles in the relationship between a son and his parents are liable to ruin the relationship between man and his Maker. One can encounter a problem in the form of what we saw regarding Esav; a person recognizes the existence of God, but views the connection between him and his Father in Heaven as a means of satisfying his own pleasures and fulfilling his needs. In such a case, his heritage interests him only for the purpose of generating profits, and nothing more. He does not see his heritage as an obligation or mission, but rather as "a spade for digging," a source of personal gain. Alternatively, there is the situation of Reuven, which is reflected in the feeling that God is "strangling" him, leaving him with insufficient leeway due to the Shekhina's presence in the world. Just like a child rebels when he feels constrained by a parent or when he senses that the parent with his power and status overshadows him and his capabilities, a person's feelings about God may be similar. The proper situation, both with respect to the parent-child relationship and with respect to the relationship between man and God, is that man should find his place within a framework of existing laws and recognize that there are factors above him. Within these boundaries, he will be able to find his uniqueness and express his personal development. A firstborn like Reuven, who feels that he cannot exercise his strengths together with the strengths of God, is a firstborn who lacks the appropriate "recognition." Let us move from the People of Israel to the Land of Israel. The Land was also given to us as an inheritance and a heritage. Here, too, the aim is to see it as God's inheritance and to reach the realization of "You shall bring them in and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance" (Shemot 15:17), with the physical land serving as an expression of the spiritual connection and relationship between God and His people. Here, too, however, there is the danger of being caught up in the perspective of profitability and materialism, which views the Land exclusively as a place of leisure and profits. As opposed to "the mountain of Your inheritance," Datan and Aviram view the Land as "an inheritance of fields and vineyards" (Bamidbar 16:14), and nothing more. The children of Reuven and Gad preferred to receive their inheritance on the east bank of the Jordan, as that was advantageous for their animals and business. They did not ask themselves about the effect that their step would have on their inheritance as a sacred place or as the land of their forefathers. In opposition to "an inheritance of fields and vineyards" stands "the mountain of Your inheritance." Furthermore, since the inheritance is not land but rather a heritage, it exists, under certain condition, even without land. Not only is there the mountain of Your inheritance, but God is also the inheritance of the priests and Levites, substituting for the inheritance of land. We not only have God's intention "to give it to you for a heritage" (Shemot 6:8), but also "Moshe commanded us the Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov" (Devarim 33:4). Needless to say, the fitting situation for the ordinary person is the realization of the two inheritances, both of the Land and of the Torah. At times, however, it is one heritage that sustains us, while the other is missing. This was the case throughout the long years of exile, when the heritage of the Torah allowed Israel to survive in the lands of their dispersion. Similarly, in recent generations, the secular Zionist movement adopted for itself the heritage of the Land without a Torah heritage. Indeed, the core challenge facing secular Zionism and the State of Israel in this regard is viewing the country's heritage as an ancestral heritage and an expression of Jewish identity that is connected to the people of Israel throughout the generations, and not only as an inheritance of fields and vineyards. "A Ladder Set upon the Earth, and the Top of it Reached to Heaven" The chapter of Yesh Nochalin presents a sublime model of a system of inheritance that depends on the values that we have discussed. Very often, however, reality slaps us in the face. Inheritance disputes are a common and painful phenomenon. Unfortunately, these struggles are widespread and they destroy families. Values and ideals of great importance are shattered against the rocks of family disputes; instead of attaining achievements, they engage in conflict. Instead of the past serving as an inspiration and guide for the future, a person can destroy his future and fill it with conflicts from the past. Instead of the "house" inheriting the deceased and passing the family heritage down to the other members of the house, the house is split and destroyed in the storms of dispute. One should not make the mistake of thinking that such disputes are driven solely by profits. Often, the conflicts are grounded in what appears to be holiness. Struggles arise around the question of who will be a better successor, who will more faithfully represent the heritage and values of the deceased. Each side is convinced that he alone can express the family truth, while the other side will betray it. He therefore enters into battle against his brothers and sisters, without realizing that he is thereby destroying the family and defying the wishes of the deceased. These "holy fights" create the antithesis of the concept of inheritance. The challenge of inheritance and creating a heritage is indeed great, and it therefore often leads to tension. Nevertheless, Yesh Nochalin presents us with a meaningful model on the existential level, both with respect to the family and the past and with respect to our lives with God. May we merit to meet these challenges. (This sicha was delivered in summer 5767 [2007]. The original Hebrew adaptation was reviewed by Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein.) -- [1] This is true on the fundamental level, as is stated in the mishna in Bekhorot. In this context, we will not consider the dispute between Abba Shaul and the Sages. [2] Most authorities are uncomfortable even with one who donates all of his property to charity. [3] As a result, someone whose status is in doubt is excluded from the law of the birthright: "A son and not a tumtum [a person of undetermined gender]; a firstborn, and not a doubtful firstborn." This is also the basis for the law of "recognition," which according to many authorities is not based on credibility, but on the creation of a connection between father and son, credibility being the byproduct. [4] See the commentators ad loc., especially Ibn Ezra and Seforno. Rashi apparently understood differently and deliberately chose to deviate from the plain meaning of the birthright. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 13:31:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:31:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Defining Tzeis Message-ID: <20150706203135.GA12889@aishdas.org> I wrote the following to FB. If anyone can add or make corrections before the thread there dies, I would appreciate it. I think I summed up the highlights of the sugya as I understood it from previous conversations here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha [Someone asked what the sources in question were, so I replied:] Shabbos 34b-35a, 35b; Pesachim 94a. As Tosafos on Pesachim note, in Shabbos (34b) R' Yehudah is quoted as saying bein hashemashot (sunset to the stars coming out) is 3/4 mil (or 2/3 mil, depending on which amora's version of R' Yehudah you're using, but we hold 3/4), but in Pesachim he says a person can walk 4 mil after sunset before the stars emerge. Rabbeinu Tam notes a slight difference in language. It takes 4 mil "misheqi'as hachamah," in Pesachim, but 3/4 mil from "mishetishqeh hachamah." RT therefore resolves the two gemaros by saying sunset takes 3-1/4 mil. So, 4 mil from the beginning of sunset will take you to 3/4 mil after sunset, which is R' Yehudah's tzeis. The Vilna Gaon's resolution of the confliciting gemaros (OC 235 and 261) is not to split sunset into a beginning an end, but to split tzeis. The halachic tzeis is 3/4 mil after sunset. The gemara in Pesachim is using the term colloquially, not halachically, and simply refers to "all the stars" rather the standard 3. The Re'eim (R' Eliezer of Metz, Seifer Yerei'im, written in the 1170s) splits both -- the two gemaras are discussing different sunsets AND different tzeis. To him, the gemara in Shabbos is saying sheqi'ah (which we usually translate "sunset") is 3/4 mil BEFORE the sun hits the horizon, and tzeis is when the sun is at the horizon. Whereas the gemara in Pesachim then measures how much after the sun is below the horizon that the sky is fully dark. Note that both the Vilna Gaon and the Re'eim assume the gemara in Pesachim is using at least one of the idioms differently than the gemara in Shabbos, and therefore it has no bearing on halakhah. ... [Material in response to what someone else wrote, ellided.] BUT... The Vilna Gaon understands the defining feature to be the emergence of stars, not the fixed time R' Yehudah gives. And therefore inflates the 3/4 mil to adjust from Usha (R' Yehudah's home town) to Vilna. Which brings us to the third topic, on the other side of the page on Shabbos (35b). Again it's R' Yehudah, quoting Shemu'el's prescription of which stars to watch for: [If you see] 1 star, it is day; 2 -- bein hashemashos; 3 -- night. Rabbi Yosi said, "Not large stars that are visible in the day, nor small stars that are only visible at night, but medium stars..." 35b cannot describe 3/4 mil after sunset. Even in Usha or Nehardaa (Shemuel's home town, today's Anbar, central Iraq, on the Euphrates), you will not see 3 middle sized stars 18 min after sunset. R Michl Tukaczinsky and R' Dovid Spitzer did the observations in Jerusalem, and found it takes 31-43 min or 28-40 min, respectively. (Use the smaller end of the range for rabbinic fasts, like the OP, and the larger for Torah laws like Shabbos. Jerusalem is closer to the equator than either city, not that I think it's by enough to matter much.) Rav Moshe Feinstein similarly gave 50 min for Shabbos, 31 for rabbinic fasts -- but then, NY's days vary more in length, so a "never later than" will be more minutes after sunset. With a computer, we could translate all these numbers into degrees below the horizon, as that would tell us how dark it would be outside, and therefore how many stars could be seen, if we weren't bathed in artificial lighting. And even then you get into questions about which stars. The western horizon (the side with the glow of sunset) will show stars well after the east. Three stars seen at once (near each-other) or total when scanning the whole sky? Etc... Rather than decide whether we follow Shabbos 34a or 35a, even those who do not use Pesachim to shed light on 34a pad the 3/4 mil to plausibly allow for people to see three medium sized stars. Given the fact that it's this measure which actually gives the landmark on our clock its name, assuming it is less definitional than a fixed time delay is difficult. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 13:39:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:39:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dan leKaf Zekhus Message-ID: <20150706203931.GB12889@aishdas.org> When I got on the subway this morning, there was a pregnant woman already standing holding on to the poll nearest the door I just came in through. So, feeling all heroic, I asked her quite loudly and pointedly, "Do you need me to embarass someone into getting up for you?" She replied, "No, thank you. A number of people offered when I just got on, but I was more comfortable standing than on the train's benches." I blushed, and sheepishly muttered apologies to those around us. As I said: Dan lekaf zekhus. Not just the law, a good idea. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 14:45:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 17:45:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah and Poverty In-Reply-To: <20150706202632.A741518370D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150706202632.A741518370D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150706214552.GE12889@aishdas.org> On 7/3/2015 3:16 AM, RnTK wrote to Areivim: : But our mishna does describe this as the "way of the Torah." : True Torah scholars will live contentedly under conditions of : denial and poverty. The beraisa (Avos "6":4) says that darkah shel Torah is not to quit learning even if you have to live off bread, salt and water you have to ration, sleep on the ground and otherwise suffer. Not that this is their normal condition, or even one they should desire. There is still the take on the chatas of someone ending nezirus (Rabbeinu Bachya, in contrast to the Ramban) that it's for forgoing permissable pleasure while a nazir. And the Y-mi (Qiddushin 4:12, vilna 48b, the end of the mesechta) in which Rav is quoted as saying "A person will have to give a din vecheshbon on anything his eye saw but he didn't eat. R' Leizer [Elazar? Eliezer?] was chosheish for this, and would use Shabbos to enjoy one such pleasure. This is on the mishnah where R' Nera'i promises to only teach his son Torah, to the exclusion of a profession. But the Y-mi understands this to mean that keeping the Torah (not learning in particular) will provide wealth. Whereas a profession leaves you stuck in your old age, or if one otherwise become unable to work. But it's "vekhein atah motzei be'avinu Avraham *sheshimer* es haTorah" and was wealthy. However, the Bavli famously reports that this was tried experimentally and it generally doesn't work. Okay for a R' Shimon bar Yochai, but not R' Yishmael and the like. (Which could be a difference in kind or quantitative.) No one today would qualify as either a Rashbi or a R' Yishmael, so I don't think the Y-mi's promise should be counted on. And neither gemara lauds poverty. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 17:12:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 20:12:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon Message-ID: From: Lisa Liel via Avodah The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this subject. Lisa >>>> I have seen none of that "vitriol" or "viciousness," either in the past few days or in the last few years, or ever. On the contrary, all I see is an almost desperate attempt to be conciliatory, a desperate if hopeless wish not to be the *victims* of liberal, anti-religious vitriol. See for example "A Letter by Reb Ahron Feldman to a Gay Baal Teshuva" https://guardyoureyes.com/resources/ssa/item/a-letter-by-reb-ahron-feldman-to-a-gay-baal-teshuva Also see Agudath Israel's statement on the recent Supreme Court gay-marriage decision http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2015/06/28/agudath-israel-statement-o n-supreme-court-marriage-ruling/ It reads, in part, "we are deeply concerned that, as a result of today?s ruling, and as the dissenting Justices have pointed out, members and institutions of traditional communities like the Orthodox Jewish community we represent may incur moral opprobrium and risk tangible negative consequence if they refuse to transgress their beliefs, and even if they simply teach and express their religious views publicly." I might add that Lisa's post, being an emotional cri de coeur, really belongs on Areivim. However, since she has posted it to Avodah, I will add my own comments previously posted on Cross-Currents: Here, for the record, is what our ancient Torah heritage has to say about homosexual marriage: The nations are allowed to continue in existence only because they keep a minimum of three mitzvos. These are: not writing marriage documents for the union of two males, not selling human flesh in the market place, and giving honor to the Torah?which in practice means, not persecuting the people of the Torah, the Jewish people. In one of his prophetic visions, the Navi (prophet) Zechariah took thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the Temple treasury in Jerusalem (Zechariah 11:13). The Rabbis of the Talmud had varying interpretations of what this vision symbolized. According to Rabbi Ulla (Talmud Chullin 92B), the thirty pieces of silver symbolized the thirty mitzvos that the Bnei Noach accepted upon themselves. These thirty mitzvos include not worshipping idols, not consulting witchcraft and sorcery, refraining from illicit sexual relationships, and so on. (Bnei Noach are the Sons of Noah, also called Noahides? i.e., the nations of the world.) Rabbi Ulla says that the world continues to exist because the nations accepted these thirty mitzvos. However, he adds, the nations do not keep all the mitzvos they accepted. They keep only three, and one of the three is: ? They do not write a marriage contract for males.? Rashi comments that the nations do engage in forbidden homosexual relations, but they at least acknowledge that such relations are illicit by not formalizing those relations in legal documents. The other two commandments that they keep are that they do not sell human flesh in the market place, and that they give honor to the Torah (Talmud Chullin 92B). Elsewhere the Rabbis of old stated that the final decree of destruction, the Great Flood, was sealed against the generation of Noach because they wrote marriage documents for males. ?Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Yosef, ?The generation of the Flood was not wiped out until they wrote marriage documents for the union of a man to a male or to an animal ? ? (Genesis Rabbah 26:5; Leviticus Rabbah 23:9). Implicit is the assumption that if the nations do not abide by at least the aforementioned three mitzvos, they may forfeit the very right to exist. Hence, these three?not writing marriage documents for males, not selling human flesh in the marketplace, and honoring the Torah?may be considered the Three Conditions for the continued existence of mankind. So you see, the idea of gay marriage is not new, not a fresh idea that represents the ultimate development, enlightenment and evolution of mankind. No, the formal marriage of two men is a very ancient idea that represents the degradation of mankind. http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2011/07/28/4524/ I will add a further point to what I wrote in 2011: The reason the gay pride movement adopted rainbow colors as their symbol is that the rainbow is the sign of Hashem?s promise not to wipe out the entire world again in one big flood. They wave the rainbow flag in defiance of Him, as if to say, ?Ha ha, You can?t touch us!? The message of the rainbow flag is, ?We are major sinners, like the generation of the Flood.? But they are whistling in the dark if they think there won?t be consequences. May Hashem protect His people, those who are chassidei umos ha?olam as well as us, Klal Yisrael. Read more: http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2015/06/29/scotus-on-same-gender-what-it-means-what-it-doesnt/#ixzz3f9x0mazM --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 18:14:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 01:14:59 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> I noted about Kaddish Yasom > From what I've seen, it is NOT said even if a minyan says Birkas > Hamazon, R' Zev Sero asked: > Why would it? Well, I guess my original post should have had a longer introduction. I know that Kaddish Tiskabel has a very clear rule, namely that it follows every Amidah, and the only exception is that it also follows Selichos. Kaddish D'rabanan always follows group learning (though I've never figured out exactly what learning counts and what doesn't). And now I'm trying to figure out the rule for Kaddish Yasom. It SEEMS to be a sort of "congregational prayer", where "prayer" is something *other* than the Amidah, but I can't define it any more precisely than that. For a long time I thought it was connected to Tehillim, but when I noticed it after the megilos on Yom Tov, someone suggested that it's not specifically Sefer Tehillim, but *any* part of Kesuvim, not that we had any idea why Kesuvim would get this distinction over Neviim or Torah. I wrote: > but it IS said when a minyan says Kiddush Levana. RZS suggested: > Probably because people are used to saying it after Alenu. Maybe, and maybe not. I have a suspicion that Alenu was added *because of* the Kaddish, and not the other way around. Here are some data points: The Hirsch siddur has Tehillim 67 as the last paragraph of Kiddush Levana, with nothing at all after it. My Minchas Yerushalayim, and Birnbaum too, end with Tehillim 67 which is then followed by Kaddish Yasom, without Alenu. Is it possible that Alenu is a recent addition to the Kiddush Levana? I wrote: > It is NOT said when a minyan says Tehillim even as an organized > group, RZS asked: > Where have you seen it not being said then? I'm surprised that > this is your experience. In my current community, and also from my memories of yeshiva. When there was some sort of tzara that we said Tehillim for -- whether for a choleh, or some military or political problem -- we would say the Tehillim deemed appropriate by the leaders, and this would be followed by tefillos such as Acheinu and/or Mi Sheberach(s). I don't recall Kaddish ever being part of this. I have to admit that a big part of my asking this question is a pet peeve that I've been nursing, regarding Kiddush Levana in particular. It seems to me that Kiddush Levana -- the way it is done in just about every situation I've ever seen -- cannot be called a Tefilas Tzibur in any sense. It is a group of yechidim who happen to be saying the same thing, but in a totally disorganized fashion. The first one out of shul begins as soon as he finds a good location, and the last one out of shul also begins when he finds a good location. No attempt whatsoever is made to get this group to be on the same page, let alone in the same paragraph. There is no leader (like we have in Hallel and Pesukei Dzimra and everywhere else) who lets everyone know what the group is up to, so that they might end in unison. Rather, one person ends Alenu out loud, and that's when the yesomim say kaddish, regardless of whether they are only halfway though, or already finished before. So that's one of the reasons why I'm wondering why Kiddush Levana gets a kaddish. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/559b2834173228336fdfst03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 23:16:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 02:16:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kiddush levana In-Reply-To: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <559B6EB4.3010400@sero.name> On 07/06/2015 09:14 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: > So that's one of the reasons why I'm wondering why Kiddush Levana gets a kaddish. Well, I found what may be the source for this kaddish. The Shelah says "There is a nice minhag in the kingdom of EY and its surroundings, to say various pesukim and maamarim after kiddush levana, and then say kaddish derabanan [...] and the meaning of this kaddish is that [the Name] should be magnified and sanctified, a Great Name, a full Name, and then the moon's light will be as the sun's light". http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=45685&pgnum=287 > I have a suspicion that Alenu was added > *because of* the Kaddish, and not the other way around. Here are > some data points: The Hirsch siddur has Tehillim 67 as the last > paragraph of Kiddush Levana, with nothing at all after it. My Minchas > Yerushalayim, and Birnbaum too, end with Tehillim 67 which is then > followed by Kaddish Yasom, without Alenu. Is it possible that Alenu > is a recent addition to the Kiddush Levana? Taamei Haminhagim gives a reason for saying Alenu, because it was written by Yehoshua, whose face is compared to the moon (Bava Basra 75a). According to this reason there would seem to be no reason to say it after birkas hachama. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=216 But the footnote to Kuntres Acharon on the next page gives a different reason: Because kiddush levana looks like a pagan ritual, we say Alenu to declare that we worship only Hashem, and this is the same reason that after Hoshanos, which also seems a bit pagan, we declare "Lema'an daas kol amei ha'aretz ki Hashem hu haElokim, ein od". This reason applies equally to birkas hachama. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=217 I remember hearing that the same reason is why we say Alenu after a bris, but I can't find a source for this. Taamei Haminhagim cites Yaavetz that the reason is to include the baby among the "us" who are declaring our loyalty to Hashem. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=404 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 03:41:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 13:41:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Pinechas vs Pinchas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> R' Micha points out that his grandfather's name was Pinechas. He proves it first by the yud after the pei which, by the rules of dikduk, makes the following sheva a na'. In addition, the name is an Egyptian one, Pi-nechas, pi being a common prefix in Egyptian names. In case you haven't been convinced yet, there is a meteg in the pei which, by the rules, makes the chirik malei and the sheva na' There is, however, one small point that makes me wonder. R' Aharon ben Asher who, for the last thousand years, has been called the accepted decision maker on correct spelling in Tana"kh seems to disagree. In perek 11 of his book Dikdukei Hat'amim he describes the sh'vaim before the otyot g'roniot inside a word, when they are na' and when nach. Included in his list of words where they are nach are laqkhu, barchu, Pinchas, zar'u, etc. IIRC, not all manuscripts have all the words and Pinchas might be omitted in some. It is possible that copiers of the words lists added or omitted. On the Mesorah sub-list it is known that I am anti-dikduk because it opens the way to change the fine points on Torah pronunciation to match its rules. Among these "improvements" was the changing of many internal sh'vaim in words from nach to na'. What enabled this to happen was the brilliant invention by R' Yosef Kimchi of the ten vowel, five pairs of malei and chaseir. This led to the rule that after malei the sh'va is na' and after chaseir it is nach. Ben Asher, in perek 10 notes that there are seven vowels in Hebrew. All of the masoretes also state this. If there aren't pairs of malei and chaseir, we've just lost the rule about the following sh'vaim. All this is not something new. Heidenheim in his comments on the Ein Hakorei of RYHB"Y (Shemini, just before sh'lishi) states that in the times of the kadmonim many sh'vaim that are now na'im were then nachim. He quotes (from Ibn Ezra?) that kol sh'va b'ot rafah shekadam lo echad mishiv'at ham'lakhim hu nach ki halashon ha-ivrit kasha la r'difat shalosh t'nu'ot...except for double letters and some words with groniot. So how should I lein on Shabbos? Oh, no problem, I'm not the bal-koire. bivrakha, David From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 05:21:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:21:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kesher Message-ID: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little farfetched 1) knot 2) connection 3) conspiracy -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 06:18:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 09:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> In various places in dovening, kaddish etc we find the loshon - ..v'imru amen. Simply understood this is something only said by a sh'ztibur, as an announcement by the sh'ztibur that the congregation sh answer amen. In some cases, a yachid says it (ie Kiddush hachodesh, etc) probably bc we are saying something that originally was said by the sh'ztibur. What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? Who are we saying v'imru amen to? And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). Because the silent SE is not a carbon copy of the sh'ztibur version (for instance - no elokai netzor, SE of fast days are diff, etc) Mordechai Cohen mcohen at touchlogic.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:09:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 10:09:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper : connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little : farfetched : 1) knot : 2) connection : 3) conspiracy Interestingly, the noun doesn't show in chumash. As an adjective, we have hamuqsharos/im, to describe which of the tzon Yaaqov received (30:41-42). Rashi quotes the Targum, "habechiros" and cites two pesuqim in Shemuel II pereq 15. To round out the list: About Yaaqov (again) and Yoseif, "venafsho qesurah benafsho." Also the string tied on Zarach's hand, and tefillin (x2). Those are all the occurances of the shoresh. BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. Conspiracy comes up in #2, "league together, conspire". It would seem they conjecture the word comes from the collaboration, and less so what they're connecting to eachother to plan against something. They also cite "vatiqasheir kol-hachimah" in Nechemiah 3:35, where one would not readily picture "tying together" parts as a metaphor. I understand why Rashi thought the translation in Bereishis 30 is unique enough to require comment, but not how it fits altogether. (Rashi says it does, not how.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:08:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 14:08:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Pinechas vs Pinchas In-Reply-To: <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> References: , <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1436278092269.69769@ou.org> It should be noted that how Pinechas was read according to the Masorah is not really relevant to the way it was pronounced as a name. Pinchas is a Yiddish name (to be sure, with its roots in Hebrew), and is pronounced without a het and without a sh'wa. Its pronunciation in Hebrew is no more relevant than is the proper pronunciation of the word gannav (theif) in the T'NaKh to the pronunciation of the Yiddish word ganef. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union 11 Broadway, New York, NY 10004 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:22:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 17:22:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> References: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper >: connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little >: farfetched >: 1) knot >: 2) connection >: 3) conspiracy ... > BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary > meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. and what is the connection to a knot (the origin of the question was a dvar torah on the knots of tsizit) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 09:03:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:03:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: References: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150707160302.GA10745@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 05:22:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :>: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings... : ... :> BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary :> meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. : and what is the connection to a knot : (the origin of the question was a dvar torah on the knots of tsizit) Well, tzitzis knots less so, but knots generally bind two strings or two ends of a string together, no? Tzitzis knots are somewhat more like the example from Nechemiah. If qesher includes "batiqashar kol-hachomah", perhaps it also it includes binding pesilim into a gedil. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 14:44:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 17:44:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam, Moreh Nevuchim (2:29), A Strange Passage about Miracles Message-ID: <559C4830.9030705@gmail.com> In Moreh Nevuchim, 2:29, the Rambam seems to disparage a talmudical position about miracles that he had endorsed in his prior works (Commentary on Avos 5:6 and Shmoneh Perakim chapter 8). This, despite the fact that in the Moreh, he refers the reader to these former works to understand his position about miracles. And to further confuse matters, in the Moreh itself, within just a few sentences, he goes on to laud the proponent of that very positionfor maintaining it! The position is that already during the Creation week, G-d instilled, in objects and forces of nature, the potential for the aberrant behaviors that He would unleash when appropriate. (I.e. the aberrant behaviors were not changes G-d first decided upon, created and imposed upon things at the time the miracles were witnessed.) The Moreh Nevuchim introduces the concept with the words: "Our Sages said things zarrim m'od as regards miracles." "zarrim m'od" is Ibn Tibbon's Hebrew translation. Narboni and Schwartz use the similar "muzarrim, and likewise, Friedlander and Pines, in their English translations, translate, "very strange." KPCH translates, "temuhim" (astonishing). They all seem to indicate that the Rambam shunned the idea. Yet, as I noted, just a few sentences later, the Rambam lauds the Tanna who expressed the thought: [T]his text...demonstrates the [high] level of the speaker, and its being very difficult in his eyes that Nature could change after Creation, or that G-d's Will would change after it had been established. He therefore reasons, for example, that G-d instilled, in the nature of Water, the [property of] sticking together and always flowing in a downward direction, except for that time in which the Egyptians would drown in them; those specific waters would split. I have already enlightened you as to the main idea of the [talmudic] statement [KPCH in a footnote sees this as a reference to the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah and Shemoneh Perakim], and that it is all meant to flee from [the idea that, after Creation, G-d would bring about] the new creation of anything. It says there: R. Yonathan said, G-d placed stipulations on the sea, that it should divide before the Israelites. Thus it says, "And the sea returned, when the morning appeared, l'ay-sa-no [to its strength, or to its stipulated nature]"(Sh'mos 14:27). R. Yiremiyah ben Elazar said: Not only with the sea did the Holy One, blessed be He, place stipulations, but with all that has been created in the six days of Creation. "My hands stretched out the heavens, and all their hosts I commanded" (Yishayahu 45:12): I commanded the sea that it will divide, the fire that it should not harm Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, and the lions that they should not harm Daniel, and the fish that it should spit out Jonah." The same is to be applied to all the other miracles. The surprising solution to this problem is really quite simple. I noticed that in Moreh 1:70 (p. 106 in the classic version, line 2), Pines translates a certain phrase as "strange but true."But both Ibn Tibbon and Schwartz translate it, "ha-inyanim ha-mufla-os ha-n'chonos, ("matters wondrous but true/correct"). Hmmm. One Arabic scholar translates a word as "strange," while others translate it as "wondrous." I began to sense how the same word could be used both ways, and I suspected it might also be the same word as in our passage in 2:29. Without mentioning my problem about the Rambam's self-contradiction (to keep the issue unbiased), I asked R. Yakov Wincelberg, translator of Avraham ben HaRambam's Sefer HaMaspik from Arabic to English, what the actual Arabic word there is, and if it's the same word in our passage in 2:29. Here is his reply: In both cases, the word griva is used. It doesn't mean specifically "weird," but something that stands out. It could be: extraordinary, wondrous, amazing, rare, peculiar, uncommon, obscure, etc. It even is used for emigrating from one's country, as one is separating from the people. In other words, the word means "outstanding." So, true, one tends to understand the translation "zar" or "strange" to be meant in the sense of "weird," or "foreign," indicating that in the Moreh the Rambam considered the "front-loaded" miracle an idea to be shunned--contra the Gemora, his Avos commentary, and his Shemoneh Perakim. But the simpler truth is that the Rambam consistently endorsed this view, and considered it to be an outstanding one. One need only realize that Ibn Tibbon titles his dictionary of unfamiliar philosophical terms,appended to his Moreh Nevuchim translation, "Payrush Me'Hamillot Zarot," The word Zar indicates something unfamiliar, but not necessarily "strange" in the sense of "weird." And it can also mean something that is wondrous and true. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 17:01:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 20:01:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher Message-ID: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little farfetched 1) knot 2) connection 3) conspiracy -- Eli Turkel >>>> The deeper connection is -- connection! All the words formed from this shoresh are words that have "connecting" as their basic meaning. In Edward Horowitz's fascinating and entertaining book, "How the Hebrew Language Grew," he has a chapter on how sounds made in the same part of the mouth sometimes interchange to form words with similar or closely related meanings. One example he gives is the word kesher, and the related word gesher -- a bridge, which connects two places, two sides of a river, two sides of a road and so on. Keshes, a rainbow, is something like a bridge connecting two parts of the sky. Another example of these interconnected words (this one I've also seen in the Hirsch commentary on Chumash) is the word "tsachak" to laugh, to which a number of other words are related in a phonetic way: Change the ches to an ayin and you get "tsa'ak." Both tsachak and tsa'ak involve emitting loud sounds -- sounds of mirth or of alarm or distress. (Ches and ayin are both formed in the back of the throat.) Change the tsadi to a sin and instead of "tsachak" to laugh you get "sachak" to be happy, to rejoice. (Tsadi and sin are both sibilants.) Going back to the word tsa'ak, if you now change the tsadi to a zayin you again get a closely related word, "za'ak." And if you take the word "tsa'ir" (young) and change the tsadi to a zayin you get "za'ir" small. Change the sin of saraf to a tsadi and instead of burning (saraf) you get refining (tsaraf) gold or silver -- which is done through heat. Change the zayin of "zahav" to a tsadi and instead of gold you get "tzahov," the color yellow. Horowitz points out that these kinds of phonetic relationships can also be found in English, Latin and other languages, but nevertheless I find it especially fascinating to trace these connections in Lashon Hakodesh. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 02:42:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 09:42:27 GMT Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen Message-ID: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. > Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? > Who are we saying v'imru amen to? > > And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the > same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end of Birkas Hamazon. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett???s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren???t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/559cf0b42988970b45addst03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 02:09:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 02:09:57 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:18 AM, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: > In various places in dovening, kaddish etc we find the loshon - ..v'imru > amen. .. > What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. > Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? > Who are we saying v'imru amen to? I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish. SE took on the whole paragraph "Oseh Shalom ... ve'imru amen" from the end of Kaddish, and Kaddish took on the three steps backwards from the end of SE (which makes sense for the STz's Kaddish Titkabbal at the end of the repetition, but not so much in all other kaddishim) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 06:30:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 09:30:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <559D2610.8060803@sero.name> On 07/08/2015 05:42 AM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > >> What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. >> Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? >> Who are we saying v'imru amen to? >> >> And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the >> same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). > > The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end of Birkas Hamazon. Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even when there's a zimun. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 08:04:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:04:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> References: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150708150424.GA8908@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 08:01:24PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : In Edward Horowitz's fascinating and entertaining book, "How the Hebrew : Language Grew," he has a chapter on how sounds made in the same part of the : mouth sometimes interchange to form words with similar or closely related : meanings... Also in RSRH's fascinating and entertaining commentary on the Pentateuch and a couple of places in CW and elsewhere. : Another example of these interconnected words (this one I've also seen in : the Hirsch commentary on Chumash)... See https://books.google.com/books?id=eVAAfn6Itb4C (The real one; the google preview skips all of your examples.) Etymological Dictionary of Biblcal Hebrew: Based on the Commentaries of Samson Raphael Hirsch by Matityahu Clark This is a central part of RSRH's exegesis. I once went through much of Bereishis and Shemos documenting which letters RSRH considers related enough to qualify as likely to be part of the same phonetic meta-root. I ended up with the following chart (readable only in fixed-width-font, eg Courier): geroniot velar dental dento-lingual labial h,ch q | s,sh tes | alef k | tz tav | b ayin g | z d | p n ------------- m r --------------------------------- l y ------------------------------------- v Letters in the same column are phonetically related (eg hei and aleg) Vertical lines separate into pairs (eg zayin and dalet, but not dalet and pei nor tzadi and dalet [paired coumns, different rows]). The pairs are lingual/velar (use tongue) vs not. Horizontal lines connect the nasals (mem and nun), the approximants (lamd and reish) and the semivowels (yud and vav). The unvoiced letters are all in the top two rows. Notice how hei-ches and shin/sin-samech fall into parallel positions, and bege"d kefe"t into the same two rows. I stopped my analysis when I had gone dozens of peraqim without needing to change the chart any. Lost interest. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 08:12:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:12:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> Message-ID: <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:09:57AM -0700, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, : but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence : between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish... You might have seen it on-list in Apr or Dec 2006, offered by RPMinden. RSBA offered a different explanation: > Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, Likutei Maharich, RS Schwab, Boruch She'omar all > say that we are whispering to the Malochim - that accompany a person all > the time. [Maybe 'oseh sholom BIMEROMOV' indicates this?] The earliest > source seems to be Mateh Moshe - which some cite. > The OH also brings a nusach - IIRC - Machzor [or Siddur] Roma - that > indeed does not include the 'Ve'imru Omein' at the end of SE. RPM believes it was a post-facto explanation, giving meaning to a pratice that really originated in error. See the subject line at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=T#TO%20WHOM%20ARE%20WE%20WHISPERING%20 and the 3 starting with http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=V#VIMRU%20AMEN in the archive index. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 11:33:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 14:33:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: In Avodah V33n96, RAM referred repeatedly to "Kaddish Yasom" -- I think at least some of his questions might be answered once we understand that (a) what he called "Kaddish Yasom" is actually the Qaddish (Shaleim, but without the "tisqaba[i]l" phrase) said by the SHaTZ at the end of davening, at some point in our history given over to children (eventually/or to *y'somim*) who could not be SHaTZ (see http://www.beureihatefila.com/files/Introduction_to_Mourners_Kaddish.pdf); and that (b) Qaddish is said after the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim or other K'suvim. As for Kiddush L'vana (KL), indeed Minhag Ashk'naz did not include "Aleinu" -- as was noted, the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim at the end of KL (similar to doing so after Shacharis and after [Mincha/]Ma'ariv, and similar to when a *seifer* from K'suvim was read) was followed by Qaddish (in the Roedelheim, those chapters are 121, 150, and 67, not just 67) -- and KL not being a *t'filas tzibbur* does not impact upon the saying of Qaddish (although obviously, a *minyan* is required for any *davar shebiq'dusha*). HTH :). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 02:40:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 02:40:50 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:09:57AM -0700, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > : I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, > : but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence > : between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish... > > You might have seen it on-list in Apr or Dec 2006, offered by RPMinden. > My memory was correct as to the attribution, though I garbled the content a bit. It's on page 48 of the Birnbaum siddur, in the notes to the Kaddish deRabbanan after Korbanot: "/Oseh Shalom/, which repeats in Hebrew the thought expressed in the preceding Aramaic paragraph, seems to have been added from the meditation recited at the end of the /Shemoneh Esreh/. The same sentence is also added at the end of the grace recited after meals. The three steps backwards, which formed the respectful manner of retiring from a superior, were likewise transferred from the concluding sentence of the /Shemoneh Esreh/. On the other hand, the phrase "and say Amen", added at the end of the silent meditation after the /Shemoneh Esreh/, must have been borrowed from the Kaddish which is always recited in the hearing of no fewer than ten men." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 08:53:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:53:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reciting a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time Message-ID: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> http://tinyurl.com/o6rxcdf according to those that say you do NOT recite a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time (ie bar mitzvah), why is it different than all the places where we DO recite a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah not done in a long time? (ie lulav, shofar, megila, etc) Thanks, mc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 13:27:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 20:27:55 GMT Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen Message-ID: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> I wrote: > The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end > of Birkas Hamazon. R' Zev Sero responded: > Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, > with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively > recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even > when there's a zimun. But we've *always* benched as individuals when there *isn't* a zimun. But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that originally, Oseh Shalom was part of benching only when a zimun was present, and then for some reason came to be said even by individuals. If that is indeed what happened, I can't help but speculate that there was an even earlier time, when benching with a zimun would include Oseh Shalom at that point, but benching with a *minyan* would include Kaddish at that point! Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55a02add2581a2add0f3dst01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 16:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <55A05668.1080404@sero.name> On 07/10/2015 04:27 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: >> >Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, >> >with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively >> >recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even >> >when there's a zimun. > But we've*always* benched as individuals when there*isn't* a zimun. Benching is designed for a zimun. It's normal to eat in a group. But even when there were only two eating, or when a family ate together, I think the usual thing was for one person to bench and the other person (or the wife and children) to listen and say amen. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 08:42:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush L'vana (was "Kaddish Yasom") Message-ID: In Avodah v33n97, I wrote: > As for Kiddush L'vana (KL), indeed Minhag Ashk'naz did not include "Aleinu" -- as was noted, the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim at the end of KL...was followed by Qaddish...-- and KL not being a *t'filas tzibbur* does not impact upon the saying of Qaddish.... < Just wanted to add that (a) For the record, I don't recall Qaddish being said at the end of KL at KAJ/"Breuer's" (and the MMA Siddur Tefilas Yeshurun instructs not to say either "Aleinu" or Qaddish at the end of Bircas haL'vana), even when there was evidently more than a quorum of men (gathered to be *m'qabeil p'nei haShchina b'rov-am*) on the front steps or sidewalk of the Shul -- whether or not Qaddish should be said (and what the precise parameters are) in that circumstance (not a *t'filas tzibbur*; not in a *maqom t'fila*) was not central to the overall points I was trying to make; and (b) for consistency, it's QL, not KL :). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 11:30:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:30:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pinchas Message-ID: > > > BTW, my grandfather a"h was named Pinechas after this week's sedra, > his bar mitzvah parashah. When it was time to name my oldest, I checked > with my uncle how his name appeared on their kesuvah, as their mesader > qiddushin was a key rav in my grandfather's life. (R/Dr Mirsky zt"l met > two teenage boys coming off the boat and took them under his wing. My > grandfather and great-uncle then earned enough to bribe the rest of the > family's way out of Litta before the Nazis came to power.) > > Anyway, it seems R/Dr Mirsky held my grandfather's name was Pinechas, > pei-yud-nun-ches-samekh, as it is spelled in the chumash (ignoring the > size of the yud as usually written in the beginning of the parashah). > And thus the sheva is na, Pinechas - not Pinchas. > > If you want to make a derashah out of a Mitzri name, it's Pi Nachas, > not Pen Chas. > > Reason for this tangent... I would have expected "Gushies" to get the > sheva in the parashah name right. After all, they have the patach under > the reish in Parashat. > > Way behind in reading. However, Aharon Ben Asher, in Dikduke Hate'amim, specifically lists the sheva in Pinchas (with a yud) as being a sheva nach, so the "Gushies" have on whom to rely.. Meir Shinnar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 11:39:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:39:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: > On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:20:08PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: > : On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. > > : Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a > : moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is > : the purpose to make things even worse? > > As I quoted from RAK, because they classically were not considered > chuqim. Until our contemporaries took the issue from sexual morality > to sexual ethics, these truths were considered self-evident. It's the > choqification of dinei arayos that's inauthentic. > > In any case, since one doesn't pasqen from taamei hamitzvos, the din > is the same either way. Nothhing in such exploration can "make things > even worse". > > In Shmona prakim, the rambam seems to take the opposite view - trying to reconcile the view that having a desire to sin is a sign of moral failing, and that the overcoming of desire is a sign o f greatness - he argues that to desire to sin is problematic in hamefursamot - but NOT in those forbidden only for religious reasons - and he specifically applies that to arayot - and needs to apply it to arayot, because the sugyot that deal with kol hagadol mechavero yitzro gadol mimenu - specifically apply to arayot. One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT self evident or even mefursamot Meir Shinnar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 11:10:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 20:10:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out Message-ID: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> In SA OH 272:1 the Mechabeir writes that one shouldn't use wine left out for kiddush (or any type of mitzvah adds the Aruch HaShulchan). The problem isn't gi'loi'im but the pasuk in Malachi 1:8 which teaches us not to use Grade B products for mitzvot. The assumption is that wine left out goes bad (or gets worse) and therefore it can't be used for qiddush. My question is what does one do if you thinking allowing wine to breath for hours improves the taste? That's been my experience for years. If I open a bottle Friday evening, the wine definitely tastes better Saturday morning. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 12:14:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 15:14:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> On 07/13/2015 02:10 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > In SA OH 272:1 the Mechabeir writes that one shouldn't use wine left out for kiddush (or any type of mitzvah adds the Aruch HaShulchan). The problem isn't gi'loi'im but the pasuk in Malachi 1:8 which teaches us not to use Grade B products for mitzvot. The assumption is that wine left out goes bad (or gets worse) and therefore it can't be used for qiddush. > > My question is what does one do if you thinking allowing wine to breath for hours improves the taste? That's been my experience for years. If I open a bottle Friday evening, the wine definitely tastes better Saturday morning. It depends what kind of wine. Some wines definitely improve with a few hours' breathing. The criterion is "hakriveihu no lefechasecho"; *would* you serve this to an honoured guest who is used to drinking quality wine? If it's a wine that needs the time to aerate then you certainly would, and in fact you wouldn't think of serving it to him *without* that time. OTOH this would preclude making kiddush at all on Manishewitz, no matter how "fresh" it is. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 20:18:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 05:18:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> Message-ID: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? Did they not know that allowing wine to breath improves the taste, at least for a decent red wine (which is the type of wine they think we should be drinking)? Ben On 7/13/2015 9:14 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > It depends what kind of wine. Some wines definitely improve with a > few hours' breathing. The criterion is "hakriveihu no lefechasecho"; > *would* you serve this to an honoured guest who is used to drinking > quality wine? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 19:34:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 22:34:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20150714023419.GA18963@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 05:18:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and : others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? Because Shapiro's wine is "So thick you could cut it with a knife" as that billboard we'd pass driving to Boro Park used to advertise. Whereas you're talkng about a finer wine as vitners and frenchmen measure. Different products with totally different definitions of what is "good". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 21:48:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:48:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55A4949B.8090308@sero.name> On 07/13/2015 11:18 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and > others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? > Did they not know that allowing wine to breath improves the taste, at > least for a decent red wine (which is the type of wine they think we > should be drinking)? First of all, most good wines shouldn't breathe for very long. Second, their wine was generally pretty awful by our standards; bad enough that it needed watering to make it palatable. They used wild yeast, they had no pasteurization, and it was all they could do to stop it all turning into vinegar. I wonder how much damage could exposure possibly do to wine that bad, but I seriously doubt it could improve it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 14:11:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 17:11:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Timely Notes for the Summer Message-ID: <20150714211025.9203118356A@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from an article by Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer, ZT"L, that appeared in the Mitteilungen, Vol. 2, June 1941 Timely Notes for the Summer Can the heat of summer be termed ?oppressive?? That is surely something that is individual. If we think of the terribly oppressive times a large number of our brethren are going through, we will gladly tolerate the discomforts of summer and rather bless our good fortune to be spared such pain. Many of our newly immigrated brothers and sisters are struggling with heavy economic burdens, and only the few can afford the much desired relaxing rest. We are pleased for those who can afford a vacation and expect that they will carefully select, as far as the trustworthiness of its kashrus, the place where they plan to spend their vacation. Obviously, they will not want to take a vacation from the ?yoke of the Law.? They want to return home, hale and hearty, and not with a feeling of unease for having risked their moral values in exchange for physical wellbeing. The heat of summer calls for changes in clothing and appearance. The conscientious Jew will carefully keep to certain limits, which he will not overstep. Our Divine Law cautions us to have a sense of shame, and that applies to summer as well. The Jewish custom ?according to the Talmud ?requires men and boys to cover their heads outdoors. God gave the first garment to man when he forfeited his special standing by disregarding the Will of God.Modest covering of his body is to be a steady reminder of the higher calling of man. Jewish men were given the adornment of tzitzis to admonish them to wear their clothes as proper Jews. Even in the summer heat, our requirements for covering can easily be heeded with lighter clothing. Comfort will not cause us to shirk our duty. A soldier?s helmet is uncomfortably heavy, but he wears it because it is required; God?s requirement should not be heeded? As for the Jewish woman, Jewish law requires her to cover her hair. The true Jewish woman will proudly do so, for it is a sign of her willingness to adhere to God?s Will as the guide in her life. A woman unworthy of this sign will have it removed forcibly by the priest (Bemidbar 5:18). Covering one?s hair is merely a sign if a woman does not conduct herself otherwise in the properly Jewish manner. Similarly, there are Jewish men who bear the Milah-sign on their bodies but sully their bodies in other ways. Not covering one?s hair is probably ? we are sorry to say ? a matter of ignorance, and perhaps such a Jewish woman was not brought up to understand the importance of covering her hair. Many women may carefully observe their Jewish duties in other areas, and we would so much like to adorn them with this special crown also. For the fact remains: covering of the hair for the Jewish woman is a must. The proud Jewish woman will conduct herself Jewishly in her clothing and in covering her hair. The word Tznius is a Jewish concept that is hard to translate exactly. It does not only denote a ?quietly humble way of living? (Michah 6:8), but everything else that our people has so valued and esteemed in their Jewish women at all times. ?quietly humble way of living? (Michah 6:8), but everything else that our people has so valued and esteemed in their Jewish women at all times. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 02:01:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 05:01:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Star-K on the Heter Mechira Message-ID: <20150715090047.2F7EB1824C9@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-shmitta-5775.htm Who Owns The Land? There is a difference of opinion among the poskim as to whether produce grown on land owned by a non-Jew living in the Land of Israel is considered produce of sheviis. The custom in Yerushalayim is not to consider it produce of sheviis, while the custom in Bnei Brak is to consider it produce of sheviis. Selling The Land: The Heter Mechira was formulated and instituted by many very prominent rabbanim (including the Gadol Hador, Harav Yitzchok Elchanan Spector) in the year 1887. There was a great deal of controversy among other prominent rabbanim surrounding the heter, the foremost of whom was the Netziv (Harav Naftoli Zvi Yehuda Berlin) of Volozin. Most of the controversy centered around the problem regarding the Torah prohibition of selling any part of the Land of Israel to non-Jews. Those who proposed the heter claimed that the situation in the Land of Israel was so precarious that not working the land for an entire year would put the entire Jewish settlement in danger, thus warranting this drastic measure. Others claimed that the prohibition of selling the land was worse than the prohibition of working the land. Since then, every Shmitta there have been rabbanim who have sold the land. Harav Avraham Yitzchok Kook institutionalized the sale (although he, too, agreed it was to be done only under grave duress). Since it's inception, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel has sold the land every Shmitta. However, there are presently many rabbanim who question whether the current situation in Israel warrants this type of sale. Furthermore, there is another more serious problem the consumer faces. The produce that is sold in the regular stores during the year of Shmitta predominantly comes from non-religious kibbutzim and moshavim, who would never agree to sell their land. This is compounded by the fact that the non-religious kibbutzim do not observe those prohibitions which Harav Kook instituted, and Harav Kook never permitted their current practices. Certainly, a tourist who is not knowledgeable concerning the dinim of Shmitta should buy produce only from stores that do not rely upon the heter mechira. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 03:18:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 06:18:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. Whether MZ is well known or not aside, even "kemaaseh Eretz Mitzrayim" (at least the male half of it) is described in the gemara as pretty well known -- it's on Ulla's list of 3 dinim of the 30 mitzvos Benei Noach (which rishonim map to subcategories of the usual 7) that Benei Noach generally observe -- "she'in kosevin kesuvah lezekharim". In any case, I will leave the Rambam as a tzarikh iyun that only affects the lives of those who agree with him that understanding theology and/or metaphysics is the perfection we strive for in life, above perfection of virtue. (Moreh, conclusion, worthy of its own thread.) For that matter, most of us also diagree with the Rambam on whether a person is judged by the level reached or by the distance covered. Without agreeing on either of those two points, it's likely one wouldn't agree with the Rambam's pesaq here. His view of the role of of bringing one's desire in line with a mitzvah will necessarily come from a different place. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 03:32:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 06:32:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Herzl In-Reply-To: <17e71f.7a1031b7.42d6e65d@aol.com> References: <17e71f.7a1031b7.42d6e65d@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150715103208.GD4654@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 06:25:33PM -0400, RnTK wrote on Areivim: : My comment was facetious -- a little dig at those MO who apparently do : believe that Herzl, Golda Meir and Ben Gurion were gedolim. R' AE Kaplan wrote very highly of Theodore Herzl. RAEK predeceased the accompilshments of the other two. To quote RYGB's translation (from BeIqvos haYir'ah pg 85): He [Herzl] did not teach us Torah... because he was never taught Torah... He taught us, rather, to say two words [four words in English] on occasions that until he came we had neither dared nor been able to utter: "I am a Jew [Ivri]!" We were always able to recite these words in the Beis Medrash next to our shtenders, we were even capable of reading and writing them... We could declare ourselves a nation in any place we wanted, except in that one place where the nations of the world were... to be found - in the international political arena. There we were seen as wandering sheep, like one Telzer (Yehuda Leib Gordon [22]) once put it: "Not a nation, not a congregation, rather a flock." Not like sheep that are petted and fed, but like those that are shorn or slaughtered. When a European ruler asked a Jew: "Who are you?" Would he respond simply: "I am a Jew" - without any qualifications or explanations? He would answer: I am a Jew - but also German, also French, also English, etc. Along came Herzl, the first from among us to reach that international political arena that serves as a world court, and responded, openly, freely, effortlessly and guilelessly: "I am a Jew." Moreover: "I was stolen from the land of the Jews [Eretz HaIvrim], and here I have done nothing, for they placed me in the pit" [Bereishis 40:15]. The Jewish nation is a nation unto itself, like all other nations, indeed, it is special, and it possesses a unique life force that sustains it... Do you not sense the hidden workings of divine providence? I know that just as the rejuvenation of Jewish national spirit had to come, so will finally come, in the unseen future, the rejuvenation of our Torah spirit... We do not see the paths, we do not see the footsteps, but I know... that I must strive toward this. And G-d who returns to Tziyon [Zion] will return us also to Torah MiTziyon... [23] [22] The most prominent Hebrew poet of the nineteenth century and a notorious Maskil, Gordon was generally known by his acronym, YaLaG, that, in a play on words, would be pronounced by Orthodox Jews as "yil'ag," the Hebrew word for "scoffer." [23] Besides his essays on Hashkafa, Reb Avraham Elya also left many "Reshimos," short notes on topics in Mussar, Machashava, and Avodas Hashem, some of which are beautiful vignettes of life lived in a Torah true and Mussar suffused way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 02:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 05:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Secular Studies: Are They for Everyone? Message-ID: <20150715092755.A05BB1824E7@nexus.stevens.edu> From the article by Rabbi Mordechai Willig at http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/%2FTU1_Willig.pdf Are secular studies permissible for everyone when they are necessary to provide for a livelihood? The answer is: for almost everyone. To summarize, then, for purpose of parnasah, secular studies are allowed for almost everyone. If it is not for parnasah, it is permissible, and sometimes even a mitzvah to learn various disciplines, providing that such study is considered of secondary importance, both in terms of time and value for, above all, Torah must always be the Ekir. Please see the above URL for the entire article. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 07:56:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:56:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Confronting sexual abuse in the Jewish community Message-ID: <> Can you give a place in shas or SA where the punishment of a crime accounts for the pain to the family If someone deserves the death penalty (there is no jail in halacha) as far as I know the bet din does not take into account that the family who are innocent will also be punished. If someone is sent to "ir miklat" the yeshiva goes with him, we don't remove the punishment because it affects the whole community -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:33:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian Message-ID: During a recent discussion with a friend the following two questions came up and I am curious what the fellows of Avodah think. 1) Can one count someone who denies the historicity of *matan torah* and *yetzias mitzrayim* but is other completely *shomer torah u-mitzvos* for a *minyan*? There is an halakhic category of *mumar l?hachis* who cannot count for a *minyan* according to many *poskim*. But that is on the assumption that they are violating *halakhah*. If they are not violating halakhah, can they be counted in a *minyan*? 2) Does one fulfill their shofer blowing from hearing the shofar be blown by someone denies the historicity of *matan torah* and *yetzias mitzrayim*? We assume that *mitzvos tzerichos kavvanah*. So this individual intends to fulfill the mitzvah of blowing the shofar on Rosh ha-Shanah. However, his conception of the nature of *mitzvos* and commandedness is extremely untraditional. Personally, I am inclined to include this individual in a minyan and assume that one fulfills the mitzvah of shofar with his blowing. But my conception of halakha flows from R. Dr. Walter Wurzburger?s *zy?a* belief that halakhah is a floor and not a ceiling. In other words, we do not make the bar for basic fulfillment of halakhah obligations higher if one could avoid it. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:32:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:32:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> References: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 6:18 AM Micha Berger wrote: > Lo zakhisi lehavin: > It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss > aren't mefursamot. > > Whether MZ is well known or not aside, even "kemaaseh Eretz Mitzrayim"... > In any case, I will leave the Rambam as a tzarikh iyun that only affects > the lives of those who agree with him that understanding theology and/or > metaphysics is the perfection we strive for in life, above perfection > of virtue. (Moreh, conclusion, worthy of its own thread.) ... You are assuming the shmona prakim see relevant only to those who fully accept Rambam's philosophy -- and that is a very unique position. I think shmona prakim is studied by those who would never open the moreh Rambam argues that a lust to steal or murder is a character flaw -- the should be overcome -- but a lust for hazir or arayot is not a character flaw -- although it too should be overcome. Why that is dependent on his notions of the ultimate good, effort versus achievement, or mitzvot bne noach I don't see -- nor do I think most others me that connection.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:55:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:55:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150715155517.GC31352@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 03:32:08PM +0000, Meir Shinnar wrote: : You are assuming the shmona prakim see relevant only to those who fully : accept Rambam's philosophy -- and that is a very unique position... Nah, I'm just surmising that the two may be linked. If your notion of redemption revolves around ideas and the thirst for knowledge, then developing something like like-vs-dislike is a different topic than if your notion of personal redemption is "sheyehei adir cheftzeinu leheitiv im zulaseinu... bedemus haBorei, keveyakhol." (Bonus points for the first person to identify the reference. ) So not that 8 Peraqim are only relevent to followers of the Rambam's point, just that this particular point, and perhaps a couple to a few others, may be of limited utility to the rest of us. (8 Peraqim, BTW, is one of my more heavily used resources when teaching for The Mussar Institute.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 12:49:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:49:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55A6B95E.6090302@starways.net> On 7/15/2015 10:33 AM, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: > 1)Can one count someone who denies the historicity of /matan > torah/ and /yetzias mitzrayim/ but is other completely /shomer > torah u-mitzvos/ for a /minyan/? I think there's a difference between someone who denies Matan Torah and someone who expresses doubts. The former, I'd treat no differently than someone who denies God, because for the purposes of Judaism, they're not separable. We asked our mesader kiddushin (years ago) what we should do about those family members who didn't believe in God. He said that if they'd openly denied God's existence, we could not give them sheva brachot, because we couldn't be yotzei on a bracha by someone who doesn't believe in God. He didn't say anything at all about observance. A lot of people focus on Rambam's ikkarim, and whether or not we're bound by them, but the concept of being kofer ba-ikkar predates Rambam by centuries. The existence of God and the historical fact of Matan Torah are, by any reasonable assessment, the most basic ikkarim of Judaism. Absent either of these, what's left isn't Judaism. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 19:47:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:47:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150716024705.GE13610@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:33:13AM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : 1) Can one count someone who denies the historicity of *matan torah* : and *yetzias mitzrayim* but is other completely *shomer torah u-mitzvos* : for a *minyan*? : : There is an halakhic category of *mumar l'hachis* who cannot count for a : *minyan* according to many *poskim*. But that is on the assumption that : they are violating *halakhah*. If they are not violating halakhah, can they : be counted in a *minyan*? I don't know if we hold like the Rambam, but Hil' Teshuvah ch. 3 is the only discussion of the categories of heresy I know of. A min is an atheist or polytheist, a trinitarian, etc... (3:7) An apiqoreis, the category in the title, is defined with a list of theological errors. It's someone who, like Epicurus, denies that Hashem runs the world. A Deist, someone who denies prophecy, or that He doesn't know man's actions. (3:8) Leshitaso, someone who doesn't believe in the historicity of Torah miSinai would be a kofer baTorah. (ibid) A mumar is a consistent sinner (ledavar achas, lekhol haTorah kulah), not a heretic. {3.9) Then the machti'ei rabbim (10), poreish midarkei hatzibur (11), moserim (12), and one who terrorizes the community -- not lehsim shamayim (13). That list -- 3 kinds of heretic and 5 kinds of sinners -- lose their olam haba, if they die without teshuvah (3:14). And then he says there are also smaller ones that still carry a similar price. Anyway, R' Aharon Soloveitchik held that "nebich an apiqoreis" (not using the term in the Rambam's technical sense) can be counted for a minyan. As long as his beliefs include those ideas that make tefillah meaningful. So a min couldn't, nor an apiqoreis who believes G-d doesn't know every little thing going on down here. (This was a common idea among Artistotilian, although obviosuly not among ours. Since facts change with time, and the Creator does not, how could the Creator know such facts? Would that mean His knowledge changes?) But a tinoq shenishba (by which RAL intentionally includes Jews not raised O) who doesn't believe in Sinai, but does believe that there is One G-d Who Listens to prayer and is Mashgiach, should be countable. Not because their heresy makes them heretics and thus michutz lamachaneh. But because they are incapable of prayer. RAS didn't discuss the person who isn't a tinoq shenishba, but also not a rebal. Someone who grew up in a Torah setting, but in his studies reached the wrong conclusion. The Tashbetz and the Radbaz (eearly 16th cent CE, not the Ridbaz who wrote on the Y-mi) famously hold that such people are not heetics even if they believe heresy. (As least on the list list it's famous, anyeay.) I just can't assume RAS agrees without proof. RAL also doesn't discuss a Deist who believes G-d Hears prayers, but won't act any differently. Can he make a brikhas hoda'ah, but not a baqashah? Since prayer is not al menas leqabel peras, do we even make baqashos for the sake of gettin a "yes", or just to have a moment with Him talking about what is bothering you? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 16 07:01:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:01:37 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Confronting sexual abuse in the Jewish community Message-ID: <20150716.100137.31633.0@webmail13.vgs.untd.com> I wrote on Areivim: > Of course it is important to protect future victims, but that is > not the only consideration here. What about the fallout to the > family of the victim, to the family of the perpetrator, and to > the community as a whole? (For those who have not been following on Areivim: Personally, I am all in favor of protecting the victims, but I know that my opinions might be heavily influenced by the society in which I live. My suggestion is that our chachamim are the only ones qualified to decide on any particular case, whether it might be better to whitewash an incident, so that the family and/or community are not hurt by the publicity.) R' Eli Turkel responded here on Avodah: > Can you give a place in shas or SA where the punishment of a > crime accounts for the pain to the family > If someone deserves the death penalty (there is no jail in > halacha) as far as I know the bet din does not take into > account that the family who are innocent will also be > punished. > If someone is sent to "ir miklat" the yeshiva goes with him, > we don't remove the punishment because it affects the whole > community These are excellent points. But then I must ask: Haven't there been times and situations when legitimate gedolim have paskened to hush things up because of other considerations? Would someone say that all such cases come from gedolim whose outlook is NOT Torah-based? I wish I could cite specific examples for discussion. Unfortunately, my knowledge of such things is far too limited. But surely this attitude must have come from somewhere, and did not materialize from nothingness. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett???s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren???t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55a7b984d1f883984538est04vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 18 13:49:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 22:49:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on Exercise Message-ID: <55AABBF3.2070100@zahav.net.il> Rav Kook's opinion about exercise and sport had been brought up here before. I quoted him as saying that physical activity helps the tzaddikim in their avodah. In the class I go to on Orot, we discussed the following piece by R Kook, which goes way further than that. Keep in mind that this was written before there was an IDF, so he isn't talking about any sort of physical protection. Orot, Orot Hatechiya, 34: Exercise, (which young Israel is getting involved in, in Eretz Yisrael, to strengthen their bodies in order to be vigorous for the nation), improves the spiritual strength of the greatest tzaddikim, those who involve themselves in "the unification of God's names" (my translation of a phrase which I admit I don't get), and increases the transmission of God's light in the world, because there is no revelation at all of light without all components being present. Turns out that (according to Rav Kook) not only does Talmud Torah increase the merits to the army/state/people, but just having people trying to be healthy, active, in shape, improves Talmud Torah, as long as both sides are doing this for the nation. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 18 17:09:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 03:09:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tefach Thick Soft Spongy Matza Message-ID: Many mistakenly think that we now have an accepted Halachic tradition, recorded in the Shulchan Aruch [460:5] to no longer bake Tefach thick Matza [10 - 12 cm] as in Talmudic times. This is untrue. The ShAruch records that Tefach thick Matza must not be Pesach. There is no problem whatsoever to produce such Matza Pesach and eat them during Pesach. The reason for this is quite simple; if one makes Chamets during Pesach, no matter that it was unintentional, one has transgressed the very serious violation of having Chamets - Bal YeRaEh and Bal YeMaTzeh. When making Tefach thick Matza the risk of inadvertently making Chamets because some dough in the Matza will remain unbaked, is [became] intolerable. However, baking the same thickness Matza before Pesach poses no concern. If it is Chamets, as can be discerned by tearing the Matza and checking for doughy stringy threads, then either eat it before Pesach or get rid of it. Whatever is fully baked however, is fine for Pesach. Compare the Mechabers expression, Seif 4 and 5, not to make images on the Matza; and not to make thick Matza - it is not done - ??? ?????; to his expression Seif 6, not to make dough filled with meat and veg - one ought not be lenient - ??? ????. One ought not be lenient - ??? ???? sounds more strict, as is supported by the MBerurah [18] suggesting that it is prohibited even after the fact, - whereas it is not done - ??? ????? implies it should not be done but after the fact, if it not Chamets it is Kosher and may be eaten during Pesach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 17 07:19:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 10:19:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Guten Chodesh (Though sad, still hope...) Message-ID: <0F8B8D71-82A7-4DB7-AFF4-740FDDA46D37@cox.net> The gematria for ?Rosh Chodesh" is 813. (reish:200, aleph:1, shin:300; ches:8, dalet:4, shin:300 ? Total=813) In the whole of tanach there is only one verse with the gematria of 813 which occurs in B?reishis, Chapter 1, verse 3: ?Vayomer Elohim ohr; vay?hi ohr? ?And God said: Let there be light and there was light.? May our mourning be turned into dancing (Ps.30:12) and may we live to see the light. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 00:55:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 10:55:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: heter mechira In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <> There are many inaccuracies in their statement and much is outdated. "The produce that is sold in the regular stores during the year of Shmitta predominantly comes from non-religious kibbutzim and moshavim, who would never agree to sell their land. " I have no idea what this statement means. They in fact do sell their land. The current situation in Israel is that the chief rabbinate sends people to each of these kibbutzim etc to explain to them what the heter mechira means and what are the other options. No one is forced to participate. "However, there are presently many rabbanim who question whether the current situation in Israel warrants this type of sale" The figures I have heard is that 85% of Israeli produce is exported (mainly to Europe). Without the heter mechira one would have to close down almost the entire agricultural development in Israel. In addition one is forbidden to sell produce with kedushat sheviit to nonJews. That would mean having guards at supermarkets checking that only Jews buy the produce "This is compounded by the fact that the non-religious kibbutzim do not observe those prohibitions which Harav Kook instituted, and Harav Kook never permitted their current practices." The current chief rabbinate tries to enforce whatever Rav Kook instituted. In fact most agricultural workers in Israel regardless of shemita are Arabs. -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 18:33:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:33:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish with mixed seating In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720013343.GC4548@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 03:08:58PM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : Interestingly enough the Gemara in Succos brings a "proof" for separation : of men and women from a non-"Davar She'bekedushah" the funeral in : Zecharyah. The other example is Simchas Beis haSho'eivah. Notice that one is extreme joy, and the other extreme sadness. Neither was tefillah betzibbur. Should the fact that chazal thought it was natural to apply these precedents to tefillah be taken to mean that -- "thanks to my knees for bowing at modim" aside -- Chazal found such extremes of emotion common during davening? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 18:57:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:57:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150720015718.GD4548@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 01:14:59AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : Well, I guess my original post should have had a longer introduction. I : know that Kaddish Tiskabel has a very clear rule, namely that it : follows every Amidah, and the only exception is that it also follows : Selichos. Kaddish D'rabanan always follows group learning (though I've : never figured out exactly what learning counts and what doesn't). Qaddish Tisqabel is said after zelosehon (the Amidah) uVa'us-hon (tachanun or selichos. That the request that they be accepted. : And now I'm trying to figure out the rule for Kaddish Yasom. It SEEMS : to be a sort of "congregational prayer", where "prayer" is something : *other* than the Amidah, but I can't define it any more precisely than : that. For a long time I thought it was connected to Tehillim, but when : I noticed it after the megilos on Yom Tov, someone suggested that it's : not specifically Sefer Tehillim, but *any* part of Kesuvim, not that we : had any idea why Kesuvim would get this distinction over Neviim or Torah. Accordng to R' de Sola Pool's monograph "Kaddish", Qaddish originated as being post-derashah -- the role Qaddish deRabbanan still serves. So perhaps non-concidentally, the format for sermons through the geonic era was to start with a pasuq from one of the sidrei EMa"S (Iyov, Mishlei, Tefillim) and wrap up by applying the resulting an idea to a pasuq from he sedra. ... : I have to admit that a big part of my asking this question is a pet : peeve that I've been nursing, regarding Kiddush Levana in particular. It : seems to me that Kiddush Levana -- the way it is done in just about : every situation I've ever seen -- cannot be called a Tefilas Tzibur in : any sense. It is a group of yechidim who happen to be saying the same : thing, but in a totally disorganized fashion... Perhaps that's it exactly. Like "Shalom Aleikhem", we make a cpoint of socially unifying those yechidim as part of qiddush levanah. Perhaps not in the sense of tefillah betzibbur or tefillas hatzibur, but then, neither is a shiur. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 09:45:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:45:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reciting a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time In-Reply-To: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> References: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> Message-ID: <20150720164528.GA10632@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:53:34AM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : http://tinyurl.com/o6rxcdf : according to those that say you do NOT recite a shehechiyanu when performing : a mitzvah for the first time (ie bar mitzvah), Who are they? All I know of is the Chasam Sofer (OC 55) -- well I guess I also know of the Peri To'ar, his maqor -- who says that the berakhah when putting on tefillin on one's bar mitzvah is supposed to be made with all the rest of the mitzvos in mind. The Radvaz says a ger says shehechiyanu when they emerge from the miqvah. I am less clear when a girl becoming a bas mitzvah would make her shechiyanu. The Ben Ish Chai says the girl should have in mind ol mitzvos when making shehechiyanu on her celebratory dress. Paralleling what we do by eating a new fruit on the 2nd evening of RH. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 09:51:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefach Thick Soft Spongy Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720165119.GB10632@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 03:09:13AM +0300, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Many mistakenly think that we now have an accepted Halachic tradition, : recorded in the Shulchan Aruch [460:5] to no longer bake Tefach thick Matza : [10 - 12 cm] as in Talmudic times. This is untrue... Unless we are holding like the "veyeish la'asos" in the Rama se'if 4. Neither the se'if nor the explanation "ki ein hareqiqin memaharin lehachmitz" make a distinction about when the matzah was made. -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:19:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on Exercise In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720211930.2A235182421@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:53 PM 7/20/2015, R. Ben Waxman wrote: >Orot, Orot Hatechiya, 34: > >Exercise, (which young Israel is getting involved in, in Eretz Yisrael, >to strengthen their bodies in order to be vigorous for the nation), >improves the spiritual strength of the greatest tzaddikim, those who >involve themselves in "the unification of God's names" (my translation >of a phrase which I admit I don't get), and increases the transmission >of God's light in the world, because there is no revelation at all of >light without all components being present. > >Turns out that (according to Rav Kook) not only does Talmud Torah >increase the merits to the army/state/people, but just having people >trying to be healthy, active, in shape, improves Talmud Torah, as long >as both sides are doing this for the nation. See "Exercise, Torah Learning and the Chofetz Chaim" http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/exercise_torah_cc_v2.pdf Reb Yaakov Kamenetsky was an avid swimmer all of his life. I recall when he came to Monroe to spend a Shabbos with his son Avraham. He was in his 80s I believe. Well, he put on his bathing suit, a robe and went to the pool. He then proceeded to jump into the pool and swim laps. This spread like wildfire in the 3 colonies in Monroe. People could not stop talking about it. It eventually got back to Reb Yaakov who quipped, "I wish they are as excited about my learning as they are about my swimming!" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 15:03:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> Re: Micha's questioning kadish yasom(KY) after kidush levana, the Vilna Gaon has a shortened version(doesn't he always?) that starts with the bracha and ends with siman tov. There is no Aleinu, hence no KY. He also holds that "sh'ain l'harbos b'k'dashim shelo l'tzorech, hence,there is only once KY per tefila. After the Yom by shachris and after Aleinu by mincha & maariv. Minhag Ashkenaz is not to say kadish d'rabonan during/after tefila but only after limud agada. The chasidim adopted the custom of saying it from the Seforadim and that's how it entered their ritual. I remember davening once at the Boro Park nusach HaGra k'vosikin minyan way back and was struck by the number of KYs that were said. The gabbai's answer was that it was too difficult to stop the "kadish zogers" from having their way. B"H, at our Flatbush Nusach HaGra k'vosikin minyan (Young Israel of Ave K, East 29th and K) under Rav Aryeh Ralbag guidance, we are have not had to compromise the Nusach HaGra way of davening. Shachris is 45 minutes before HaNetz every shabos and YT. -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com http://www.schnurassociates.com/joels-corner/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 15:46:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:46:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> References: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> Message-ID: <20150720224608.GB21161@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 06:03:46PM -0400, Joel Schnur via Avodah wrote: : I remember davening once at the Boro Park nusach HaGra k'vosikin : minyan way back and was struck by the number of KYs that were said. : The gabbai's answer was that it was too difficult to stop the : "kadish zogers" from having their way... REMT said something that makes me wonder... He suggested that our (non-Yekke) current practice of every avel saying qaddish is to make it condusive for aveilim to feel they're discharging their duty. Many men first started attending minyan regularly during aveileus and kept on doing so for the rest of their lives. Do you really want to discourage that with "Ah, why bother, I probably wouldn't get a turn this time anyway!"? A similar argument would change the priorities the Gra assumes about making extraneous opportunities for Qaddish. The AhS OC 55:4 gives this explanation for the creation of a 2nd opportunity for Qaddish Yasom at the end of Shacharis. He also writes that the Qadmonim only said 7 qaddeisim a day: Shacharis, after each of Yishtabach, Tachanun and UVa leTzion Minchah, after Ashrei and Tachanuun, and Arvis -- before and after Shemoneh Esrei. He quotes the Roqeiach invoking the pasuq "sheva bayom haleltikha" to explain that 7 was an intentional, significant, number. The AhS continues that three more were added when Aleinu was appended to the end of each tefillah. For the sake of yesomim who didn't get the amud. And significance was found for that, by reading Tzadi"q as an acronym, and each letter a gematria. Each day a tzadiq would say 90 times amein, (tzadi) 4 qedushos, (dalet) 10 qadeihim, and (yud) 100 berakhos (quf). (Citing the NMA.) Then he discusses leining adding one. "Veyoseir ein maqom laqadeishim", and still we added after Shir shel Yom because there were more yesomim, but more than that -- the AhS does not permit. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot RMB responded: Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. ============= My two cents: Adultery (eishis ish) is technically taking from another man that which belongs exclusively to him. So that itself puts it within the category of issurim that are mefursamos. The Rambam (MN 2:49) describes all sexuality as something that even when natural, should be limited. Homosexuality and bestiality, however, he describes as obvious deviations from the natural order that should be abhorred. I think that would place these two activities, as well, in the mefursamos category. The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely forbidden. Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: MN 3:49 As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure alone be eschewed. All illicit unions with females have one thing in common: namely, that in the majority of cases these females are constantly in the company of the male in his house, and that they are easy of access for him, and can be easily controlled by him - there being no difficulty in making them come into his presence; and no judge could blame the male I for their being with him. Consequently if the status of the women with whom union is illicit were that of any unmarried woman, I mean to say that if it were possible to marry them and that the prohibition with regard to them were only due to their not being the man's wives, most people would have constantly succumbed and fornicated with them. However, as it is absolutely forbidden to have intercourse with them, the strongest deterrents making us avoid this - I mean by this a sentence of death by order of a court of law and the threat of being cut off--so that there is no way to have intercourse with these women, men are safe from seeking to approach them and their thoughts are turned away from them. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot RMB responded: > Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate > family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. My two cents: Adultery (eishis ish) should be categorized under issurim mefursomos simply on the basis that it involves taking lves taking liberties with another man's wife, an intimacy that belongs to the husband. A form of theft! So that itself puts it within the category of issurim that are mefursamos. The Rambam (MN 2:49) describes all sexuality as something that even when natural, should be limited. Homosexuality and bestiality, however, he describes as obvious deviations from the natural order that should be abhorred. I think that would place these two activities, as well, in the mefursamos category. The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely forbidden. Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: MN 3:49 As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure alone be eschewed. All illicit unions with females have one thing in common: namely, that in the majority of cases these females are constantly in the company of the male in his house, and that they are easy of access for him, and can be easily controlled by him - there being no difficulty in making them come into his presence; and no judge could blame the male I for their being with him. Consequently if the status of the women with whom union is illicit were that of any unmarried woman, I mean to say that if it were possible to marry them and that the prohibition with regard to them were only due to their not being the man's wives, most people would have constantly succumbed and fornicated with them. However, as it is absolutely forbidden to have intercourse with them, the strongest deterrents making us avoid this - I mean by this a sentence of death by order of a court of law and the threat of being cut off--so that there is no way to have intercourse with these women, men are safe from seeking to approach them and their thoughts are turned away from them. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 16:02:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:02:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: (Sorry for approving both versions of that post! It was a quick typo in what was until-then going so smoothly! -micha) On 2015-07-20 5:34 pm, RZ Lampel wrote: > RMB responded: "Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest > within > the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot." > Adultery (eishis ish) is technically taking from another man that > which > belongs exclusively to him. So that itself puts it within the > category of > issurim that are mefursamos. > The Rambam (MN 2:49) ... Yes. But our problem is with Shemoneh Peraqim, where the Rambam distinguishes between mitzvos mefusamot, for which a person should develop a desire that is in line with the mitzvah (or a distaste in line with the issur), and other mitzvos where one should simply refrain out of submission to ol mitzvos. And among his mitzvos which are NOT mefursamos are arayos. R/Dr Meir Shinnar writes: > he specifically applies that > to > arayot - and needs to apply it to arayot, because the sugyot that > deal with > kol hagadol mechavero yitzro gadol mimenu - specifically apply to > arayot. > One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all > dine > arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not > sure > on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are > NOT > self evident or even mefursamot So regardless of how he categorizes them in the Moreh, the chiluq the Rambam makes in 8P requires our considering these issurim to not be self-evident. (Which I still don't get.) -micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 20:09:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 23:09:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah REMT said something that makes me wonder... He suggested that our (non-Yekke) current practice of every avel saying qaddish is to make it condusive for aveilim to feel they're discharging their duty. Micha Berger >>>> You are mainly talking about adults saying kaddish, but I remember one tragic year when there were seven yesomim under bar mitzva age saying kaddish, from three different families. Two families had lost their mothers, one family their father. Who was going to tell these children, who came to shul faithfully every day, sometimes getting to school late or skipping outings with their friends, "You can't say kaddish for your Ima or your Abba today, someone else has kadima"? Correct me if I am mistaken but my impression is that kaddish yasom is really mainly for genuine yesomim, i.e., those who lose their parents while they are still children. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 23:56:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:56:00 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Dr Shapiro's book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I found the most disturbing part of Dr Shapiro's book the last chapter. This is a halachid discussion of lying. My conclusion from this is that lying is perfectly permissible if there is a good reason. Basically the ends justifies the means. We are not talking about white lies as praising the bride for her beauty. In particular it is permissible to quote a psak from a gadol even though he never said it as long as you are sure that it is correct and he probably would have said it. There is no problem with making up stories about a gadol as long as the intention is to either glorify the gadol or else show why some idea is important. He claims that there are groups that actively make up stories about CI. The Chatam Sofer says that in order to prevent sins one can make the problem appear to be more serious than it really is such as turning a rabbinic prohibition into a biblical one. The problem with false attribution (besides the seemingly moral one) is that the result one cannot believe anything that is not written by the gadol himself. One never knows if the citation of the gadol was deliberately changed, However as seen in the rest of the book even the written words of the author are not always authoritative as in many cases they are tampered with to protect some "higher interest". Even the SA has been tampered with for this purpose. One can lie in order to avoid embarrassment to oneself. R Papa seems to have issued an incorrect halacha to avoid shame. A poor man can make believe he is blind or crippled in order to get more charity. One can claim that the monet is going for a poor bride when in fact it will be used for some other charity. Finally there is the heter of mental reservation or reinterpreting ones words made famous by the story of Yaakov "lying" To Isaac that he is Esav. Shapiro gives the example of Clinton making all sorts of "false" statements about Lewinsky and later justified it by saying that his words had another meaning than what people thought. Note this is sometimes permitted even in monetary cases. As stated about one can lie for educational purposes "Noble Lie" of Plato. Rav Dessler defines "truth" as the value that gives a positive result and is independent of observation and evidence. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 19:10:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 21:10:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: > Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: > MN 3:49 > As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are > directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling > disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The > reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against > intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is > natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more > should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure > alone be eschewed. So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 21:55:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:55:23 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9105E0A4-E59B-4E23-ADAA-7FCACD74F424@gmail.com> This is tangentially related only, but may be of interest in the context. I asked Rav Hershel Schachter, Shlita, what to do if someone who acts as a functionary at a Shira Chadasha (partnership) style service wants to do likewise in a mainstream Orthodox Congregation. His answer was, that such a person can be counted towards a Minyan, but no Kibbudim should be afforded to them. We have one here in Melbourne, which isn't like the one in Israel, but the strong word is that one of Rabbi Avi Weiss's Maharatos (Rabba/Rabbis) will be hired to lead that congregation. She was recently interviewed and claimed she was non denominational because she wanted to break down boundaries. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 03:08:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:08:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] thick matza Message-ID: For those interested a thorough discussion on thick matazot see the article of Ari Zivotofsky in Hakirah www.hakirah.org/Vol17Zivotofsky.pdf -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 06:54:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 06:54:49 -- 0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> Message-ID: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> On 7/20/2015 7:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > ... our problem is with Shemoneh Peraqim, where the Rambam distinguishes > between mitzvos mefusamot, for which a person should develop a desire > that is in line with the mitzvah (or a distaste in line with the issur), > and other mitzvos where one should simply refrain out of submission to > ol mitzvos. > And among his mitzvos which are NOT mefursamos are arayos....the chiluq > the Rambam makes in 8P requires our considering these issurim to not > be self-evident. And that's precisely what I addressed in my 3rd paragraph. After citing the Moreh Nevuchim's description of homosexuality and bestiality as obviously deviant practices (i.e. mefursamos), I cited its description of arayos (outside of eishis ish) as being not mefursomos, but issurim Hashem instituted as a preventative, a gedder, against unrestrained licentiousness in a situation (viz. family) where the temptation for it would otherwise be too hard to control. To repeat what I wrote: >> The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and >> commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because >> allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than >> his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would >> lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest >> intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, >> it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound >> to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely >> forbidden." Perhaps the mention of "commanded that it, too, be considered >> abhorrent" causes confusion. This would seem to put incest back into >> the category of mefursomos, along with murder and stealing, etc., about >> which a normal person is expected to harbor revulsion. So Rambam would be >> self-contradicting. But the elephant in the room is that the Torah itself >> commands us to treat eating non-kosher creatures with disgust. So how >> can Chazal tell us the right attitude is "efshi"? Evidently, Chazal and, >> naturally, Rambam, do not consider "efshi" to be at odds with "shekketz >> yih'yu lachem/teshak'tsu."My surmise is that they understand the Torah's >> command to treat with disgust the eating of non-kosher creatures and >> other acts that are not intrinsically objectionable (such as, per Rambam, >> incest, vs. murder, stealing, homosexuality and bestiality), as an imposed >> artificial behavior/attitude for these non-mefusamos issurim. Regarding >> your definition of issurim mefursamim, the Shemoneh Perakim does not >> say a tsaddik should /develop/ a revulsion, but that such revulsion is >> natural in born in all people. The tsaddik retains these feelings and >> does not allow them to be tainted. [Email #2.] On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: >> MN 3:49 >> As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are >> directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling >> disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom... On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and > should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of > Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what > possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 07:36:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:36:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Dr Shapiro's book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AE5907.7010503@optimum.net> RET: << A poor man can make believe he is blind or crippled in order to get more charity. >> How does this fit with Peah 8:9? Which book are we talking about? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 17:48:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 20:48:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> Message-ID: <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> I think one has to be careful, as I find it difficult to reconcile the position of the MN and that of the SP, and think they represent two distinct aspects (?stages) in the rambam Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions I) in hazal -- that continued desire for some forbidden actions is compatible with a high spiritual state -- issue is control of the desire -- NOT its presence II) Aristotelian ethics -- a high spiritual state does not desire for forbidden -- the desire is a sign of a flaw. SP resolves by differentiating between mefursamot -- whose desire is problematic and a flaw -- and religious law -- where desire is not a flaw -- and applies this specifically to arayot -- as examples in Talmud of Rabbanit with desire are of arayot, It is difficult for me to reconcile this position with the MN -- if our proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is " to instil disgust" -- how can desire still remaining not be a flaw???? In the MN, there is a conceptual framework to distinguish homosexuality and bestiality from regular sexuality -- but they are ALL viewed as things that should repulse us -- just some more than others. It is by no means clear that this framework and distinction can be read into the SP, and would think that One would need good evidence .hat it does not include ALL arayot... Meir Shinnar > It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah > attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress > during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan > Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a > marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. > Zvi Lampel > On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and >> should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of >> Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what >> possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? >> On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: >>> Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: >>> MN 3:49 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 08:06:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:06:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Message-ID: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why ? What changed in the afternoon? (especially since some pple fast both the 9th and 10th( Mordechai cohen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 06:18:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:18:26 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150722.091826.10442.1@webmail10.vgs.untd.com> The Moreh Nevuchim was quoted: > As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are > directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling > disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. R"n Lisa Liel wrote what I had wanted to write: > So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty > and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something > out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, > but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? R' Zvi Lampel answered: > It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah > attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt > duress during the marital process (you can find this in the > Kitzur Shulchan Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the > Rambam when it comes to a marital setting. I was taught we hold > like the Ramban. My guess is that you're referring to R' Eliezer from Nedarim 20b, referenced at the end of Kitzur 150:1. But from what I have seen, not for nothing is it called "Kitzur Shulchan Aruch", because this seems to be the attitude of all the standard poskim. The Kitzur is not a standalone machmir here; from what I can tell, he's merely quoting the Mechaber in Orach Chayim 240:8. Mishneh Brurah 240:35 (who refers us to Magen Avraham 240:21), Aruch Hashulchan 240:14, and Kaf Hachaim 240:59 all seem to advocate a strong reluctance towards intercourse, which is not quite as extreme as the Rambam's "disgust", but that might merely reflect their choice of words. For purposes of Talmud Torah, where is this Ramban who "strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting"? And for purposes of Halacha, which Acharonim hold like the Ramban, over the Mechaber, KSA, MB, and KH? (I recall hearing that the Siddur HaYaavetz might be the answer here, but there seem to be several different versions. If anyone can post a link to a specific version on SeforimOnline or HebrewBooks.org, and a page citation, I'd appreciate that very much.) Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett?s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren?t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55af9846b9a261846362est02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 07:13:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:13:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel asked: "The idea that sex is something dirty and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude?" See the Gemara in Nedarim (20a) about kafuhu shed. Also see RAL's article OF MARRIAGE: RELATIONSHIP AND RELATIONS ( http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf ) where he discusses this question and brings many of the sources. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:25:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:25:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 06:54:49AM +0000, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: :> So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and :> should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of :> Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what :> possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? : It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah : attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress : during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan : Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to : a marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. But the most famous Ramban does speak of perushim tihyu and how perishus is the key to holiness. (R' Shimon Shkop explains the Ramban as saying it is a primary means to hoiness, because "qedoshim tihyu qi Qadosh Ani" would be absurd if referring to Hashem practicing perishus. What temptations would He need to avoid?) And his first example is yema'eit bemishgal, like (Berakhos 22) "that TC not be found by their wives like roosters" and that tashmish should be limited to "kefi hatzeikh beqiyum hamitzvah mimenu". I presume, in an unXian sense, the Rambam refers to onah, not "only" piryah verivyah. Perishus and neqi'us come up a lot in lower-case-m mussar literature, even among anti-Maimonidians like Rabbeinu Yonah. To quote Mesilas Yesharim ch 13 (tr. from http://www.shechem.org/torah/mesyesh/13.htm I think it's the old Feldheim ed, by R' Shraga Simmons): There is no question as to the permissibility of cohabitation with one's wife, but still, ablutions were instituted for those who had had seminal emissions, so that Scholars should not be steadily with their wives, like roosters. Even though the act itself is permissible it implants in a person a lust for it which might draw him on to what is forbidden; as our Sages of blessed memory have said (Sukkah 526), "There is a small organ in a man which, when it is satiated, hungers and which, when it is made to hunger, is sated." And they said about R. Eleazar (Nedarim 20b) that even in the proper hour and the correct time he would expose a handbreadth and conceal two hand-breadths and imagine that a demon was compelling him, in order to cancel out the feeling of pleasure. And ch. 14: THERE ARE THREE principal divisions of Separation, involving pleasures, laws, and conduct respectively. Separation in relation to pleasures, which we spoke of in the previous chapter, consists in one's taking from the world only what is essential to him. This type of Separation encompasses anything which provides pleasure to any one of the senses, whether the pleasure be gained through food, cohabitation, clothing, strolls, conversation or similar means, exceptions obtaining only at such times when deriving pleasure through these means is a mitzvah. Separation in relation to laws ... Separation in relation to conduct ... Which also limits marital intimacy to what is necessary to fulfill piryah verivyah and onah. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:36:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:36:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55AFD49B.4070904@gmail.com> On 7/21/2015 8:48 PM, Meir Shinnar wrote: > Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions > I) in hazal - that continued desire for some forbidden actions is > compatible with a high spiritual state - issue is control of the > desire - NOT its presence > I) Aristotelian ethics - a high spiritual state does not desire for > forbidden - the desire is a sign of a flaw. > SP resolves by differentiating between mefursamot - whose desire is > problematic and a flaw - and religious law - where desire is not a > flaw - and applies this specifically to arayot - as examples in Talmud > of Rabbanit with desire are of arayot, > It is difficult for me to reconcile this position with the MN - if our > proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is " to instil > disgust" - how can desire still remaining not be a flaw???? > In the MN, there is a conceptual framework to distinguish > homosexuality and bestiality from regular sexuality - but they are ALL > viewed as things that should repulse us - just some more than others. > It is by no means clear that this framework and distinction can be > read into the SP, and would think that One would need good evidence > that it does not include ALL arayot... The Moreh Nevuchim III:35 explicitly states that his view about this matter is the same as his view in Shemoneh Perakim: The fourteenth class comprises the commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain sexual unions. They are those that we have enumerated in the Book of Women [/Sepher Nashim/] and in Laws concerning Prohibited Sexual Relations [/Hilkhoth Issurei Bi'ah/. The interbreeding of beasts belongs to this class. The purpose of this ... is to bring about a decrease of sexual intercourse and to diminish the desire for mating as far as possible, so that it should not be taken as an end, as is done by the ignorant, *according to what we have explained in the Commentary on the Tractate Aboth.* (All commentators agree this is a reference to the introduction to the commentary, the Shemoneh Perakim, just as the Moreh stated regarding the thirteenth class.) Your kushya is good: if [as per MN] our proper relationship to even permitted sexualityis "to instill disgust" - how can desire still remaining not be a flaw [as per ShP]???? But I think the solution I offered is reasonable. To wit: What do you do with the elephant in the room I mentioned? The Torah commands /t'shaktsu/ concerning the eating of non-kosher creatures (which is certainly as much in the category of non-mefursomos as bassar b'chalav and arayos); yet Chazal (and naturally, then, Rambam) say that when it comes to basar b'chalav, etc., one should have the attitude of "I have the desire to do it, but Hashem prohibited me.'' I offered one answer to both questions: When Rambam says that Hashem wants to instill in us disgust for the act, and the Torah (as per Chazal) says "t'shakstu,'' they mean that despite the fact that we should not deny or seek to eradicate the physical inclination for such pleasures, we must maintain an aversion to succumbing to it except for limited situations. (And the purpose of that is to keep us from doing it in excess, which is the real flaw.) *So although as per MN,] our proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is to instill a reluctance except for limited occasions (such as in a marriage setting), the desire still remaining is not a flaw [as per ShP] to be eradicated.* "I have the desire to do it [even outside of marriage, and I will not eradicate the sexual desire from myself,] but [live with it and constrain it outside of marriage,] because Hashem commanded me so [and this will bring me to perfection]. So, a word about the Moreh's wording. Pines translates: "As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. ... the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity." Friedlander translates: " we ought to limit sexual intercourse altogether, hold it in *contempt,* and only desire it very rarely." Ibn Tibbon translates "ha-arayos, ha-inyan b'kulam shahv l'ma-eit ha-mishgal *v'lim'os* bo, v'shello yirtseh mimennu ki im m'aht mi-za-ir...sheh-inyan ha-tiv'i *nim-ahs* l'hay-a-sos rak l'tsorech." I suspect from the context (lim'os/disgust/contempt, *except for limited occasions*) that the Rambam's original Arabic, not to mention his intention, is closer on the scale to the idea of avoidance for the sake of gaining perfection, than to disgust and contempt. Basically, it translates to what I believe is in fact our common attitude regarding these things. To put things in perspective, note that immediately before this section, the Rambam, following the same attitude of engaging in unrestrained physical pleasures being an obstacle to personal perfection, writes similarly about the activity of eating, again equating what he writes in the Moreh to what he wrote in Shemoneh Perakim: The thirteenth class comprises the commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain foods and what is connected therewith. These are the commandments that we have enumerated in the Laws concerning Forbidden Foods [/Hilkhoth Ma-akholoth Asuroth/]. The [commandments concerning] vows and the state of the Nazarites belong to this class. The purpose of all this is, *as we have explained in the Commentary on the Mishnah in the introduction to Aboth,* to put an end to the lusts and licentiousness manifested in seeking what is most pleasurable and to taking the desire for food and drink as an end. [Email #2. -micha] On 7/22/2015 1:25 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > But the most famous Ramban does speak of perushim tihyu and how perishus > is the key to holiness. ...And his first example is yema'eit > bemishgal... > I presume, in an unXian sense, the Rambam refers to onah, not "only" > piryah verivyah. > Perishus and neqi'us come up a lot in lower-case-m mussar literature, even > among anti-Maimonidians like Rabbeinu Yonah. To quote Mesilas Yesharim ch 13 > ..." And they said about > R. Eleazar (Nedarim 20b) that even in the proper hour and the correct > time he would expose a handbreadth and conceal two hand-breadths and > imagine that a demon was compelling him, in order to cancel out the > feeling of pleasure. > And ch. 14: ... > Separation in relation to pleasures, which we spoke of in the > previous chapter, consists in one's taking from the world only what > is essential to him. > Which also limits marital intimacy to what is necessary to fulfill piryah > verivyah and onah. Which, as I was contemplating to write, shows that the Ramban and Rambam (and as you have pointed out, mainstream Jewish thought) all share the same basic nuanced attitude--despite the Ramban's opposition to the Rambam's presentation. Thanks for the sources. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:00:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:00:43 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> References: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:06 AM, M Cohen via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after > chatzos on Tbav > > Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc > > Why ? > > What changed in the afternoon? (especially since some pple fast both the 9 > th and 10th( > There are two answers in the Birkhei Yosef quoting Sefer Hakavvanot of R. Haim Vital (OH 559 s"k 7) for why we say verses of consolation at minha, both based on Midrash Eicha Rabba, and perhaps the reason is the same. Firstly, that this was when the BHMK began to burn, and it was davka a time of consolation because the people realized that HKBH was pouring his anger on stone and wood, not on flesh and blood. Secondly, that this is the time when the Messiah whose name is Menahem is born. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 22:23:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 01:23:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55B07A69.5020203@gmail.com> On 7/22/2015 1:26 PM, H Lampel wrote: > When Rambam says that Hashem wants to instill in us disgust for the > act, and the Torah (as per Chazal) says ''t'shakstu,'' they mean that > despite the fact that we should not deny or seek to eradicate the > physical inclination for such pleasures, we must maintain an aversion > to succumbing to it except for limited situations. (And the purpose of > that is to keep us from doing it in excess, which is the real flaw.) I should also note that the Rambam teaches that hand-in-hand with the flaw of excessive involvement in physical pleasures, and the ultimate problem with that, is the attitude behind it, of making physical pleasure an end in itself, rather than a side benefit of a means. The Rambam applies this objection to both sexual pleasure for its own sake and eating pleasure for its own sake: The prohibition of certain foods and what is connected therewith.... The purpose of all this is, as we have explained in the Commentary on the Mishnah in the introduction to Aboth, to put an end to the lusts and licentiousness manifested in seeking what is most pleasurable and to taking the desire for food and drink /as an end/. ...The commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain sexual unions... The purpose of this ... is to bring about a decrease of sexual intercourse and to diminish the desire for mating as far as possible, so that it should not be taken /as an end/, as is done by the ignorant, according to what we have explained in the Commentary on the Tractate Aboth. Zvi Lampel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 01:16:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:16:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R' Aharon Lichtenstein was bothered by the difference in opinion regarding marital intimacy between Chazal who seem to have a very positive attitude and the Rishonim (especially the Rambam) who have a very negative attitude and the attitude of contemporary authorities who seem to have swung back to the positive side: "We, for our part, are confronted by a quandary of our own; and it is dual. At one plane, we ask ourselves, within the context of our learn- ing?it is Torah, and we must learn?a simple and straightforward ques- tion. In light of the predominant evidence we have noted from Hazal and, particularly, its halakhic component, how and why did Rambam, Ramban, and some other rishonim, deviate so markedly from their prevalent attitude? With reference to yetser (the inclination)?generic in connotation but defined by Rashi as shel tashmish (sexual desire)?Hazal identify it as one of a triad which, optimally, one should ?let the left hand deflect and the right hand bring close? (Sota 47a). One sometimes gets the impression that the proportion was subsequently inverted. ... To the extent that we do succeed in harmonizing the positions of Hazal and of rishonim, we ameliorate the pressure of one issue but exacerbate that of another. For we are brought, in turn, to a second quandary: our own. While I have conducted no empirical survey, I believe there is little question regarding the sensibility of the contempo- rary Torah world, irrespective of camp and orientation. We stand, fun- damentally, with R. Bar-Shaul. We assert the value of romantic love, its physical manifestation included, without flinching from the prospect of concomitant sensual pleasure; and we do so without harboring guilt or reservations. " Source: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 06:35:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:35:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shimon haTzaddik and Alexander the Macedonian Message-ID: <20150723133509.GA14333@aishdas.org> The story of Shim'on haTzaddiq, in the office of kohein gadol, meeting Alexander the Great, as told in Yuma 69a, is pretty well known. Josephus told the story earlier, in Antiquities 11:8. The Daily Mail recently covered what appears to be another retelling : Mosaic of Alexander the Great meeting a Jewish priest is the first ever non-biblical scene to be discovered inside a synagogue - Artwork was uncovered in a fifth-century synagogue in Huqoq, Israel - May depict Alexander the Great, based on the presence of elephants - Scene is the first non-biblical story to be found in an ancient synagogue - Depictions of Biblical hero Samson are also part of the decorative floor By Sarah Griffiths for MailOnline Published: 03:43 EST, 15 July 2015 | Updated: 07:21 EST, 15 July 2015 ... The artwork was uncovered in the east aisle of a fifth-century synagogue in the ancient Jewish village of Huqoq. ... The largest top strip contains the scene showing a meeting between two men, who perhaps represent the legendary warrior and a Jewish high priest. In the scene, a bearded soldier wearing battle dress and a purple cloak leads a bull by the horns, followed by other soldiers and elephants with shields tied to their sides. He is meeting with a grey-haired, bearded elderly man wearing a ceremonial white tunic and mantle, accompanied by young men with sheathed swords, also in ceremonial clothes. Southern Galil, 5th cent CE. Within a generation of the compilation of Mes Yuma. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 06:14:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:14:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B0E8A7.7050202@gmail.com> I agree with all those who reacted to my remark about Ramban vs Rambam, and I am especially grateful to Marty Bluke for the link to Rav Lichtenstein ztl's comprehensive article that provides the sources and notes the challenges they present. (I think that link was recently posted on R. Gil Student's blog.) As R. Akiva Miller has pointed out, it was Rebbi Eliezer of Nedarim 20b, referenced at the end of Kitzur 150:1 (and, as RAM pointed out, the Mechaber OC 240:8) who is understood to have expressed duress during the marital process. (And who is a Tanna, not an Amora, as I incorrectly stated.) Also, RAM asked, > For purposes of Talmud Torah, where is this Ramban who "strongly disagreed > with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting"? And again, I stand corrected. The Rav who gave me my "chassan shmuess" was probably referring to the /Iggeress ha-Kodesh,/ which, as Rav Lichtenstein pointed out in his article, is often erroneously attributed to Ramban. But apparently, had Rav Lichtenstein been giving me the "chassan shmuez," I would have come away with the same halacha l'ma'aseh regarding attitude. He writes: We cannot, as the author of the /Iggeret ha-Kodesh/ could not, abandon the conviction that so central a component of human nature is not part of the /tov me'od/ of primordial creation. Consequently, impelled by our spiritual instincts and animated by the faith instilled in us by our Torah mentors, we opt for consecration rather than abstinence. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 07:12:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:12:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> Message-ID: <26C8383E-E3E8-4443-8BAD-62AB922C5681@gmail.com> Again, one has to be very careful. There are four different sources here. 1)Shmona Prakim -- chapter 4 -- where reason for laws on arayot is to limit Sexuality -- in the sense of a golden mean. 2)Shmona Prakim -- chapter 6 -- where desire for things forbidden only by halakhah is endorsed as not a spiritual flaw 3) MN 3:35, where he describes category 14 of mitzvot -- relating to arayot -- in terms similar to source 1, as the rambam notes and meforshim point out. 4) MN 3:49 -- where purpose of hilchot arayot is to instill disgust -- not merely control and limit Therefore, RZL is correct that MN 3:35 refers to Spm but chapter 4. One can reconcile sources 1,2 and 3, or 1,3 and 4 -- but difficult to recocile all 4. I would ad that source 2 is problematic, in that it's view of halakhah as an almost arbitrary set of limitations, seems quite different than the rambam's normal presentation of the purpose of Halacha. Meir Shinnar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 10:15:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:15:16 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150723.131516.32484.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> Many posters - and their quoted sources - have compared the desire for intercourse with the desire for food. What I have not seen is any comparison between the *enjoyment* of intercourse and the enjoyment of food. Halacha restricts our eating in many ways, and we are taught that this is to curb our desires. But there are seem to be many exceptions to this, and I don't see parallels to intercourse. We have mitzvos where eating is merely a physical act used as a means to some other end. Achilas Matza might be the best example of this. We need to internalize the matzah and its lessons, but any enjoyment that we might get from this eating is utterly irrelevant. This seems quite comparable to the intercourse, where it is merely a means towards having children. The enjoyment that one gets from the intercourse (like from the matza) is irrelevant - or perhaps even lower, to be eschewed. One might cite Rama Even Haezer 25:2, which lists various permitted forms of intercourse, but to me, that is like saying "You can eat your meat broiled or cooked or fried, as long as you don't put milk in it, and don't eat it too often either." This is NOT what we are told about meat. Rather we are told that eating meat is the only way to enjoy Yom Tov. We are taught that eating is proper and good. When a simcha arises, we must make a meal so as to properly celebrate it. And if there are overlapping simchas, we should add an extra course so that each simcha gets its due. Red wine is more appropriate than white, but if you personally enjoy white, then go for it. Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. - Is the difference really that subtle? To me, it is as subtle as a brick. R' Marty Bluke posted: > Also see RAL's article OF MARRIAGE: RELATIONSHIP AND RELATIONS > ( http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf ) where > he discusses this question and brings many of the sources. Indeed he does bring many sources. And I was particularly intrigued by his conclusion, that the general thrust of recent authorities seems to be very different from before that: > To the extent that we do succeed in harmonizing the positions of > Hazal and of rishonim, we ameliorate the pressure of one issue but > exacerbate that of another. For we are brought, in turn, to a > second quandary: our own. While I have conducted no empirical > survey, I believe there is little question regarding the > sensibility of the contemporary Torah world, irrespective of camp > and orientation. ... We assert the value of romantic love, its > physical manifestation included, without flinching from the > prospect of concomitant sensual pleasure; and we do so without > harboring guilt or reservations. We insist, of course, upon its > sanctification?this, within the context of suffusive kedusha of > carnal experience, generally. and yet, a page later, > Assuming these facts to be correct ? as regards my own spiritual > environs, I can attest directly ? we ask ourselves: How and why > do we depart from positions articulated by some of our greatest > ? "from whose mouths we live and from whose waters we drink" - > and, is this departure legitimate? Are we victims of the Zeitgeist, > swept along by general socio-historical currents? Do we tailor our > attitude on this issue to conform to appetitive convenience and > erotic desire? Have we, in this case, adopted a self-satisfying > posture of facile world-acceptance clothed in culturally correct > garb? I did not find his answers to these questions very satisfying. But I do find his *asking* them to be extremely comforting. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 11:43:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:43:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Relative Priorities Message-ID: <1440012f20ae4d989f0b2c5fdc8b1c1e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> A yahrtzeit shiur is "being sponsored" at the same time as your regular learning seder. Evaluate the various score cards in shamayim (yours, the niftar's, your chavrutah's) depending on whether you attended the shiur or seder (all other things being equal). She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 24 07:09:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 17:09:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: artificial meat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Technological advances are bringing us to ask a pressing question: Does Judaism consider meat created in a laboratory to be kosher? Does Jewish law even consider it to be meat?The question takes on particular significance now, during the nine days, the traditional period of mourning that precedes Tisha B'Av when observant Jews abstain from meat. (Well, theoretical significance, at least ? the world's first lab-grown hamburger, created in 2013, cost a cool $325,000 and it's not exactly available at your neighborhood grocery store yet.)Some kashrut experts are ready to rule the burger kosher, and not only that, parve, reported Ynet reporter Koby Nachshoni ? meaning observant Jews, who won't eat milk and meat together, can eat their test-tube burger topped with cheese. Furthermore, the halachic authorities with whom Nachshon consulted even said this would apply to test-tube pork ? so make that a bacon cheeseburger.But, no surprise here, not everyone agrees about that.Chabad addressed the issue , too, noting that there are precedents for test-tube meat in the ancient Jewish sources. see http://www.haaretz.com/life/food-wine/1.667580 -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:30:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh Message-ID: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> Last night in the shul that I davened B'Leil Zeh was said with great fervor. However, I am wondering if it should have been said at all. B'Leil Zeh is referring to the night of the 9th of Av and the many things that occurred then. Last night was, of course, the night of the 10th of Av. Does it really make sense to have said B'Leil Zeh on the 10th of Av? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:50:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:50:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh In-Reply-To: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 10:30:37AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : B'Leil Zeh is referring to the night of the 9th of Av and the many : things that occurred then. Last night was, of course, the night of : the 10th of Av. Does it really make sense to have said B'Leil Zeh : on the 10th of Av? Now that you made me think about the question, I would ask the reverse one. Bayis sheini was set aflame shortly before sheqi'ah on the 9th and burned through the 10th. So wouldn't beleil zeh only fit a postponed ta'anis? As for bayis rishon... I'm still sorting my way through understandings of Yechezqeil and the Yerushalmi. RMT, kedarko (see ) touches on a nice subset of sources at http://download.yutorah.org/2012/1053/Tisha_Bav_To-Go_-_5771_Rabbi_Torczyner.pdf Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: R' Mordechai Torczyner -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:58:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:58:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh In-Reply-To: <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> References: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150726145900.0654D1831F2@nexus.stevens.edu> At 10:50 AM 7/26/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >Now that you made me think about the question, I would ask the reverse >one. Bayis sheini was set aflame shortly before sheqi'ah on the 9th and >burned through the 10th. > >So wouldn't beleil zeh only fit a postponed ta'anis? > >As for bayis rishon... I'm still sorting my way through understandings >of Yechezqeil and the Yerushalmi. Perhaps two separate tefillos are needed, one for the night of the 9th of Av and one for the night of the 10th of Av. However, given the vast amount of kinos and other tefillos for Tisha B'Av, I am loath to suggest adding any more. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 16:32:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 19:32:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Message-ID: From: M Cohen via Avodah There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why? What changed in the afternoon? Mordechai Cohen >>>> The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 22:02:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:02:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus Message-ID: Thew gemara in Gittin tells the story of the rich lady miryam bat batus who sent her sevant to buy food in the market, before the churban, each time the food is already sold and she finally dies from dung on her foot. OTOH the gemara in ketuvot says that miryam bat batus paid King Yanai a lot of money to appoint her son yehoshua ben gamla as high priest First the two stories are about 150 years apart. In addition Alexander Jannai was himself high priest and unlikely to sell that position -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 20:18:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:18:25 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150726.231825.30515.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> R' Zvi Lampel wrote: > But apparently, had Rav Lichtenstein been giving me the > "chassan shmuez," I would have come away with the same halacha > l'ma'aseh regarding attitude. He writes: > > We cannot, as the author of the /Iggeret ha-Kodesh/ could > not, abandon the conviction that so central a component of > human nature is not part of the /tov me'od/ of primordial > creation. Consequently, impelled by our spiritual instincts > and animated by the faith instilled in us by our Torah > mentors, we opt for consecration rather than abstinence. I am very bothered by this attitude. I will explain why. We have discussed the idea that a posek may sometimes choose a psak based on what "seems right" to him, and then he will find sources to support that conclusion. But if I remember correctly, this is usually done in the case of *new* questions, where there is little precedent to draw upon. But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed. And it changed so recently that Rav Lichtenstein couldn't name any seforim that might have explained it to him. Namely, that for some reason, various people (such as RZL's teacher) started paskening - "halacha l'ma'aseh" in RZL's words - that the halacha follows the Iggeret ha-Kodesh (whose author we aren't sure of) rather than the Shulchan Aruch and Rav Yosef Karo. Why aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? Can we really overturn the Shulchan Aruch simply because "We cannot ... abandon the conviction" that sex is "tov me'od"? When we justify a psak and say we were "impelled by our spiritual instincts", how are we different from Conservative and Reform? I would not speak this way if the topic was a machlokes rishonim. Can someone please point to another major Rishon besides the Iggeret ha-Kodesh who holds that way? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b5a34e339ce234e4610st01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 01:31:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:31:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why? What changed in the afternoon? Mordechai Cohen >>>> The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= R'YBS explained that once the mikdash started burning (PM of TB) we knew hkb"h was taking out his wrath on stones and wood, not us. 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 00:49:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:49:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> On 07/27/2015 01:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Thew gemara in Gittin tells the story of the rich lady miryam bat > batus Martha bat Baytus. > who sent her sevant to buy food in the market, before the > churban, each time the food is already sold and she finally dies from > dung on her foot. > > OTOH the gemara in ketuvot Yoma. 18a. And Yavamos 61a. I could not find any reference to this in Kesubos. > says that miryam bat batus Martha bat Baytus. > paid King Yanai a lot of money to appoint her son Husband > yehoshua ben gamla as high priest. First the two stories are about > 150 years apart. No, they're not. Yehoshua ben Gamla was the Cohen Gadol at the time of the revolt against Rome, and was murdered by the Biryonim. > In addition Alexander Jannai was himself high priest > and unlikely to sell that position Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos in both places points out, for precisely that reason. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 03:22:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:22:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> References: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150727102247.GA8241@aishdas.org> RnTK wrote: : The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting : the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people : (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house : on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. R' Yirmiyohu Kaganoff provided sources at : In some places there is a custom to wash the floors and clean the house on the afternoon of Tisha B'Av. This custom is based on a mesorah that Moshiach will be born on Tisha B'Av afternoon and that it is therefore appropriate to commemorate the redemption and strengthen people's hopes and prayers (based on Beis Yosef 554 and Kolbo). Although this seems like unnecessary work on Tisha B'Av that should be postponed, the poskim rule that one should not discourage those who follow this custom (Birkei Yosef 559:7). On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:31am +0000, R Joel Rich replied: : R'YBS explained that once the mikdash started burning (PM of TB) : we knew [HKB"H] was taking out his wrath on stones and wood, not us. I bet RYBS cited the Gra (OC 555:1). Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: Actually, Google gets most of the credit for filling in vague memories with mar'eh meqomos. -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 05:00:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:00:41 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150727.080041.13995.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> I asked: > I would not speak this way if the topic was a machlokes > rishonim. Can someone please point to another major Rishon > besides the Iggeret ha-Kodesh who holds that way? Alternatively, can anyone cite other halachos, where for centuries the acharonim followed the Shulchan Aruch, and then in recent decades, the poskim decided to follow a minority rishon? My first instinct is to say that the shitos of the Gra are in this category, but there were those who followed the Gra ever since his day, and the only real change is that his views became more and more widespread. Was there ever a community that was known for following the Iggeret ha-Kodesh in this inyan until recently? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b61d8f130a61d8b4299st01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 07:10:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:10:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 11:15:51AM -1000, R/ Dr Noam Stadlan wrote on Areivim: : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded : as ignorance... To do that woud be to disagree with her husband. See "Thinking Aloud", pg 113: DH: What is the heter for a married woman in her house not to cover her hair when there are outsiders present? RYBS: She has to cover her hair. Another exchange: DH: Someone was asking about a woman wearing a kisui rosh in the house. RYBS: We pasken you should. DH: Someone showed me a gemara in Kesubos that b'toch chatzeira it should be mutar, since otherwise there is no way any woman could remain tachas ba'alah (72b). Offhand it occurred to me that if it was lo shechichei inshei - just for going around the house when no one's around, and someone just may drop in - then it would be mutar. But if you have people coming over b'kevius, then why would it be any different than going aroung in the street? Is there a special din in the bayis that there's no din of covering your head anymore? DH: Is this kisui ervah like most kisui ervah? RYBS: Of course. DH: What should I do for myself, for my wife? RYBS: You will find out. There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 08:15:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & the Tosafists. http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ Our *Torah shebe?al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the *Torah shebe?al peh* would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe?al peh* today. I just heard a piece yesterday by Rabbi Weill, from a few years back on Kinnot and the destruction of Ashkenaz and burning of the gemorahs in Paris. It was very devastating for the area. Jews lived in other areas as well, thank God. So the Mesora continued with them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 11:42:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:42:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? Message-ID: From: Micha Berger via Avodah : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded : as ignorance...[--Dr. Noam Stadlan] To do that would be to disagree with her husband. ....There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. -- Micha Berger >>>> A similar quote (third hand): Someone told me he once asked RYBS if a married woman is obligated to cover her hair, and RYBS replied in a somewhat sideways fashion, "You are not obligated to divorce her if she does not do so." You have to understand that it was an era in which most American Jews were throwing away the Torah with both hands. It was hard enough to find a wife who was frum; demanding that she cover her hair was almost impossible in many cases. RYBS was not the only Torah scholar whose wife failed to cover her hair. I have to assume that this was simply one nisayon that was too difficult, given those times. After the post-war influx of chassidim arrived in America, kisui rosh, like so many other neglected mitzvos, became much more acceptable and common. R' Michael Brody in his article on the subject says that the Chofetz Chaim railed against the practice of women in Vilna, even those married to big talmidei chachamim, to go about with their hair uncovered. Although the CC is completely, vehemently, opposed to this practice, R' Brody deduces (I am paraphrasing) that "This proves that many talmidei chachamim did not demand that their wives cover their hair, from which we may deduce that they held kisui rosh was not required, and we may rely on them." This line of reasoning is reminiscent of the joke, "How do we know that Yakov wore a yarmulka? Answer: It says 'Vayetzei Yakov' -- would Yakov have gone out without a yarmulka?!" But at any rate it does indicate that this was a largely neglected mitzva even in Vilna, in the early 20th century -- though neglect of a mitzva does not make the obligation go away. I for one do not hold it against RYBS. What he would have preferred and what was actually obtainable, in that time and place, were not the same. For that time and place, for a woman to be Torah observant was already a madreiga. To have been the wife of such a man -- his rebetzen must have had extraordinary zechuyos. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 11:43:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:43:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> The below (and, btw, R Nachum Lamm makes an interesting point in the comments there) leads me to a different, but related, question: We trace Rashi's mesorah pretty easily back to Rabbeinu Gershom -- but where did _he_ get _his_ mesorah from? How did it get from Bavel and the Gaonim to northern Europe? > RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & the Tosafists. > http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ [1] > Our *Torah shebe?al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the *Torah shebe?al peh* would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe?al peh* today. Links: ------ [1] http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 12:41:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:41:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: From: Kenneth Miller via Avodah >> We have discussed the idea that a posek may sometimes choose a psak based on what "seems right" to him, and then he will find sources to support that conclusion. But if I remember correctly, this is usually done in the case of *new* questions, where there is little precedent to draw upon. But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? --Akiva Miller >>>> It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan Aruch. What frequency is optimum? Surely that is at least partly subjective, and any of the various sources that apparently disagree with each other can be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up what your gut tells you is right. I can easily see a modern day rav or Torah mentor varying his answers depending on the circumstances of the wife and husband who are asking him for advice, as well as accepted societal norms. Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least some obligation to fulfill. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 14:59:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gil Student via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 17:59:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume 2 of his Collected Essays. Gil Student From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 19:55:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 22:55:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Re:Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> References: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:10:59 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah > : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the > : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded > : as ignorance... > > To do that woud be to disagree with her husband. > > See "Thinking Aloud", pg 113: ... > There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with > his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. WADR, Micha misunderstands the issue. The issue is not whether RYBS agreed with his wife's practice -- there are sources (albeit most of them from long after her passing) which would suggest that he may ave disagreed, and paskened otherwise) -- but that is a different issue of whether he viewed it as ignorance -- and for sure not out of the pale of halacha. That is the crux of the issue -- not whether we wish to pasken that this is muttar for ourselves (or for those who listen to us..) -- but how we view those who follow a different shitta -- and anyone who suggests that RYBS viewed his wife as nonobservant or not fully halachically committed is motsi la'az and needs to go to her kever( you can ask R Seth Mandel his opinion how the rav would have viewed such a person) Several related stories: 1) The rav was the posek for a community, who knew that his wife did not cover her hair. The vast majority of that community, even those close to the rav, who followed his every word, did not think that he viewed this as being problematic -- and he had plenty of opportunity to let it be known.... 2) I knew a talmid who was close to the rav in the 70s (shiur many years, rav was measured kiddushin -- unfortunately niftar early. when getting married, he told me that he asked the rav all his shailos -- except about head covering for his wife (she did) -- he said that it was thought problematic to ask him because of the rav's wife 3) Another talmid was once invited, late 70s, to Rav Schwab's shabbes table. Topic got around to data's torah, and rav schwab said that many have it wrong -- there is not one da'as torah -- but da'as torah is the opinion of someone who is wholly torah -- rav kotler is da'as torah, rav feinstein is da'as torah,the satmar is da'as torah. My friend jumped in and asked what about RYBS? Rav Schwab was no fan of RYBS, and he hemmed and hawed and then said that as his wife did not cover her hair, he was not da'as torah. At that point Mrs. Schwab interjected, but you know that none of the litvische rebbitzens covered their hair. At which point R Schwab agreed to that, and then agreed that RYBS was da'as torah..... That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. Meir Shinnar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 06:52:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:52:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> Message-ID: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> On 7/27/2015 2:49 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos > in both places points out, for precisely that reason. > Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any permutation thereof. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 07:31:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:31:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> Message-ID: <55B79226.4030906@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 09:52 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 7/27/2015 2:49 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos >> in both places points out, for precisely that reason. > Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of > there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any > permutation thereof. Except this memra of Rav Assi, which is quoted twice in the gemara with the same language, so it's unlikely to be a mistranscription. Either Rav Assi was mistaken about the king's name, or there was a short-reigned later king of that name whom Josephus didn't bother mentioning, or one of the later kings had Yannai as one of his names, and Josephus didn't bother mentioning it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 07:21:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:21:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> References: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55B78FCC.2020104@sero.name> On 07/27/2015 10:55 PM, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: > At that point Mrs. Schwab interjected, but you know > that none of the litvische rebbitzens covered their hair. At which point > R Schwab agreed to that, and then agreed that RYBS was da'as torah..... > > That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it > was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, > it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. No, it was *not* a shita in Litte, it was a makas medinah. It was an aveira that was prevalent among women, and the best the rabbonim could do was not talk about it to the women, in the hope that they were shogegin. Even in an earlier generation, no less a person than R Akiva Eger had no control over his wife and daughters' mode of dress: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31632&pgnum=300 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 08:57:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:57:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 08:52:45AM -0500, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of : there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any : permutation thereof. Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and Hebrew? 400 years prior, having two names was common and the civil names we know of (Mordechai, Esther, Shadrach, Meshach, Aved-Nego, etc...) bore no relation to their Jewish names. Alternatively: Chazal could have thrown in the timing problem to flag to the historian that they were not speaking historically. After all, we know from the other narratives quoted that they knew the dates for Alexander Yannai wouldn't work. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:21:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 12:21:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> References: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150728162126.GC24227@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 11:09pm EDT, RnTK wrote: : with their friends, "You can't say kaddish for your Ima or your Abba : today, someone else has kadima"? Correct me if I am mistaken but my impression : is that kaddish yasom is really mainly for genuine yesomim, i.e., those who : lose their parents while they are still children. Rather than correct you, let me provide a mar'eh maqom: Rama YD 376:4, quoting the Mahariq. Both of us probably remembering R Michael Poppers posting this. The Rama says that Qadish Yasom was established for Qetanim, because they cannot be Chazan. BUT... the Rama is clear that this ended before the custom of multiple people saying Qaddish at once began. When writing the above, I started wondering about areas like Vilna, where a daughter would say Qaddish for parents who had no sons. Did this minhag begin back when only one person said Qaddish at a time? If so, she would get the same priority for Qaddish Yasom as a qatan, no? But cold you picture such a scene in early 19th cent Litta, a woman saying Qaddish by herself on one side of the mechitzah or by the doorway, and all the men of the minyan answering? So my instinct is that this minhag post-dates group Qaddish. But my instinct might be based on revisionist history, for all I know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:38:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:38:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:153am EDT, R Saul Guberman wrote: : RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & : the Tosafists. : http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ : Our *Torah shebe'al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish : history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a : great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, : but the *Torah shebe'al peh* would have survived without him. However, : without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, : any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe'al peh* today. Which is a different statement than the subject line. I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue understanding the gemara. But one thing RGS loses is RYBS's context. RYBS was saying this in shiur, in a room where talmidim bring a compact edition of the Rambam with them for reference. It's a different thing to make this statement while sitting in Brisk, when you may intentionally state a perspective re-setting idea more strongly than in other settings. On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 2:43pm EDT, R Sholom Simon wrote: : We trace Rashi's mesorah pretty easily back to Rabbeinu Gershom -- but : where did _he_ get _his_ mesorah from? How did it get from Bavel and the : Gaonim to northern Europe? In a teshuvah, Rabbeinu Gershom says he was taught most of his Torah by "R' Leon". He means Rabbi Yehudah (Leontin) ben Rabbi Meir haKohein. R' Leontin was from Iraly, but he was in France before reaching Mainz. In France he picked up talmidim who then followed him to Ashkenaz, including Rabbinu Gershom and R' Yosef Tuv Elem (Tuv Elem = Bonfils, you will see him the the Mordechai alot, Tosafos, and [if you ever have occasion to look] Machzor Vitri). Rabbeinu Gershom took over the yeshiva upon RYBRM's petirah, which is probably why he is "Rabbeinu" rather than "Rav". The thing is, the tradition in Provence is that they came from EY. For example, in Luneil it was (is?) believed that the city was founded by refugees from Yericho, who commemorated their city of origin by using a translation of the same name: yareiach = luna. Which brings me to RGS's reply to R Sholom, written yesterday, Jul 27, 2015, at 5:59pm EDT: : Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German : mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger : disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. : However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments : against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from : Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume : 2 of his Collected Essays. If there is any truth to the Israeli Provencial tradition, we have a link in terms of rabbinic leadership to EY. However, not only do nusach hatefillah, piyut, and a number of pesaqim (which RRW educated me on repeatedly on these "pages" in the past) point toward an EY origin of Ashkenaz, so does something I didn't see R/Dr Soloveitchik address -- genetics. A map of the Jewish genetic tree http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072 shows the closes affinity for the Ashkenazi gene pool were the Italian, Greek, Turkish and Syrian communities. Notably all under the Roman Empire. Whereas the Jews of the geonic lands -- from Bavel through Qairouan, Tunisia -- form a second grouping. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:45:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:45:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728174552.GE24227@aishdas.org> I just posted: : However, the loss of a codifier who : stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of : mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But : Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue : understanding the gemara. I meant to add a different (and to my mind very important) way of looking at this idea: In terms of mesorah, a flow of TSBP as a "dialog down the ages" (to use RYBS's terminlogy), the parshan keeps the chain connected down the ages in a way that a Yad, designed to be stand-alone, does not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:24:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:24:20 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go > by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and > Hebrew? > I don't follow: the Hasmonean and post-Hasmonean kings did all have both Hebrew and Greek or Latin names, but Yannai is a *Hebrew* name, from the same root as Yona. I know someone who Hebraized his surname from Taubmann to Yannai ("Taub" is German for "dove"). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:50:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:50:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 09:24:20AM -0700, Simon Montagu wrote: : > Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go : > by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and : > Hebrew? : I don't follow: the Hasmonean and post-Hasmonean kings did all have both : Hebrew and Greek or Latin names, but Yannai is a *Hebrew* name, from the : same root as Yona. I know someone who Hebraized his surname from Taubmann : to Yannai ("Taub" is German for "dove"). I believe this is a folk etymology. Where would the alef (yud, nun, alef, yud) have come from? But more tellingly, Alexander Janneus's Hebrew name was Yehonasan, like his uncle. See the Latin and Hebrew on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Jannaeus#/media/File:JanaeusCoinPhoto.jpg If he could be "Alexander Yannai" in one language and "Yonasan" in another, who knows it there weren't another king whose Latin name "Janneus" was simply not preserved? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:17:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:17:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: There are those who argued that Tosfos (in particular Rabbeinu Tam) essentially created Ashkenazi mesorah by radically changing how we study and relate to Gemara and how we relate to popular practice. One might suggest without exaggeration that Tosfos created our Mesora. In which case Rashi's mesora is less relevant. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> There certainly is a lot of evidence that Ashkenzi minhagim com more from E"Y than Bavel. But do we know of any chochomim that went from anywhere in the Middle East to Germany? I.e., ok, even if we accept that either there was a third school, or it came from E"Y -- do we yet know *how* it got to Northern Europe? (Or perhaps the answers are in articles that Haym Soloveitchik or David Berger wrote? (And, if so, does anyone have any citations?) -- Sholom On 2015-07-27 17:59, Gil Student wrote: > Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. > > However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume 2 of his Collected Essays. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:18:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:18:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Sources_for_Not_Covering_Hair=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > 2) I knew a talmid who was close to the rav in the 70s ... when getting married, he told me that he asked the rav all his shailos -- except about head covering for his wife (she did) -- he said that it was thought problematic to ask him because of the rav's wife I have a related story. A talmid who was also close to him. When getting married he _did_ ask about a head covering for his wife (after apologizing for asking it). If I remember the story correctly, the Rav smiled and said that he wasn't the right person to ask. -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:41:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:41:08 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Molad Message-ID: Calendars in my home town print the latest times of saying Kiddush Levana, which equate to exactly fifteen days after the announced Molad time. This might be an entire night, or an exact time, e.g. Sunday night 22.45. But since the astronomical Molad can be some distance from the calculated Molad times, by sometimes as much as twelve hours, does this not mean that these sof zeman kiddush levana times can be faulty by that same margin? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:00:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:00:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728180043.GG24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 01:28:42PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : There certainly is a lot of evidence that Ashkenzi minhagim com more : from E"Y than Bavel. Although experts, O Rabbi-PhDs, debate the issue. So what seems obvious to you or me apparently isn't. : But do we know of any chochomim that went from anywhere in the Middle : East to Germany? I already posted the mesorah from EY to Provence to Rabbeinu Gershom. Jews really started reaching the Rhineland area at the invitation of Charlemagne in the 9th cent CE, when he started the Holy Roman Empire. They came from Provence (again) and Italy. Recall that most of the captives from EY ended up in Rome, and you can understand how an Israeli presence in Italy would have already been established. Far more so than the Jews of the geonate -- who, as I mentioned, were living outside the Roman Empire. In mythic form, we have a story of a King Charles invited R' Moshe ben Klonimus from Lucca to Mainz. In documentation form, Louis "the Pious", C's son, left charters showing that he too invited Jewish merchants to provide an economic backbone to his country, and mentions that he was continuing his father's invitation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person must be very patient micha at aishdas.org even with himself. http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:10:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:10:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: AIUI the MN "was all that you needed to study". Are you/RGS saying that this is only as a codifier? RAMBAM did not feel that he was passing on the mesorah? In the end, it does not matter what he wrote, RASHI vs RAMBAM, you must have RASHI, RAMBAM is nice but without RASHI you come to a dead end? On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > > I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah > through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who > stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of > mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But > Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue > understanding the gemara. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:32:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:32:24 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are forgotten after 12 months (memory of the bet hamikdash is different) I have a personal problem with this statement. To my sorry I know of several people who have lost children especially in the age of 18-25. One thing I have learned from these people is that one never forgets a child, It is part of their lives every day. The secretary of my department lost a son in a flash flood in the negev. She changed her last name to incorporate the name of that son. Every time she signs her name she remembers her son, Others who have lost sons in military actions say kaddish every day for the son many years later. I would just imagine that Yaakov having lost his "favorite" son would not forget him after 12 months but indeed would mourn for him forever -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:09:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:09:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 12:41 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > Calendars in my home town print the latest times of saying Kiddush > Levana, which equate to exactly fifteen days after the announced > Molad time. This might be an entire night, or an exact time, e.g. > Sunday night 22.45. That should be halfway between moldos, i.e. 14d 18h 22m after the molad, not a full 15 days. It should also be adjusted for the time difference between your standard time and Y'm's real time, which for NY is 7h 20m in the winter and 6h 20m in the summer. Using a full 15 days is only bediavad. > But since the astronomical Molad can be some distance from the > calculated Molad times, by sometimes as much as twelve hours, does > this not mean that these sof zeman kiddush levana times can be faulty > by that same margin? Yes, but since we have no easy way (other than consulting readily- available secular resources, of course) of determining when the real full moon occurs, we use the calculated moldos, *unless* there is a lunar eclipse, since that by definition happens at the true full moon. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:28:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:28:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B7C9D0.5030709@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 01:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If he could be "Alexander Yannai" in one language and "Yonasan" in > another, who knows it there weren't another king whose Latin name > "Janneus" was simply not preserved? Here's a thought: AFAIK there is no mention in the gemara of a second, bad, King Agrippas. The only Agrippas mentioned is the first one, the good one. Also, as far as I know, there is no record of the second Agrippas's Hebrew name. What if the first Agrippas gave his oldest son Yannai as his Jewish name, after the first Yannai, and that is how he was known among Jews, and therefore by the Amoraim, while Josephus called him by his Roman name, Herod Agrippa? -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:23:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:23:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus Message-ID: <> Any Jewish king would have been over 100 before the churban besides there is the known problem with Yehoshua ben Gamla having his position bought for him OTOH he seems to have done good deeds Interestingly wikipedia writes "*Yehoshua ben Gamla* (or Joshua son of Gamla) was a Jewish high priest who officiated in about 64 CE. He married the rich widow Martha of the high-priestly family Boethos (Yeb. vi. 4), and she by bribing Jannai secured for him the office of high priest (Yeb. 61a; Yoma 18a; comp. "Ant." xx. 9, ? 4). Although Yehoshua himself was not a scholar, he was solicitous for the instruction of the young, and provided schools in every town for children over five years of age, earning thereby the praises of posterity (B. B. 21a). The two lots used on the Day of Atonement , hitherto of boxwood, he made of gold (Yoma iii. 9). Yehoshua did not remain long in office, being forced, after a year, to give way to Matthias ben Theophil ("Ant." xx. 9, ? 7)." i.e. Martha bribed someone named Jannai in 64CE. Not clear who this Jannai is but definitely not a king -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:44:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:44:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B7DB8C.8030404@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 03:23 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Interestingly wikipedia writes I.e. somebody, perhaps with no more information than you or me, wrote > i.e. Martha bribed someone named Jannai in 64CE. Not clear who this > Jannai is but definitely not a king Says who? Why do you say that, especially when not only does the gemara say he was a king, but we know that at the time the kehuna gedola was in the gift of king? -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 13:37:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:37:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? Message-ID: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> From: Meir Shinnar via Avodah >> That is the crux of the issue -- not whether we wish to pasken that this is muttar for ourselves (or for those who listen to us..) -- but how we view those who follow a different shitta -- and anyone who suggests that RYBS viewed his wife as nonobservant or not fully halachically committed is motsi la'az and needs to go to her kever [snip] That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. << Meir Shinnar >>>> [1] No one has ever suggested that RYBS viewed his wife as "nonobservant" so nobody has to go to her kever, although anyone who wants to may do so. I assume her children and grandchildren go on her yahrzeit. The line between observant and nonobservant is pretty clear, even though all of us sometimes sin. I have yet to hear of anyone saying that if a woman keeps Shabbos, kashrus and taharas hamishpacha, but does not cover her hair, she is "nonobservant." However if you know of a person who does say that, please cite the source, thank you. Maybe he is the same person who says that if you talk loshon hara you are nonobservant -- and therefore there are only about 500 observant Jews in the whole world, if that. [2] There is no "different shita." There was no "shitta in Lita" allowing married women to go out with their hair uncovered. What there was in Lita was the winds of Haskala, Reform and sliding, sliding, sliding away from Torah, more marked among the women even than among the men. Sarah Schnirer noted that there were chassidishe homes in Poland where, after the Friday night Shabbos meal, the teenage girls and even the mother would go out to see a play at the local theater. If there was slippage in Poland, where chassidus was strong, you can just imagine what was going on in Lita, where there was nothing to capture the hearts and minds of people who were not themselves talmidei chachamim -- viz, the unlearned masses, and the women. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 14:30:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:30:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> References: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150728213052.GA12259@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:37pm EDT, RnTK wrote: : [2] There is no "different shita." There was no "shitta in Lita" : allowing married women to go out with their hair uncovered... The AhS, whose theory of pesaq gives a lot of weight to seeing which ruling was accepted as general practice, famously permits saying Shema while seeing a married woman with her hair uncovered. But this is what he says in OC 75:7 , where that heter is given: And now, we will cry about the breached of our generation in its many since, for many years Benos Yisrael violate this sin and go with a revealed head. And whateve we yell about this, it doesn't help and it doesn't have an effect. And now this mispachas [oe of the nega'im] has spread, that married [women] go with their hyair like the besulos do. Woe to us that this arose in our generation! Still, al kol panim, according to the din is appears permitted to us to daven and make berakhos opposite their revealed heads, since now that most of them go this way... memeilah there won't be hirhur. So, RYME is pretty clear: It was common, it was viewed has a sin -- not "a different shittah", and the rabbinate did complain but no one listened. And again, that's the AhS, not the textual theoretician "what ought the ideal halakhah be from a clean slate" approach of the MB. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 14:46:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:46:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728214605.GB12259@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 02:10:52PM -0400, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: : AIUI the [MT] "was all that you needed to study". Are you/RGS saying that : this is only as a codifier? RAMBAM did not feel that he was passing on the : mesorah? In the end, it does not matter what he wrote, RASHI vs RAMBAM, you : must have RASHI, RAMBAM is nice but without RASHI you come to a dead end? As the Rambam says in the haqdamah (par 40 ), the goal was to put the "TSBP kulah sedurah befi hakol" -- his primary audience was the masses. And we know how much he thought of the masses. Similarly he continues (41) by telling you he his work "Mishneh Torah" because it fulfills the shelish bemishnah -- the studying of halakhah pesuqah. (He calls it sheliesh BTSBP, but as you just saw in the haqdamah, the Rambam both identifies the two and also says they're contained in his MT.) However, in Hil' Talmud Torah 1:12 tells you that that's only "betechilas tazlmudo shel adam, aval kesheyagdil bechokhmah" he should set time for TSBK and divrei hashemu'ah so as not to forget, "veyifneh kol yamav ligemara". So it is not impossible that even the Rambam himself might agree that those who explain how to do the shaqlara vetarya like gemara, or lomdus, or "veyotzi davar midavar veyidmeh dava ledavar" etc... are more central to the mesorah than his own Mishneh Torah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 13:54:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: <9ea4b.71e33b03.42e9460c@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) >>The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are forgotten after 12 months (memory of the bet hamikdash is different) I have a personal problem with this statement. To my sorry I know of several people who have lost children especially in the age of 18-25. One thing I have learned from these people is that one never forgets a child << --Eli Turkel >>>>> My grandmother had a baby daughter who died at the age of five months, and fifty years or more after that, I once asked her about the baby she had lost. She started to cry as if it had just happened, and described the baby in detail -- what she looked like, what she could do at five months and so on. So I learned the lesson that a parent never forgets a lost child. However, she only cried for a little while and then returned to her cheerful self. I'm sure that in the year after her baby died, she was not cheerful. I don't think "gezeira al hameis" means the person is literally forgotten, but that the degree of mourning becomes less intense. Initially the bereaved person, especially a bereaved parent, simply cannot believe the child is gone, and constantly thinks and even dreams about the child. With the passage of months and years, the knowledge that the child is truly gone is assimilated and the parent goes on with life, even if a heaviness always remains somewhere in the background. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 15:38:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 18:38:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150728223810.GD12259@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:12am EDT, R/Dr Meir Shinnar wrote: : Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions : I) in hazal - that continued desire for some forbidden actions : is compatible with a high spiritual state - issue is control of : the desire - NOT its presence : II) Aristotelian ethics - a high spiritual state does not desire : for forbidden - the desire is a sign of a flaw. But chazal too talk in terms of virtue ethics, not just in terms of kibush hayeitzer (overcoming the desire) but also tiqun hayeitzer (adjusting those desires). Most famously, "mah Hu Chanun, af atah chanun". Or, as the Rambam paraphrased, "mah hu *niqra* 'Chanun'..." It doesn't speak of giving to others without cause despite desire, it asks us to develop the middos of chanun, rachum, etc... Now, on to a totally different topic... On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 05:15:16PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote: : Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. Sex : is proper as long as you minimize it. - Is the difference really that : subtle? To me, it is as subtle as a brick. I think the difference is just about that, but because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: 1- It involves a second party. There is no threat of objectifying good. 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... Therefore, the attitude toward perishus for each comes from opposite directions. For food, which is necessary for survival, we talk about how much is too much. For sex, we talk about the right balance between keeping the other happy (chiyuv onah) and turning them into a tool for your own happiness. The bottom line is still the same: perishus from challenges I cannot handle while be maqdish olam hazeh the rest of the time. The details differ due to the differences above. On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:18am GMT, Kenneth Miller wrote: : .... This is a case where the Shulchan : Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went : uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed... On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:41pm EDT, Rn Toby Katz replied: : It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too loosely. If : it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim and acharonim, agree : that marital intercourse is always mutar (assuming the usual, the wife is not : a nidah, it's not forced, it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really : talking about here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan : Aruch. What frequency is optimum? Surely that is at least partly subjective, ... While what I said before about "minimize it" not meaning all that different from "don't overdue" addresses this question of RAM's as well, I think RnTK's response is really the essence of the answer. But to quibble with the language... I'm not sure it's "hashkafah" as much as Hilkhos Dei'os / Chovos haLvavos. After all "Qedoshim tihyu" is a chiyuv, not a nicety, and that's a source for "perushim tihyu". What a mitzvah to be or to become something (such as "qadosh") is in practice, though, is inherently situational and subjective. If we were talking about something reducible to black-letter halakhah and objective rules, it would have been. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 15:58:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:58:41 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <20150728.185841.2133.0@webmail10.vgs.untd.com> R"n Toby Katz wrote: > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar > (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, > it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might also be RTK's point). But if that is how we are to understand the vocabulary, then we have a whole new way of reading the Shulchan Aruch. Here are some examples: It's not assur to shmooze between Geulah and Tefillah of Maariv. (236:2) It's not assur to say Shehecheyanu on the Lulav on the second day. (662:2) Surely that is at least > partly subjective, and any of the various sources that apparently disagree with each other can be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up what your gut tells you is right. I can easily see a modern day rav or Torah mentor varying his answers depending on the circumstances of the wife and husband who are asking him for advice, as well as accepted societal norms. Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least some obligation to fulfill. ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b8096a62fe9695575st03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 20:51:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:51:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 02:09:11PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : That should be halfway between moldos, i.e. 14d 18h 22m after the : molad, not a full 15 days. It should also be adjusted for the time : difference between your standard time and Y'm's real time, which : for NY is 7h 20m in the winter and 6h 20m in the summer. Using : a full 15 days is only bediavad. Y-m time to EST is 7h 21m, not 20. But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we call it. It's hard to know exactly where the molad is being announced for, since the average lunation has changed over time and the accumulated difference between estimation and reality over millenia has grown large. Right now, the average molad matches the average moment of new moon for Qandahar, Afghanistan. If we go back in time to when the molad was closest to one lunar month, we get to 4th cent CE, the days of Hillel Nesi;ah. The av beis din to whom R Hai Gaon attributes our current calendar. If we assume the molad then was most accurate in start time as well when it was most accurate in durection, then the molad is being announeced for something like Ur Kasdim, which is also around the middle of Jewish settlement at the time, between the Nile and the Euphrates. In which case, the molad is being announced for a place 44 min after IST (not 21m). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 23:45:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 02:45:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 11:51 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Y-m time to EST is 7h 21m, not 20. True. I was approximating, much as the Rambam did with Y'm latitude. > But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we > call it. http://mechon-mamre.org/i/3811.htm#17 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:33:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 02:45:03AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we :> call it. : http://mechon-mamre.org/i/3811.htm#17 The Rambam there (Qiddush haChodesh 11:17) discusses the calculation of the calendar. The rules are set up based on RC in Y-m. Announcing the molad doesn't reflect the calculated calendar, but the whole Qiddush haChodesh is set up to invoke Sanhedrin being meqadesh al pi re'iyah. So perhaps they chose a clock for announcing the molad that wasn't the one they used to translate to the meridian used for translating mollad into rosh chodesh. Why would we do so? Isn't the meridian of Y-m the obvious time to use even if it weren't the one used to compute the calendar? As I quickly mentioned (I gave more details more than once in the past), I am suggesting a different meridian because if Hillel Nesi'ah ubeis dino had assumed a molad that was 23 min earlier than the one we announce, the molad would be more accurate. 23 min later than Yerushalayim does correspond to a meaningful place at the time, a point exactly midway between the Jews of EY and those of Bavel. Aside from including Ur Kasdim. Not the most obvious choice (Yerushalayim) but still not a random meridian either. So why not assume they picked the meridian for announcing the molad on that basis, and credit the Sanhedrin with knowing the molad to greater accuracy? The question is what that does to molad zaqein, and how we would explain the clean result of before noon vs posponing RH if the molad is after noon. The idea behind molad zaqein is that the furthest east Jewish community would still be able to see (weather permitting) the new moon before the end of RC. This is obviously only a loose idea, since we're talking about timing based on the molad, an approximate average. (So that on average Jews in the east would see the new moon...?) RYGB and/or RAZZ theorize http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n038.shtml#08 that the Calendar Controversy was over the issue of how far east do we worry about. R' Aharon ben Meir wanted to move the cutoff for molad zaqein by 64 chalaqim. (More than 23 min, ie 414 chalaqim.) He doesn't say why. Their article suggests that RABM was setting the rule for molad zaqein based on the furthest known Jewish settlement at that time. Which would be Kaifun, and the numbers work. Whereas RSG objected saying that the location is theoretical, not experimental. The Kuzari (following RSG -- since it's his version of the calendar that we all use) uses this to argue that the international date line is 90 deg east of Y-m ih"q. And thus any Jewish settlement that would be further east would be on the other side of the date line WRT Rosh Chodesh, and there is no problem of the molad being on their day 2. If so, changing the molad by 23 min would change the calendar, halakhah would prove my claim wrong. But few if any of us hold that the date line is 90 deg east of Y-m, east down 125.2 deg E, down Dongeng St in Changchun, China. To quote R Dovid Heber at : Families on the eastern strip of Dongfeng Street would recite kiddush while families a block to the west would recite havdala. It may be possible for those who want two days of Shabbos to walk one block eastbound, down Dongfeng Street, after Seuda Shlishis and start Shabbos again. Those who want to skip almost all of Shabbos could take a short stroll westbound, and go from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. (This post needed something light to leaven it.) >From where I sit, between those who say 180deg and the CI's adjudgment of including the entire land mass if part of it is west of 90deg, the dominant shitah is inconsistent with the Kuzari's explanation. If the date line is not involved, it would mean the machloqes would be about what we mean by the far enough end of Jewish settlement who would still experience the molad before the end of RC. RSG is saying that 90 deg is the Sanhderin mandated estimate, and RABM holds it's the actual furthest settlement. And that stands whether or not RYGB and RAZZ are correct about RAML's sevara, as we're only looking at RSG lehalakhah. I just took the Kuzari's lomdus and asked what it would mean to those who don't agree with his date line. If that line of reasoning is correct, then saying the approximate eastmost community is to be measured from the center of the core Jewish settlement -- between Bavel and EY -- ends up more intuitive than saying it's measured from Y-m. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 05:11:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:11:28 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Ooops! Yesterday I accidentally pressed "send" when I meant to "save draft". The result was a post that was far from finished. Here is what I had intended to publish: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar > (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, > it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might also be RTK's point). But IF that is how we are to understand the vocabulary, then we have a whole new way of reading the Shulchan Aruch. Here are some examples of this new way of understanding: It's not assur to shmooze between Geulah and Tefillah of Maariv (236:2) or to say Shehecheyanu on the Lulav on the second day (662:2) or to say Hallel on RH and YK (584:1) or to get a haircut before Mincha (232:2). It's not assur to daven only in your heart, but it's better if you pronounce the words with your lips. (101:2) I will concede that these examples are indeed less severe than cases where the Shulchan Aruch DOES use the word "assur". But nevertheless, we do not take these halachos as mere suggestions. Despite the lack of the word "asur", we DO accept it as normative psak halacha, and not as "hashkafa", to use RTK's word. So why should Siman 240 be different? Why would we suddenly take the words of Siman 240 to be hashkafa, and wave off the Shulchan Aruch, saying that his derech is different than our derech? Shouldn't we accept it as normative halacha? Even if I feel these halachos to be strange or difficult, shouldn't I at least accept them as a goal to strive for? And if I *don't* strive for them, doesn't that require teshuva? > Surely that is at least partly subjective, and any of the > various sources that apparently disagree with each other can > be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up > what your gut tells you is right. Maybe, but one had better be VERY sure that those sources actually exist, and that they have ample support in the poskim. Otherwise - as I asked a couple of posts ago - how is this any different than what the conservative and reform do? "It's a big machlokes - there's gotta be someone who paskens the way I want, so that's what I'm gonna do." I shudder when I hear otherwise-observant people saying such things. There are indeed some cases where there is such a *lack* of consensus among the poskim that one can do as he wants (one of my teachers paskened this way and for this reason regarding brachos on dessert), but I do not see Siman 240 in this category. We seem to be abandoning the consensus of the Shulchan Aruch and Nosei Keilim, and running to minority rishonim. > Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing > this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing > to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation > of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional > closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly > pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least > some obligation to fulfill. Are we really sure that (for the wife) physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness from the Torah's perspective? Or perhaps that is only an invention of minds which have been clouded by the outside culture? Could it be that Onah requires physical closeness, but not emotional closeness? I get mixed messages on this. On the one hand, an awful lot of Siman 240 is devoted to husband and wife both being of the proper frame of mind, and this is extremely strong evidence to the real importance of emotional closeness. But when I see halachos about keeping conversation to a minimum, and keeping the time involved to a minimum, then I wonder how much closeness can be achieved. I had posted: : Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. : Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. R' Micha Berger responded: > ... because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: > ... 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... Really? Can we really survive without it? You and me, I suppose, but that's because we are male. RTK referenced mitzvas onah. In the Torah's view, sex is as essential as food and shelter are. But only for women. Regardless of whether we're talking about physical closeness or emotional closeness, it seems that the Torah is concerned about closeness only for the woman, and not for the man. For women, closeness is a need which must be met; for men, closeness is a taavah which must be controlled. Let's not allow ourselves to get confused between needs and taavos. A person may desire something so much that he thinks it to be a need, but he is deluding himself. Nowhere do I see any responsibilities of the wife which are comparable to Mitzvas Onah. Yes, she'll be a "moredet" if she refuses, but (as I understand it) that is due to the social contract implicit in the concept of marriage, which is a very cry from a Chiyuv D'Oraisa. ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b8c3465e5f543465c9est02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:01:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:01:07 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla Message-ID: according to the Hebrew wikipedia Matyha bat Baytus bought the high priesthood for her husband Yehoshua ben Gamla towards the end of the second Temple. As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai and they guess that it was from Agripas II. Furthermore Yehoshua Ben Gamla was killed during the revolt against Rome. (Where the high priest Yishmael ben Elisha fits in we have discussed in the past) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:07:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:07:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150729160759.GF12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 06:01:07PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> according to the Hebrew wikipedia Matyha bat Baytus bought the high :> priesthood for her husband Yehoshua ben Gamla towards the end of the second :> Temple. As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai and they guess :> that it was from Agripas II. : Furthermore Yehoshua Ben Gamla was killed during the revolt against Rome. : (Where the high priest Yishmael ben Elisha fits in we have discussed in the : past) The gemara is Yuma 18a and Yevamos 61a. The mishnah in Yevemos says that Yehoshua ben Gamla married Marta bas Baisus, an almana, but before consummating the marriage "umanahu melekh" to be kohein gadol, The point of the mishnah is that they can stay married, as actually happened in this event. The gemara comments on the language of "manahu" rather than the expected "nisnamneh" to denote that the appointment wasn't the usual approval of a candidate selected by the kohanim and vetted by Sanhedrin. Then the gemara says she spent two qavin ("tarqav" = trei + qav) of dinarim to buy it. The gemara in Yuma makes this last point as well. Josephus (Antiquities XX 9:4 ) wrote that he became KG during the reign of Herod Agrippa II. Nothing about how. The translation reads weird, calls him "Jesus the son of Gamaliel". I went to the Soncino, since I don't know who else would comment on a gemara - Josephus interaction. Fn 16 on Yuma, 20 on Yevamos make the identity. They first opine that "Jannai is often employed in the Talmud as a general patronymic for Hasmonean and Herodian rulers." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:30:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:30:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?HILCHOS_KIBUD_AV_V=92EIM?= Message-ID: <20150729153144.1CF3218089B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://halachafortodaycom.blogspot.com/2013/02/archives-hilchos-kibud-av-veim.html Some selections from this site. The Aseres HaDibros, the Ten Commandments given to us by Hashem on Har Sinai are divided into two parts, the first five are commandments between man and Hashem (Bein Adam L?Makom) and the last five are commandments between man and fellow man (Bein Adam L?Chaveiro) Kibud Av V?Eim ,the fifth of the Aseres HaDibros, is listed amongst the commandments that are between man and Hashem even though it is seemingly a commandment that is only between man and man. The reason for this is that honoring one?s parents is akin to honoring Hashem. There are 3 partners in every human being, the father, the mother and Hashem. If one honors any of the three it is as if all three have been honored, and if one dishonors any of the three it?s as if all three have been dishonored. 1)It is prohibited to contradict a parent. (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah Siman 240:2) If a parent has a verbal disagreement with another person, and the child tells the other person ?I concur with your view?, it is considered contradicting the parent and is prohibited. (Shach Yoreh Deah 240:2) 2) According to some Poskim this prohibition is only in the presence of the parent. Other Poskim, however, maintain that even not in the presence of the parent it is prohibited. 1)It is forbidden to call a parent or refer to them by their name; rather they need to be referred to as ?My father [my teacher]? or ?My mother?. 1) What constitutes ?Kibud, respecting? parents? One must speak to their parents softly, with respect the way one would speak to a king. 1) Children are obligated to stand up for their parents when they enter a room. 1) If a parent does something that is against the Torah and a child sees, the child should not say ?You transgressed a Torah prohibition?, as bluntly saying so will cause the parent embarrassment. Rather, the child should say something to the effect of: ?Father Does it say in the Torah that one should not .?? in a way that sounds like a question and not like a chastisement or rebuke, and the parent will realize on their own that they have committed the sin. 1) If one?s father asks for a glass of water or any other task, and at the same time his/her mother asked for a glass of water or another task, tending to the father?s needs takes precedence, as the son/daughter and the mother are both obligated to respect the father/husband. 2) If a parent is sleeping it is forbidden to wake them up. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:51:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:51:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B8F66D.2000701@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 11:33 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > > But few if any of us hold that the date line is 90 deg east of Y-m, > east down 125.2 deg E, down Dongeng St in Changchun, China. To quote > R Dovid Heber at: > Families on the eastern strip of Dongfeng Street would recite > kiddush while families a block to the west would recite havdala. > It may be possible for those who want two days of Shabbos to walk > one block eastbound, down Dongfeng Street, after Seuda Shlishis and > start Shabbos again. Those who want to skip almost all of Shabbos > could take a short stroll westbound, and go from sunset Friday to > sunset Saturday. > (This post needed something light to leaven it.) Shu"T Bnai Tziyon points to a gemara about two villages within techum shabbos, where it was Yom Kippur in one and not the other, because that was the last place the messenger had made it before sunset. (I can't figure out how that actually worked, but that is what the gemara says.) He avoids the awkwardness of the situation posited in this clip by positing that the line is not one-dimensional but is several miles wide, and that the area inside the line has an official din of sofek, like bein hashmoshos. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:21:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 19:21:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: saw some trivia questions: 1) Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters of the alph-bet (I only know one) 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:51:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:51:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150729165138.GH12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 07:21:20PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 1) Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters : of the alph-bet (I only know one) Soferim use Tzefania 3:8 to show their penmanship, because it not only includes all 22 letters, it also includes all the sofios. Is that a way to denote total ultimate justice (the meaning of the words ) or what? This question is easier than that, just asking for 22 letters, not whether sofis or not. I already heard this one so I will leave the other 6 for others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:58:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B8F834.5060103@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 11:01 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > according to the Hebrew wikipedia Which is no more authoritative than English WP, and in fact seems to have looser rules regarding sourcing. > Matyha bat Baytus Martha. > As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai As Tosfos already points out, in both places where the gemara quotes this memra. > they guess that it was from Agripas II. That seems like a good guess, that the Yannai in the memra refers to the king Josephus calls Herod Agrippa II, but it is only a guess. On 07/29/2015 12:07 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I went to the Soncino, since I don't know who else would comment on a > gemara - Josephus interaction. Fn 16 on Yuma, 20 on Yevamos make the > identity. They first opine that "Jannai is often employed in the Talmud > as a general patronymic for Hasmonean and Herodian rulers." Which, for all we know, it may have been. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 10:13:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:13:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B909C7.7070906@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 12:21 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach 1. The definition of an "edah" from "this wicked edah". 2. Hezek re'iyah from Bil'am. 3. Standing for a davar shebikdusha, from Eglon. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 14:57:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:57:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150729215724.GA3540@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:11:28PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : R"n Toby Katz wrote: : > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too : > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim : > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar.... : > What we are really talking about : > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan : > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... : : Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. : : I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount : of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as : "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" : (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken : literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that : these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might : also be RTK's point). Which is why I quibbled with RnTK's language. Becauser I think it's assur -- really and actually assur -- not to try for perishus where possible. It's a bitul asei of "qedoshim tihyu". However, a mitzvah of hilkhos dei'os is to stretch, to move the nequdas habechirah and is therefore not only "at least partly subjective" but necessarily subjective. And if the criteria for behavior could be spelled out non-subjectively, they would be spelled out in chovos ha'eivarim. : I had posted: :: Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. :: Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. : R' Micha Berger responded: :> ... because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: :> ... 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... : Really? Can we really survive without it? You and me, I suppose, : but that's because we are male. Under normal circumstances, one can't go 3 days without food and water. Not just "one would be miserable if", but actual death. I am not sure how you could compare the need for intimacy to that kind of mechanistic do-or-die. : RTK referenced mitzvas onah. In the Torah's view, sex is as essential : as food and shelter are. But only for women. I disagree. And BTW, my #1 which you ellided /was/ mitzvas onah. : Regardless of whether we're talking about physical closeness : or emotional closeness, it seems that the Torah is concerned about : closeness only for the woman, and not for the man. For women, closeness : is a need which must be met; for men, closeness is a taavah which must : be controlled. Or, the Torah presumes that opportunity is in the hands of men. Not a difference in desire. Or -- a 3rd possibility -- lehefech, men are presumed more likely to get distracted by their own taavos and objectify their spouse and therefore the chiyuv of onah to focus on someone else's psychological needs. In any case, the requirement to avoid misery would motivate a chiyuv, one needn't define it as a need. Esperically since biologically, it's not necessary for survival the way food, drink or air are. But getting back to what you're saying here... Let me repeat point #1 in different phrasing: Because onah is indeed a chiyuv, saying that it should be minimized outside the realm of mitzvah isn't that much of a minimization. And yet, the threat of erotic desire becoming an end in itself is both more damaging, since there will be other victims beyond the self-destructive aspect and more likely. (In most people's psychology -- it's not like there is an internet food "porn" industry.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 15:37:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:37:27 GMT Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> R' Eli Turkel asked: > The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov > mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are > forgotten after 12 months ... > > I have a personal problem with this statement. ... one never > forgets a child R"n Toby Katz answered: > I don't think "gezeira al hameis" means the person is literally > forgotten, but that the degree of mourning becomes less intense. > ... the parent goes on with life, even if a heaviness always > remains somewhere in the background. I have had the same question as RET, and I thank RTK for this answer. I have written on several occasions, about my belief that Chazal often exaggerate, and this misleads those who are not used to their style of speaking. I think we have here another example of the same thing. There's a tendency to take Chazal at literal face value. We need to be more careful when reading the poetry. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 08:02:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:02:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Parallels in Kiruv Message-ID: <56c357c0b3404dbcbfc7bce2d25a6162@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Here's a quote from "Their Rock is Not Like Our Rock" - Daniel Strange In a recent article addressed to evangelical pastors I outlined a three-point "to do" list that might begin to move us into this stance: * Develop and deploy a biblically rich and nuanced theology of religions * Discern and denounce the arrogance and intolerance of pluralism * Demonstrate and display, in both word and deed, the unique power of the gospel to change lives and communities My impression is the first two are not generally done by kiruv folks but I was wondering if you replace gospel with orthodoxy and evangelical pastors with kiruv professionals, what fits? Should it be considered as an approach? Kol Tuv, 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 09:30:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:30:47 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: 'oh hanisa elokim' is one; the other is in parshat haman , i forget which one. will leave the dvar tora connecting the two , to others , other than to say the import of 'zeh gilui shechina' and lechem mishamayim as fundaments of faith,,,, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 10:38:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:38:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: From: Eli Turkel via Avodah " 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach -- Eli Turkel >>>>> Don't know if this is what you had in mind but I can think of these: [1] A woman cannot be married without her consent -- learn from Lavan -- "Nish'alah es pi hana'arah" before sending Rivka off with Eliezer to marry Yitzchak. [2] A younger sister cannot marry before the older sister (unless she gets permission from her) -- from Lavan again, excusing himself for giving Leah to Yakov instead of Rachel. [3] Celebrating seven days of sheva brachos -- from two places. One is Lavan again -- give Leah a week to celebrate and then Yakov can marry Rachel. And from the Pelishti "friends" of Shimshon who celebrated his wedding for a week. [4] We also learn from Izevel (Jezebel) that it's a big mitzva to dance at a wedding, to be mesameach chassan vekallah, but strictly speaking this is not in Tanach, it's a midrash. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 11:41:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:41:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: In Avodah V33n109, RET posted > Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters of the alph-bet (I only know one) < In the Torah, a *pasuq* in P'Va'eschanan (4 :34) is usually noted, but it (containing letter *sin* but no *shin*) works only when the *shin* and the *sin* are considered the same letter (they are, so long as we're considering the written form). The other *pasuq* in the Torah of which I'm aware is Shmos 16 :16 (in it, the *shin* is extant but there's no *sin*). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 15:30:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:30:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months In-Reply-To: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150730223053.GA17753@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:37:27PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : I have written on several occasions, about my belief that Chazal often : exaggerate, and this misleads those who are not used to their style of : speaking. I think we have here another example of the same thing. There's : a tendency to take Chazal at literal face value. We need to be more : careful when reading the poetry. Tanakh sometimes does something else with a similar effect, and it may be what Chazal are doing here. Lei'ah, rather than being described as "less loved" is "senu'ah". It's not necessarily exageration as much as a language norm to express a relative statement uing the same terms as absolutes. Here too chazal are making a comparison. Was the reader expected to know it's guzma, or was the norm in mishnaic Hebrew as well to use the term for the end of the spectrum to mean "less mourned than"? My problem with this is the parent of the MIA who can't let go for years or decades, and then it's found out that the chayal r"l was killed upon capture (or their body was taken after petirah for a bargaining chip). We have no experimental evidence of parents having that mystical knowledge of their children's state, and quite a bit of evidence otherwise. Perhaps Yaaqov avinu, or even someone with "just" ruach haqodesh is that aware of what's going on on the plane of souls without learning about them through normal olam hazeh means. But I do not see it being true of the majority of humanity. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 20:39:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 03:39:12 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> I tried to make the point that although many try to show similarites between food and sex, if we look at the Torah's view, there are far more differences. I suggested a rule of thumb: > Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. > Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. Chazal see food as an entirely proper way of enjoying olam hazeh, to the point that it is actively encouraged as a form of all sorts of celebrations. (And not only happy celebrations, but eating is also involved in various mourning practices.) Under normal circumstances, one can and should eat as much as he needs, subject to the limitations of kashrus and brachos. One is never allowed to eat in a quantity or manner that he becomes a menuval, but that is not a major concern. Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah. And even there, the restrictions are many. Food has tremendous room for creativity even within the restrictions of hilchos kashrus and brachos. Sex could be similar, even within the bounds of hilchos nidda and arayos, but the restrictions set out in OC 240 go much farther than merely to insure that one does not become a menuval. R' Micha Berger responded: > I think the difference is just about that, but because of the > biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: > 1- It involves a second party. There is no threat of > objectifying [food]. > 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... > Therefore, the attitude toward perishus for each comes from > opposite directions. For food, which is necessary for survival, > we talk about how much is too much. For sex, we talk about the > right balance between keeping the other happy (chiyuv onah) > and turning them into a tool for your own happiness. I think that he is agreeing with me that food and sex are very different, but I disagree with his explanation of *why* they are so different. In his first point, intended to be "food"), he seems to feel that the restrictions on sex are to prevent people from taking advantage of each other: If I have even a small desire for a snack, the Torah has no problem at all if I go to the kitchen and take an apple (provided that I say the bracha to acknowledge Hashem's involvement) because the apple is nothing more than an apple. But while casual eating is fine, casual sex is not. Casual sex involves people, and they must not be taken advantage of. My problem with this is on several levels. First, Chazal are pretty explicit that the purpose of Hilchos Nida is to restore a honeymoon-style atmosphere on a regular basis, and that alone might suffice to insure that spouses aren't objectified. Also, we have the many parts of OC 240 which insure that husband and wife are in the same "place" emotionally: no one is drunk, words of "ritzui", and so on. But isn't that sufficient protection against objectifying? What is gained from the additional restrictions (such as various positions, or finishing quickly) which have no parallel in food? In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach the Torah uses for Onah. While men and women are pretty much identical in the halachos of food, Onah places the husband and wife in opposite situations. Any discussion of Onah that uses the word "spouse" will be flawed, because Onah treats the husband and wife so differently. For example, whenever the wife desires relations, then the husband has a clear and present chiyuv d'Oraisa. But if the husband desires, she has no corresponding obligation; in fact (if I'm not mistaken) she's not even labeled as a "moredet" until after prolonged and repeated refusals. It seems to me that Onah may have the effect of objectifying males. Those parts of Orach Chaim 240 which forbid unwilling relations ought to suffice to insure that the women are not objectified. But Onah seems to push the pendulum too far. In response to RTK, RMB wrote: > I'm not sure it's "hashkafah" as much as Hilkhos Dei'os / Chovos > haLvavos. After all "Qedoshim tihyu" is a chiyuv, not a nicety, > and that's a source for "perushim tihyu". > What a mitzvah to be or to become something (such as "qadosh") > is in practice, though, is inherently situational and subjective. > If we were talking about something reducible to black-letter > halakhah and objective rules, it would have been. And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective rules", is it not? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 1 22:55:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 00:55:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: I initially replied on Areivim to a post reminding women during the summer to cover their hair. Mrs. Katz added that there was no support for those who hold that hair covering in public is not necessary. Others have disputed what RYBS's position on hair covering was, in view of the fact that his wife did NOT cover her hair in public at all times(someone seems to have the impression that she wore a hat). Here are the sources I have collected, in addition to the fact that a significant percentage of Modern Orthodox women to not cover their hair in public except in shul/davening situations. In response to those who have stated that the younger more educated women are covering their hair, I would point out that they have been educated to believe that it is an obligation, and the permissive sources have not been shared with them- case in point Mrs. Katz who either is not aware or chooses to dismiss them out of hand. In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is: if it is the practice of women to cover [their hair] and she uncovered it, then this is immodesty ( *ervah*). But if it was not the regular practice [of women] to cover [their hair] then [going uncovered] is not in the category of immodesty at all. If they uncover one hand?s-breadth in a place where they are habituated to cover then it is [a case of] uncovering immodesty and it is prohibited to read the Shema prayer in their presence... But if their (ladies?) custom is to uncover their hair (or a hand?s-breadth of the body) ? as single women do who by custom walk around with head [hair] uncovered - then this [action] does not constitute immodesty (*ervah*)." If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. Here is a list of easily accessable sources: Rabbi Marc Angel(former president of the Rabbinical Council of America) discusses why hair covering is not mandated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbrQwEerLsY Massive article by Rabbi Michael Broyde: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/0095-0180.pdf I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and everyone can come to their own conclusion. Rav Yosef Haim(author of Ben Ish Chai) writing that hair covering is not necessary(and how his opinion was altered by others): http://text.rcarabbis.org/the-ben-ish-hai-and-women%E2%80%99s-hair-covering-an-interesting-case-of-censorship-by-jacob-sasson/ See Rabbi Broyde's article(pages 155-158) for citations of those who state that hair covering is not mandated in the current society: R. Yitzchak Hurwitz in Yad HaLevi R. Moshe Malka(late Chief Rabbi of Petach Tikvah) R. Josef Messas(late chief rabbi of Morocco and later Haifa) R. Yaakov Haim Sofer Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did not cover her hair? Was this permitted by the *halachah*, or was it not prohibited on the grounds of modesty? He took out a *Gemara Berachot*, opened it to page 24A and showed me the Talmudic statement. "Said Rav Sheshet: [showing] hair by a woman is *ervah *(an act of immodesty)." Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with uncovered hair. Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat common. Some will say that- 'they couldn't control their wives' or other such statements. I would point out that RYBS also went to the opera- perhaps in keeping with an approach that hair wasn't erva, a lenient view of kol isha, all of which seems consistent. Furthermore, it seems quite far fetched that a rav who knew that he had great communal status would abide by gross violation of halacha in public by his own family, and at the very least would make it clear that he did not hold by it. Obviously, the fact that he did not make a deal of it(certainly not a big deal), illustrates something. Do you think he would countenance his wife eating treif? furthermore, the chiyyuv is also for men not to see hair(if that is the position that is being taken), and by not protesting his wife's uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 2 03:40:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 13:40:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: <<> 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach 1. The definition of an "edah" from "this wicked edah". 2. Hezek re'iyah from Bil'am. 3. Standing for a davar shebikdusha, from Eglon. >> Some others are: 4. Lavan: Sheva Brachot; also the Bracha we give the Kalla at the bedeken 5. also "chaye shaah" is less important that "chaye olam" from the 4 lepers, gechazi and his sons -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 2 01:25:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 11:25:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: ""It's a big machlokes - there's gotta be someone who paskens the way I want, so that's what I'm gonna do." I shudder when I hear otherwise-observant people saying such things. There are indeed some cases where there is such a *lack* of consensus among the poskim that one can do as he wants (one of my teachers paskened this way and for this reason regarding brachos on dessert), but I do not see Siman 240 in this category. We seem to be abandoning the consensus of the Shulchan Aruch and Nosei Keilim, and running to minority rishonim." R' Lichtenstein was bothered by this point and answered that we need to rely on our teachers and Gedolim. "Probably most significant, however, is our reliance upon our own mentors. Sensing that modern gedolim, ?the judge of your era??for our purposes, most notably, the Rav, but not he alone?have examined the issue and the evidence and adopted a positive stance, we, ordinary students of Torah, follow in their footsteps as we identify with their position. Whether they felt justified in accepting, out of the depths of their own conviction, a minority view; whether they held that our topic was essen- tially a matter of hashkafic proclivity, not necessarily amenable to the nor- mal procedures of pesak; or whether some other unknown but imagined element?might, for instance, the hospitable climate of Kabbalistic sources, have had some impact?is a matter for conjecture. That the authority of our mentors can inform and sustain our sensibility is not." I understand that for many of us that is not a very satisfying answer and leads to many questions about why specifically here we follow minority opinions as opposed to other places (e.g. wombs issues, etc.) but I don't think there is a better answer. This is the way the halachic system works. Even after all of this, R' Lichtenstein himself was bothered by this very point: "I am left, nonetheless, with a lacuna. Even while adhering to the Rav?s position, one may freely concede wishing that he had done for us what we have been challenged and constrained to do here: examine the various tiers of tradition and elucidate the basis for his own judgment and commitment." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 01:21:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:21:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on tefillin Message-ID: There is a disagreement between Rashi/Rambam and R Tam whether one says one or two brachot on tefillin of the arm and head. While sefardim follow SA and say one bracha ashkenazim follow R Tam and say 2 brachot bur add "baruch shem kvod ..." to avoid a bracha le-vatala I have 2 things I don't understand about the ashkenazi minhag 1) The usual rule is "safek bracha le-kula" and so when in doubt don't say a bracha 2) How does saying "barch shem" help ? We have many disagreements about brachot. For example ashkenazim (again following R Tam) say brachot on customs, eg half hallel. We don't add "baruch shem ..." in these cases. Why only in tefillin? Furthermore whenever there is a doubt about a bracha (classical case is if one forgot to count the omer at night and remembered during the day) why do the act without a bracha - why not say the bracha and add "baruch shem" -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 07:43:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:43:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150803144333.GA30399@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 03:39:12AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed : in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah... ... and priya verivya, no? : Food has tremendous room for creativity even within : the restrictions of hilchos kashrus and brachos. Sex could be similar, : even within the bounds of hilchos nidda and arayos, but the restrictions : set out in OC 240 go much farther than merely to insure that one does : not become a menuval. ... : I think that he is agreeing with me that food and sex are very different, : but I disagree with his explanation of *why* they are so different. I have the same assessment. I am saying that the same principle of when perishus is appropriate is very different for food vs sex because food and sex are different in nature. Summarizing my point #1: : But while casual eating is fine, casual sex is : not. Casual sex involves people, and they must not be taken advantage of. : : My problem with this is on several levels. First, Chazal are pretty : explicit that the purpose of Hilchos Nida is to restore a honeymoon-style : atmosphere on a regular basis, and that alone might suffice to insure : that spouses aren't objectified.... If your objection is based on the "might suffice", all one needs to assert is or might not. : What is gained from the additional : restrictions (such as various positions, or finishing quickly) which : have no parallel in food? I am not sure that prohibitions based on mood are sufficient, as it's too easy to fool oneself about what the other person really wants. In any case, you return to OC 240 again at the end of the post and ask: : And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective : rules", is it not? Perhaps not. Is OC 1 black-letter halakhah? Is hitting the snooze button, or even lying around for a few seconds before getting up, actually assur? For that matter, there is a mitzvah to remember right vs left when putting on and tying shoes, but do you really think someone was oveir an issur if they don't? As the AhS OC often notes, the style of the SA is just to discuss do vs don't, and it blurs the distinctions between levels of issur -- a deOraisa can be next to an accepted minhag, and both may even be written in parallel language. : In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival : without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, : psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach : the Torah uses for Onah. : : While men and women are pretty much identical in the halachos of food, : Onah places the husband and wife in opposite situations... Whereas moredes has no parallel because she cannot initiate a gett. And for that matter, it has no parallel because he is obligated to support here. For that matter, the assymetry in who supports who is quite possibly why HQBH set up an assymetric process for gittin. The man who obligates himself in support can get of it. Onah is a protection against that objectification. Against turning that whole support thing into near prostitution. And with onah, the outcome is more symmetric -- he can end a marriage if dissatisfied, and is obligated to keep her satisfied. Without which BD can force him to willingly end the marriage. (Just paraphrasing the din...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 08:17:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:17:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on tefillin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150803151733.GB30399@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:21:03AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I have 2 things I don't understand about the ashkenazi minhag : : 1) The usual rule is "safek bracha le-kula" and so when in doubt don't say : a bracha : 2) How does saying "bar[u]ch shem" help ? ... The AhS (OC 25:11 ) agrees with you on both points, and therefore posits (se'ifim 12-13) a totally different meaning to the 2nd berakhah. And even though shel yad and shel rosh are two different of the 613, we make one berakhah on maaser rishon and maaser sheini. He also quotes that the BY rejects a possibility that if someone talks between the two tefillin, he would have to make both berakhos on the shel rosh -- repeting "lehaniach" and yet still saying "al mitzvah". But even though he uses this as proof, he requires (se'if 16, following the Ran via the MA s"q 15) loosening the shel yad so that you are still saying "lehaniach" the 2nd time on both. This is a pretty big chiddush, a birkhas hoda'ah that says "asher qidshanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu al mitzvas..." However, similar arguments are made about Birkhas haTorah, if one says the berakhah is deOraisa (Ramban) and therefore "aqb"v la'asoq bedivrei Torah" can't be a birkhas hamitzvah. The IM says as much (OC 2:3). : We don't add "baruch shem ..." in these cases. Why only in tefillin? Leshitas AhS, it follows enacting the qesher gadol between us and HQBH for the same reason the pasuq is said after the first pasuq of Shema. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:04:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 17:04:47 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> I wrote: : Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed : in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah... R' Micha Berger asked: > ... and priya verivya, no? I was trying to show differences between sex and food. I would say that, in the eyes of Halacha, there is no connection between pirya v'rivya and the olam-hazeh enjoyment of sex, in exactly the same manner that there is no connection between achilas matzah and the olam-hazeh enjoyment of food. The latter is a means of internalizing a historical connection, and the former is a biological imperative, but neither has any connection to olam-hazeh enjoyment. However, that it not to say that halacha is blind to the fact that sex *IS* enjoyable. This is recognized by the mitzvah of Oneg Shabbos, where if the act is to be done once a week, then Shabbos is receommended. Chiyuv Onah also recognizes that if the wife has a taavah for this particular hanaah, then it is the husband's obligation to satisfy her taavah. But pirya v'rivya? No, I don't see evidence of that. I asked: : And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective : rules", is it not? RMB suggested: > Perhaps not. Is OC 1 black-letter halakhah? Is hitting the snooze > button, or even lying around for a few seconds before getting up, > actually assur? For that matter, there is a mitzvah to remember > right vs left when putting on and tying shoes, but do you really > think someone was oveir an issur if they don't? I agree that there are degrees of obligation. A simple verb like "yaaseh" clearly implies a smaller obligation than "chayav laasos". "Must" is much stronger than "should". But if a subject makes it into Shulchan Aruch - as these did - that also shows a stronger obligation than something that appears only in Mesilas Yesharim, or even Gemara for that matter. Yes, I do think that when the alarm clock rings, one has an obligation to seriously consider whether he really *needs* to stay in bed a little longer, or whether he merely *wants* to. And I will admit that - b'shaas maaseh - I rarely consider that as seriously as I should. And that's one of the things I'm trying to improve on. Same thing for tying my shoes - I think that by now I do it correctly by habit, but I'm not really sure, and I'll try to remember to watch myself tomorrow morning. RMB wrote: > Whereas moredes has no parallel because she cannot initiate a gett. And > for that matter, it has no parallel because he is obligated to support > here. For that matter, the assymetry in who supports who is quite > possibly why HQBH set up an assymetric process for gittin. The man who > obligates himself in support can get of it. Yes, I agree that this could be part of why Hashem set it up that way. But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no corresponding safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55c0f0f9c892870f9653ast02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:43:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:43:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <117801d0cedd$1904bea0$4b0e3be0$@com> > But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan > Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went > uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why > aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? Good question. I can't help but thinking that this is one of those (many) halachic issues where the hanhaga of Klal yisroel in certain halachic (or hashkafic) areas has developed to be inline with yechidim than with the majority of chazal/rishonim/etc Why this happens is certainly a discussion - is it societal / siata shimaya guiding Klal yisroel / etc We have many others similar to this (some d'oriasa, some d'rabbanan) - human hair sheitals, chadash, live music after the churban, etc. When this should happen (and when it should be fought), I will leave to the einei haeida. Mordechai Cohen From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:49:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Baruch Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 10:49:07 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Halachic Requirement for Dayanim Evaluating In-Person Facial Expressions of Parties in Bais Din In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: List Mates: In an AMI issue that was reported in VosIzNais, Rabbi Hershel Schachter was quoted as saying: ""*There is a Mishna in Pirkei Avos that the oilam says a vort on. It says, "K'sheyihiyu habaalei dinim lifanecha, yihiyu b'einecha k'resha'im. K'she'yaamdu m'lifanecha yihiyub'einecha k'tzaddikim, shekiblu aleihem es hadin." ["When the litigants stand before you (the judges), they should be in your eyes like wicked people. When they stand up from being in front of you, they should be in your eyes like righteous people, because they have accepted the judgment."] They say from a few different dayanim that they would put a tallis over their face, to not see the face of a rasha. But that is wrong; part of the din Torah is to look at the person and see from his facial expression and how he talks...whether or not he is saying the truth. You have to be able to detect whether he is telling the truth*.'" ( http://www.vosizneias.com/92931/2011/10/11/new-york-in-exclusive-ami-magzine-intreview-noted-rabbi-schachter-slams-set-up-of-rabbinical-court-system/ ) Is there a Halacha that you can direct me to that mandates in-person and face-to-face participation by the parties to a Bais Din for the reasons given by Rabbi Schechter? I found this... The seating configuration of the Sanhedrin ??????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?? ?? The Mishnah describes how the members of the Sanhedrin sat in a row in the shape of a half-circle in order *for each person to be able to see everyone else*. Why was it necessary for everyone to be able to have direct eye contact with everyone else? Rashi explains that it is only when people have direct sight of each other that they can listen and then argue and debate with each other. ?"????? elaborates and says that when people argue and express their views, they often rise from their seats. If they did not sit facing each other, it is quite possible that they would not be able to hear when a person turns as he speaks from a standing position. Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin 1:3) explains that this arrangement was used in order for the President (????) and the Av Beis Din to be able to see everyone. Lechem Mishneh notes that this was a sign of respect for these leaders to sit in the middle and for everyone to easily be able to listen to them. Rashi also addresses why the Sanhedrin sat in a half-circle rather than in a full circle. From a technical standpoint, the witnesses and litigants would have to have a way to enter the circle to present themselves in front of the judges (see Rashi, Chullin 5a). Furthermore, if the judges sat in a full circle, while the witnesses would be facing some of the judges, their backs would be turned toward the others. *The judges might have a hard time hearing the witnesses and litigants, or they would not be able to see them as they spoke. Facial expressions and other subtleties are essential in communication, and the judges must be able to pick up on any and all such nuances during the deliberations*. The Tosefta (8:1) cites differing opinions regarding the seating position of the President of the Sanhedrin. Tanna Kamma holds that the President sat in the center of the semi-circle, with thirty-five of the members of the Sanhedrin seated on each side of him. R' Elazar b. Tzadok says that when Rabban Gamliel sat in the Sanhedrin in Yavne, one of the sages sat to his right, and all the others sat to his left. Rambam (ibid.) writes that the ???? sat with the Av Beis Din to his right, and the rest of the sages to his left, seated according to their ages and their wisdom, with the wisest among them to his immediate left, and the rest seated closer according to their level. Radva"z and Kesef Mishneh ask why Rambam does not rule according to Tanna Kamma, and, as he rules according to R' Elazar b. Tzadok, why the row begins with the Av Beis Din, and not with the ???? himself. Radva"z explains that it was not only the Av Beis Din who sat to the right of the ????, but the ???? sat in the middle, as Tanna Kamma explains, with the Av Beis Din to his immediate right. ??? ???? explains that Rambam rules according to R' Elazar b. Tzadok because he cites the actual case of Rabban Gamliel http://www.dafdigest.org/Sanhedrin/Sanhedrin%20036.pdf -- Respectfully, Baruch C. Cohen, Esq. Law Office of Baruch C. Cohen, APLC Los Angeles, CA 90010 e-mail: BCC4929 at gmail.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:24:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:24:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> From: Kenneth Miller via Avodah >> In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach the Torah uses for Onah. [snip] It seems to me that Onah may have the effect of objectifying males. << Akiva Miller >>>>>> To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without reproduction. Our nitzchius is absolutely dependent on this particular activity, which is why "peru urevu" is actually a mitzva and not "mutar if you wish." It is Hashem's chessed that He made this activity intrinsically pleasurable. If you were a robot or an alien without human emotions and you witnessed this human activity, you would wonder, "What the heck are these humans doing? And why?!" I am not an expert on male physiology but I am under the impression that for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. This reminds me of something else I wanted to say in response to some of RMB's posts. He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her. But human beings derive pleasure from each other all the time, whether the pleasure is a stimulating conversation, "please scratch my back," playing with a delightful, cuddly baby -- I could go on and on -- and it is just absurd to think that if another person gives me some kind of pleasure, I have "objectified" that person. Not to forget the main point I wanted to make: sex /is/ necessary for survival, and therefore some comparison to eating food /is/ valid. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:57:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:57:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> References: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150804185730.GA28011@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 02:24:43PM -0400, RnTK wrote: : To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS : required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human : species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without : reproduction... The question is the difference in relationship a person to their hunger compared to their sex drive. You appear to only be objecting to an overly broad use of "required for survival" by not saying "individual's survival", without touching the point that people relate to each desire very differently. (You also seem to ignore non-reproductive sex -- an infertile couple, post-menapouse, etc...) .... : This reminds me of something else I wanted to say in response to some of : RMB's posts. He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from : being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her... Pleasure is a positive thing, as long as it's not the only thing. It's turning a wife into a cheftzah by which he obtains his pleasure that is literally objectifying. If the husband is forced to think about her perspective, his wife as a person, during relations, the risk of the pursuit of pleasure taking over to that point, the mutual search for pleasure is humanizing and bonding, quite the reverse. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:10:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 14:10:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150804181031.667AC180E06@nexus.stevens.edu> At 01:51 PM 8/4/2015, Noam Stadlan wrote: >If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered >hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. Is it really true that what women in the general society do is some standard for tznius for Jewish women. If so, then the practices of "well undressed" gentile women (as R. A Miller used to call them) of today have eliminated all tznius standards. One sees women in public today dressed in almost nothing. [Email #2] At 01:51 PM 8/4/2015, Noam Stadlan wrote: >Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat >common. Just because something is or was commonly done does not make is correct according to halacha. Many, many people talk loshon hara, yet it is not proper according to halacha. [Email #3] Please see Covering the Hair by Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 13:07:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 23:07:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: >> Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters >> of the alph-bet (I only know one) < [R' Michael Poppers:] > In the Torah, a *pasuq* in P'Va'eschanan (4:34 > ) is usually noted, but it > (containing letter *sin* but no *shin*) works only when the *shin* and the > *sin* are considered the same letter (they are, so long as we're > considering the written form). The other *pasuq* in the Torah of which I'm > aware is Shmos 16 :16 (in it, > the *shin* is extant but there's no *sin*). We still need another 3 pesukim in the rest of Nach including one that has not only the 22 letters of the alphabet but also all the end letters -- Eli Turkel [Well in I already wrote: > Soferim use Tzefania 3:8 to show their penmanship, because it not > only includes all 22 letters, it also includes all the sofios. Is > that a way to denote total ultimate justice (the meaning of the words > ) or what? -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 15:31:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:31:53 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I see your pesukim and raise you a medieval Hebrew poem of four lines, where each line contains every letter of the alef-beit including sofiot exactly once with no repetition: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pagefeed/hebrewbooks_org_38040_154.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 5 02:53:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 05:53:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" Message-ID: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> I think a philosophy book just came out detending a variant of RSSchwab's "two clocks" explanation of ma'aseh bereishis. RSS's shitah appeared in AOJS's Challenge (ed. R Aryeh Carmel, R/Prof Cyril Domb pg 164 onward. surveys the area and summarized RSS as follows: Similarly, Rav Shimon Schwab talks of two types of time, cosmic time and earthly time. The 6 days of creation are counted according to cosmic time, during which period millions of years may have passed according to our measure of time. (Althugh I disagree with their next sentence on REED's position.) Now for the book. I just got this review : > he Fall and Hypertime > Hud Hudson, Oxford University Press, 2014, 211pp., $65.00 (hbk), > ISBN 0198712693. > Reviewed by Trent Dougherty, Baylor University > Hud Hudson's book is a brilliant and creative defense of the following > proposition. > There is a conflict between a literal reading of the book of > Genesis and science only if one assumes that the hypertime hypothesis > is false. > The import of Hudson's thesis is that those who allege a conflict between > science and a literal reading of Genesis are not basing that claim merely > on science but on controversial metaphysics as well.,,, > To understand the hypertime hypothesis (hereafter "HH"), begin > with the "growing block" theory of time, one of the standard set of > options. According to this theory, the past is real and "still exists" > as a "block" as spacetime and the future is "open," i.e. the future > does not exist. The block grows as the quantity of either space or > time increases. Hudson notes that there is nothing more intrinsically > mysterious about the block losing parts than its gaining parts. He > then points out that it is also not more intrinsically mysterious that > a "morphing block" shrink or grow not just in units of hyperplanes > ("slices" of the block) but also in sub-regions of hyperplanes. As a > result, there are no in principle limits to the ways in which a block can > morph, to the "shape" it can take. Furthermore, there is no good reason > why the hyperplanes (or sub-regions thereof) might not be "reshuffled" > in a different order. > Because the universe is here modeled as a spacetime block, the temporal > dimension only measures changes within the block. Hypertime measures, > as we may think of it, changes to the block (though technically blocks > at different hypertimes are numerically distinct,and there remains a > question concerning the status of various essentialisms about blocks > with respect to their parts). That means that at any given moment on > the hypertimeline, there can be a complete spacetime block, a complete > physical universe distinct from blocks at different hypertimes. Given > infinite hypertime, this generates a plurality of worlds not unlike that > of David Lewis. Hudson applies the possibility of this plurality in three > ways: to an understanding of omnipresence (which I will not discuss), to > (three versions of) the problem of evil (one of which I'll discuss below), > and in defense of his main thesis. The way HH helps with an understanding > of omniscience and the problem of evil gives it credit and motivates > it as a viable option so that its application to the main thesis is > not ad hoc (though it's being ad hoc would not prevent its success for > its purpose). I will describe the application to the problem of evil, > offer a criticism, then describe its application to the main thesis. > If there is a plenitude of spatiotemporally discrete universes, then it is > difficult to infer from any empirical observation that the actual world > is not the best possible world. It is important to remember that on the > hypertime hypothesis the spacetime blocks at different hypermoments are > only one portion of total reality. Our observable universe is a drop > in the bucket. So an argument from evil against the existence of God > from ours not being the best possible world would have to argue that > the observable universe could not even be a part of the best possible > world. That is not clearly an easy argument to make. > This move takes the form of what is traditionally called a "defense" > rather than a "theodicy"... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 5 15:22:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 18:22:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesak and Safeik Message-ID: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> Anyone know a source (or at least a theory) that discusses when we treat a machloqes as a safeiq, rather than applying the rules of peaq? The issue comes up in AhS YD 24:42. (Mazal tovs on completing OC will be graciously accepted.) Siman 24 discusses 4 of the 5 halakhos leMoshe miSinai of shechitah. (Shehiyah got its own siman.) There is a machloqes between the Behag and Rashi about the line between aqirah and tereifos. Rashi says that aqira is the displacement of the qaneh or veshet caused by using a nicked knife. Most rishonim hold like the Behag, and then there is a submachloqes about what kind of dislocated simanim are aqirah, ad what are tereifos. Leshitas Rashi, they would all be tereifos. Anyway, here the AhS says that Rama holds that midinei shechitah, we are machmir for every definition of aqirah. But midinei tereifah, which differ in that it would also prohibit the milk or eggs from such an animal, we recognize that the iqar hedin if the Behag, and are meiqil. So okay, one tiny bit of my question is answered -- we have a special rule by shechitah that machloqesin are resolved by safeiq deOraisa lehachmir. But WRT tereifos.... The AhS says that despite the Rama, we are nohagim lehachmir. So, while the Rama thinks this is a case where the rules of pesaq apply, the AhS says "we" disagree and treat it like a safeiq. Why? I also realize the line isn't all-or-nothing. I presume that not every shitah rises to the level of creating a safeiq, so there is some kind of pesaq-like reasoning necessary to assess which do and which don't. So it's more an issue of how balanced do shitos have to be for us to be unwilling to pasqen and just assume it's a safeiq. But still, these two acharonim are setting te line at a different place. So, does anyoe discuss the kelalim of when to bail out from the (other) kelalei pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 07:47:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:47:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] They Found Gat Message-ID: <20150806144710.GA2303@aishdas.org> As you may have heard, a team found the gates of Gat, Golias's home town. And, as I've noticed in the past, the question of whether they find evidence of the events as found in Tanakh or evidence against can be predicted in advance by checking the religious stance of who is running the dig. So you get this story from Haaretz : Philistine City of Gath a Lot More Powerful Than Thought, Archaeologists Suggest Powerful fortifications newly uncovered by Israeli archaeologists suggest the kingdoms of Saul, David may not have been quite as powerful as thought. Nir Hasson Aug 04, 2015 3:08 AM [IDT] ... According to Maeir, the discovery of Gath as a huge, fortified city on the border of Judea during an extended period, without any signs of destruction as a result of a war with Judea, proves the Philistines controlled the Judean plain. Because Khirbet Kaifa existed for a relatively short period -- about 30 years -- it is likely the remnant of a failure of the Israelite kingdom to spread westward and not a sign of its power. "The Judean kingdom is supposed to be big, important and strong," says Maeir. "But it turns out there is a very big city on its western border. For years, I claimed Gath was a big city, but they countered that it has no lower city, and if it has one it is not fortified. After finding a huge fortification, its clearly the most important city of the 10th and ninth centuries." Now, to get a hint of how we would have heard about Gat had the dig been run by a bilical maximalist, here's an element mentioned in : Near the gate, Maeirs team also unearthed the remains of the citys extensive fortification wall, a Philistine temple, ironwork and pottery. While the pottery bears hallmarks of the distinctive Philistine style, elements of Israelite techniques can be seen on the fragments as well, indicating there was more interaction between the two cultures than previously thought. Since Pelishti culture was importing Jewish culture, doesn't that lend MORE credibity to the idea that David haMelekh's kingdom was at east on the same scale if not overshadowing theirs? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 15:28:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 23:28:31 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] : Re: De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> RAM writes: >And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective rules", is it not? In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? And further read the Tur (and the meforshim on the Tur) in Even HaEzer simin 25 to get a fuller picture of the sources (and the original gemora sources) - so you can see the history of the machlokus on how to deal with this issue all the way back. As Rav Lichtenstein articulated it, the question is not so much that we differ from the position of Chazal, as our position (and the one quoted by the Rema) is much more in line with the majority position in Chazal, but why did the major rishonim - Rambam, Ra'avid etc differ so markedly from what appears to be the majority position in Chazal and posken - well like Rabbi Eliezer (shmuti hu?), as then did the Achronim. I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the influence of the outside world. The same sort of influence that reputedly led to the cherem of Rabbi Gershom (Jews who are supposed to be the upholders of morality cannot be seen to have more than one wife in a world where that is seen as immoral). In a world which identified relations with sin and death (standard Xtian theology of the time, and the Muslim theology in many circles was not that different) - it would have been inappropriate, and led to general looseness if the general non Jewish world view had been repudiated to the extent consonant with the positive positions found in Chazal. Hence Orech Chaim, the book most accessible to the masses, contains not a word of the Rema's position, that is buried in Even HaEzer, where it is more likely only the scholarly will look (or from the point of view of Maran, go look in the Tur). But to talk about relations positively in an open way in Xtian Europe would have created temptations for the non Jewish world that would have unleashed a level of vengeance (eg from the priesthood) that could likely not be endured. There was a lot of censoring and self censoring that went on in all sorts of areas, it seems to me also here, especially as there are the minority positions to bring and rely on. Only in the modern day world which has swung so far the other way is it possible to honestly and openly evaluate the position of Chazal, and that is what in effect has been done, by Rav Lichtenstein and others. >Akiva Miller Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 17:28:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 00:28:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? Message-ID: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Apparently, In the U.S., the therapist's duties are owed to the client, subject to statutory obligations such as the mandatory-reporting requirement. There is no exception for the therapist's religious custom or belief, unless, in limited circumstances, the client consents to it. Question-from a torah point of view should it make a difference who shows up at the therapist's (or Rabbi's)door (for any therapy or advice)? How does Halacha balance the needs of the individual, the family, the community, Jewish society and/or society in general? 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 12:56:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 15:56:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" In-Reply-To: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> References: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> What's the difference between this and Gerald Schroeder? KT, GS, YGB On 08/05/2015 05:53 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I think a philosophy book just came out detending a variant of RSSchwab's > "two clocks" explanation of ma'aseh bereishis. > > RSS's shitah appeared in AOJS's Challenge (ed. R Aryeh Carmel, R/Prof > Cyril Domb pg 164 onward. > > > surveys > the area and summarized RSS as follows: > > Similarly, Rav Shimon Schwab talks of two types of time, cosmic > time and earthly time. The 6 days of creation are counted according > to cosmic time, during which period millions of years may have > passed according to our measure of time. > > (Althugh I disagree with their next sentence on REED's position.) > > > Now for the book. I just got this review > : > >> he Fall and Hypertime >> Hud Hudson, Oxford University Press, 2014, 211pp., $65.00 (hbk), >> ISBN 0198712693. >> Reviewed by Trent Dougherty, Baylor University From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 13:32:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:32:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" In-Reply-To: <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> References: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150807203234.GA14121@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 03:56:56PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: : What's the difference between this and Gerald Schroeder? R' Gerald Schroeder is working within physics, using Relativity to try to make the timelines match up. R' Schwab, and for that matter this Hypertime idea are metaphysical, saying that the 6 days were not physical days, meausured using the same kind of time Galileo turned into a variable when he measured pendulum swings, Newton took derivatives with respect to, and Einstein unified with space. Rather, a logically prior idea altogether. This is more in line with the rishonim who said that science as we know it post-dates creation, and therefore time during creation is has to be measured with a different kind of clock than the one of physics. ------- And some day when humanity develops to this point, the two will finally be in sync. Which would fit RAYK's metaphysics in which every duality is an illusion, as everything is the Or Ein Sof from the Absolute Unity. And le'asid lavo, even the division between olam hazah and olam ha'emes will fall. Leshitaso, techiyas hameisim is a consequence of the reunification of the worlds of life and of death. Those souls don't so much come back to life as the distinction disappears. (I do not recall if RAYK invokes "hayinu kekholmim".) And yes, in such a situation, physical time will be back in sync with supernal time. Although one needn't believe in RAYK's eschatology in order to accept the concept that the two definitions of time will be unified, nor do we need to believe in eventual synchronization in order to talk about the 6 days of ceration being on a different kind of clock than physics. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 13:56:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 15:56:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Re; sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R. Levine wrote: "Is it really true that what women in the general society do is some standard for tznius for Jewish women. If so, then the practices of "well undressed" gentile women (as R. A Miller used to call them) of today have eliminated all tznius standards" Response: Of course there are baseline standards of tzniut for Jew, men and women, that are independent of surrounding culture. But hair covering is not one of them.(At least according the sources and shitta that I have brought). R. Levine then brings an article by Rav Breuer. That is his shitta, it doesn't mean it is universally accepted or binding. Much of what he brings is not specific halacha but advice or Nach based(the entire sugya of kol kevuda etc) I would note that the vast majority of shittot do not require single women to cover their hair I will not have access to respond for a week or so, but will be address further responses at that time. shabbat shalom noam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 8 12:02:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 22:02:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] depression Message-ID: Enclosed is a summary of the last shiur of R Zilberstein to the doctors. I am giving a shiur on this in my shul this coming shabbat. Since I feel it is controversial I am looking for input from the list. Question from a psychiatrist - A patient has 3 kids and has mild depression since the last birth. She wont take chemical drugs and instead uses one based on plants which is good for mild depression. It had some side effects and so the patient stopped that also. The dictor suggested various anti-depression drugs and other help which the patient refused, Contacting a social worker it turns out the woman runs a "nursery' (mishpachton) from 8am to 4pm. The social worker says she manages only with a great effort; her husband comes home from work at 1pm and the mother helps. The woman refuses to open a file in the social ministry because of this nursery which they may close down. The social worker pointed out that if something happens the state will prosecute the psychiatrist. Question: On one side there might be a danger to the kids in the nursery and the psychiatrist might lose her license OTOH this is a major income for the young family. She has successfully run the nursery for several months without any complaint with the help of the husband and mother. If this is all explained to the ministry it most likely won't help and they will closer her down Answer: The job of a bet din is to watch out for the welfare of the community. Hence, according to Torah law the doctor must go the rabbi of the city or neighborhood to hear their opinion, R Zilberstein notes that in Bnei Brak there is an agreement with the authorities that the local bet din deals with such problems and calls in the local authority only if they feel this is necessary. Such an arrangement should be set up in every town that the local bet din makes the decision. see YD 336:1 that ba doctor needs the permission of the bet din to practice, Therefore one needs the permission of the local secular authorities to rely on the judgement of the local rabbi. It is well known that the "mara de-atra" have the ability to treat broken and depressed people. In England there was a baby born with Down's syndrone whose Jewish parents disappeared. The local board of health turned to Rav Yoseph Dinner Zt'L what to do, Rav Dunner , who was the 65, (after checking with his wife) said they would adopt the baby since at that time there was no Jewish institution capable of handing this baby. The local board of health accepted this solution. The couple cared for the child until they reached the age of 80. At that point they transfered the child to an instituion in Afula, Each year R Dunner would come to Israel to bake matzot and then visit the child in Afula. The doctors in Britain said the best social workers are the Jewish leaders. In the beit midrash of R. Pam there was born a child with Down's syndrone. R Pam always tried to cheep up the boy. One year the boy complained that on simchat Torah they used all the sifrei Torah except for his paper one. After Musaf R Pam went to the Bimah and announced to everyone that now they were reading from the sefer Torah of this boy. This was the happiest moment for the boy and the angles surrounding "kise hakavod" Conclusion: The psychiatrist should explain to the local rabbi the situation in the nursery. The rabbi should come to some agreement with the local secular authotities to rely on his judgement -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 8 21:21:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 21:21:33 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? Message-ID: you are basically asking when must the rabbi/frum therapist offer halachic therapy and then risk prosecution? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 12:17:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:17:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] human hair sheitals Message-ID: In the thread "De-Chokifying Arayos", I asked: > But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan > Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went > uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why > aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? R' Mordechai Cohen answered: >>> I can't help but thinking that this is one of those (many) halachic issues where the hanhaga of Klal yisroel in certain halachic (or hashkafic) areas has developed to be inline with yechidim than with the majority of chazal/rishonim/etc >>> ... >>> We have many others similar to this (some d'oriasa, some d'rabbanan) - human hair sheitals, chadash, live music after the churban, etc. You are raising a great point. I have wondered this about chadash and music myself, and I'm somewhat surprised that I didn't see the connection. Thank you very much for bringing it to my attention. (Though, to be honest, these examples sharpen my question about Conservative "psak".) But for THIS thread, my question is simple and direct: Tell me more about why you specify "human hair sheitals". Have chazal/rishonim ever distinguished between wigs made of human hair vs other kinds of wigs? I was always under the (possibly mistaken) impression that chazal and rishonim - and even acharonim - only discussed the requirement to cover hair, and how much to cover, and the ramifications of leaving it uncovered. But I don't recall any discussion of the covering itself except by the leaders of very recent chasidic groups. Am I mistaken? Where is this discussed in the seforim? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 13:15:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 16:15:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: In Avodah V33n111, RET noted: >> Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters >> of the alph-bet (I only know one) << > We still need another 3 pesukim in the rest of Nach including one that has not only the 22 letters of the alphabet but also all the end letters < Fact-checking what I found via Google'ing (besides the *pasuq* already noted by R'Micha) provides these fifteen (!) *p'suqim* containing all the letters: -- Y'hoshua 23:13 -- M'lachim Beis 4:39, 6:32 -- Y'sha'yahu 5:25 -- Yirm'yahu 22:3, 32:29 -- Y'chezqeil 17:9 -- Hosheia 13:2 -- Amos 9:13 -- Esther 3:13 -- Daniel 3:22, 4:20, 7:19 -- Ezra 7:28 -- N'chemya 3:7 All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 14:11:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: <<< To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without reproduction. Our nitzchius is absolutely dependent on this particular activity, which is why "peru urevu" is actually a mitzva and not "mutar if you wish." >>> Yes, that's true. But please note that you yourself are referring to "peru urevu". My question concerns a different mitzva, namely Onah, wherein sex is explicitly linked to food and clothing/shelter. I don't think it is a big stretch to say that the common thread of these three things is how important they are to this particular individual, and NOT how important they are to the species. <<< ... for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. >>> I think we may be understanding the word "objectify" in different ways. Contrary to what some might think, not all men are constantly obsessed with having sex. At any given point in time, a particular man might have other priorities - other activities that he'd rather do than this one. But a husband cannot give higher priority to these activities over Onah, just like he can't choose them over minyan, or other mitzvos. He must be sensitive to his wife's needs and wants, and if he senses her mood, he is under a chiyuv d'Oraisa to act accordingly. (Actually, he'll have this chiyuv even if he does NOT sense her mood accurately, in which case he will have been Mevatel the Aseh b'shogeg, though I suppose it could easily be argued that it's more of a "shogeg karov l'meizid" if he hasn't even tried to judge her mood accurately.) But there is no flip side to Onah. The wife has no responsibility to judge her husband's desires. In fact, even if she does realize that he is "in the mood", there is no Chiyuv d'Oraisa for her to ignore her other desires and respond to her husband's desires. Sure, it could well be advisable for her to do so for Shalom Bayis reasons, and one might even call it a "chiyuv" in that context, but the imbalance remains: Her chiyuv would be Shalom Bayis alone, while the husband must deal with both Shalom Bayis and Onah. That's what I meant by "objectify": Much of Orach Chaim 240 is to protect the wife from a forcible rape (for instance, she can't be asleep or drunk), and much is also to protect her from more subtle rape (such as thinking of another woman). But there are far fewer protections offered to the husband. Neither can be drunk, and neither can have decided to divorce, but in general, the wife is within her rights to demand relations whenever she wants, and to me, this can "objectify" the husband. RTK reminds us that the husband *will* have pleasure from this. But that is exactly my point: If someone is required to have a pleasure that (for whatever reason) he does not actually *desire*, it is a sort of rape. RTK also wrote: <<< He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her. But human beings derive pleasure from each other all the time, ... it is just absurd to think that if another person gives me some kind of pleasure, I have "objectified" that person. >>> You are correct. Merely receiving pleasure does not automatically objectify a person. But if one receives pleasure without returning that pleasure to the giver, this carries a danger of objectifying the giver. And if one receives pleasure against the giver's will, that is the very definition of "objectifying" (in my view). R"n Chana Luntz wrote: <<< In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? And further read the Tur (and the meforshim on the Tur) in Even HaEzer simin 25 to get a fuller picture of the sources (and the original gemora sources) - so you can see the history of the machlokus on how to deal with this issue all the way back. >>> Indeed, the first few times I saw that Rema, he seemed to be saying, verbatim, that "you can do anything you want, and whenever you want to do it." A sexual hefkervelt, a world with no rules. But a more careful reading shows that he is only making two specific points: That there are no restrictions on positions, and that (as we've already said in this thread) the timing restrictions of O"C 240 are a "madrega" but not the basic halacha. But aside from these points, I see OC 240 and EH 25 as very similar: Their main focus concerns the *mental* state, and it is in this area (it seems to me) that Shulchan Aruch - including all acharonim until quite recently - endorses a very prishus-oriented approach. RCL again: <<< I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the influence of the outside world. ... In a world which identified relations with sin and death (standard Xtian theology of the time, and the Muslim theology in many circles was not that different) - it would have been inappropriate, and led to general looseness if the general non Jewish world view had been repudiated to the extent consonant with the positive positions found in Chazal. >>> There are many responses I could give to this. Perhaps the simplest would be: So then let Shulchan Aruch be silent; why did they choose to pasken overtly like the prishus view? Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 10 05:08:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:08:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: To continue from my previous post: R"n Chana Luntz wrote: <<< In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? >>> I think it is noteworthy that the Aruch Hashulchan often goes out of his way to justify the common practice in the face of the consensus of poskim, but does *not* do so in this case. In fact, Aruch Hashulchan EH 25:11 quotes the same Tur as the Rama did, but emphatically warns us *against* following it. This suggests that the turning of the tide, from a more prishus-oriented view to something else, occurred more recently than the days of the Aruch Hashulchan. Can anyone suggest a more precise time? Or, to put my question more blatantly: Does the less-prishus-oriented view appear only in recent articles such as the one by Rav Lichtenstein, and in the sort of verbal psakim such as he received? Does it appear anywhere at all in any of the seforim that one might happen to be learning, such as the Igros Moshe, Tzitz Eliezer, or similar? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 07:14:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akirah In-Reply-To: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> References: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150811141458.GA31500@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 6:22pm EDT, I wrote: : The issue comes up in AhS YD 24:42... : There is a machloqes between the Behag and Rashi about the line between : aqirah and tereifos. Rashi says that aqira is the displacement of the : qaneh or veshet caused by using a nicked knife. Most rishonim hold : like the Behag, and then there is a submachloqes about what kind of : dislocated simanim are aqirah, and what are tereifos. Leshitas Rashi, : they would all be tereifos. : : Anyway, here the AhS says that Rama holds that midinei shechitah, : we are machmir for every definition of aqirah. But midinei tereifah, : which differ in that it would also prohibit the milk or eggs from such : an animal, we recognize that the iqar hedin if the Behag, and are meiqil. In response RAF sent me offlist an essay he wrote in Dec 2001, titled "Hagdaras Iqur Simanim baTalmud", which I put up on-line here . The article does a survey of various definitions of ique hasimanim, which vary amazingly widely. He lists some causes: - The discussion is in scattered snippets across Chullin, not one organized sugya. - The rishonim do not agree about the girsa of the gemara that contrasts iqur from tereifah. - The rishonim do not even agree on basic defining features about iqur simanim. RAF also mentioned to me: "I have a very different peshat in ikkur, based on actually looking at the Behag." Sec. 4 does appear to quote a Behag that is at odds with the mesorah about shitas haBehag that the baalei Tosafos received. We've discussed the relationship between errors in reception and whether finding one would change pesaq before. Here, the nafqa mina lemaaseh is small but real, as per above. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: If anyone else has a Torah article they want up on-line, feel free to ask. -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 15:53:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:53:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150811225301.GA13480@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 12:55:06AM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : Here are the sources I have collected, in addition to the fact that a : significant percentage of Modern Orthodox women to not cover their hair in : public except in shul/davening situations. Although there is long evidence of rabbis saying it's a problem, but not a battle they can win. So the mimetic side is dismissable. (Also, how does someone who advocates for more roles for women in shul make a mimetic argument?) : In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of : uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is... : If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered : hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. But saying it's not a breach of tzeni'us doesn't say it's allowed, that's your addition not in the translated text you quote. RYB could mean what the AhS says, that it's terrible things came to this, but you may daven in her presence. Or, that whle it's not a tzeni'us problem, it's still prohibited deOraisa as per the implication in parashas sotah. : Here is a list of easily accessable sources: : Rabbi Marc Angel... Listening to his citing R' Masas and your quoting R Badad, maybe it's a Seph thing? He presumes hair covering is das Yehudis, which makes his a rare shitah. (Again, given the derivation from a pasuq.) But then again, R' Ovadiah Yosef firmly disagrees. But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. ... : I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and : not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. : However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and : everyone can come to their own conclusion. ... which is what he does, that the theory is there, but it's a shitah dechuyah. And noticably, he too quotes R' Yosef Masas, R' Moshe Malka and the Kaf haChaim -- Sepharadi sources. : Rav Yosef Haim... So, assuming the woman doesn't eat qitniyos, may she go with her hair uncovered? And even if she does... At what point is a shitah dechuyah? ... : Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony : of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. : R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: : "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did : not cover her hair? ... : Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in : this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." : I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the : artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with : uncovered hair. : Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat : common... And yet the rabbanim protested. This isn't even admissable as mimetic tradition, any more than noting how often people speak leshon hara or buy off-the-books or anything else rabbis have failed to curb. : uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his : wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. He too, would only need to be convinced is wasn't ervah in the sense of "all those men" sinning. But as we see in the AhS, that doesn't mean it's allowed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 16:00:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:00:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R' Noam Stadlan wrote: <<< Of course there are baseline standards of tzniut for Jew, men and women, that are independent of surrounding culture. But hair covering is not one of them. ... I would note that the vast majority of shittot do not require single women to cover their hair. >>> I both agree and disagree. Hair covering is NOT a "baseline standard", in the sense that it applies only to married women and not to single girls. But hair covering IS a baseline standard for Jewish women, in the sense that it remains in force independent of the surrounding culture. Thus, we have at least three different standards: males, married females, single females. And actually, we have several more than that, if we distinguish among various ages of boy and girl children, not to mention infants. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 21:26:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:26:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: From: Akiva Miller via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) <<< ... for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. >>> [--TK] >> I think we may be understanding the word "objectify" in different ways. Contrary to what some might think, not all men are constantly obsessed with having sex. At any given point in time, a particular man might have other priorities -- other activities that he'd rather do than this one. But a husband cannot give higher priority to these activities over Onah, just like he can't choose them over minyan, or other mitzvos. He must be sensitive to his wife's needs and wants, and if he senses her mood, he is under a chiyuv d'Oraisa to act accordingly.... But there is no flip side to Onah. The wife has no responsibility to judge her husband's desires. In fact, even if she does realize that he is "in the mood", there is no Chiyuv d'Oraisa for her to ignore her other desires and respond to her husband's desires....<< Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) >>>>> There is a great irony in what you have written. You seem to think that there is an inequality, a lack of reciprocity, in the mutual obligations of men and women -- with women having all the power and men all the obligation. It is ironic because the mitzva for men to be sensitive to their wives' feelings derives from the /curse/ that was given to Chava! Look at Rashi on Ber 3:16, "el ishech teshukasech -- your desire will be towards your husband." Rashi says the curse is: You -- the woman -- will desire relations, but will not be so brazen as to request it verbally. Rather, "he will rule over you" -- it is all from him -- the initiative is his -- and not from you. [end Rashi] To modern ears this Rashi might sound strange because the idea that "women are not brazen" sounds so old-fashioned. Modesty has gone out the window in modern society. But even the brazen women -- and certainly the more refined and eidel women -- want to be wanted. By their nature, most women do not want to be the ones taking the initiative or the ones pursuing the men. For most women it is embarrassing to have to ask outright. If you want an example of a woman in the Torah who was brazen even way back then, look at Eishes Potiphar -- "Lie with me." The very fact that she behaved this way shows what a hussy she was, but also, it shows that she was utterly humiliated. Not only was Yosef not seduced by her wiles, but even when she so lost her dignity as to ask him outright, he /still/ refused. It is no wonder she felt such a burning desire for revenge. It was in order to mitigate the harshness of Chava's curse that Chazal instituted the rule that men have to be sensitive to their wives' desires, that a woman should not have to humiliate herself by spelling out what she wants. It is a chessed that a man does for his wife, to mitigate the curse, to somewhat level the playing field in which men have all the advantages! I actually think this a wonderful example of Chazal's extraordinary sensitivity to women. They acknowledge and partially correct an imbalance that favors men at the expense of women, ever since Adam and Chava. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 22:47:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (bk via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:47:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: depression Message-ID: I have worked in the mental health field and have other personal experience with serious depression. The description which you provided "mild depression", would not at all indicate a danger to anyone including daycare children. It seems that the description is very much lacking. Either there is much more to warrant defying her confidence, including/especially to a rav, or someone doesn't understand what depression is all about. I'm assuming that the former is the case. So, the question is, what can we learn from a case in which the problem is not accurate? b'kavod, ChaimBaruch Kaufman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 06:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:19:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waiting Six Hours for Dairy- A Rabbanite Response to Qaraism Message-ID: <20150812131918.925F517FC6A@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/08/waiting-six-hours-for-dairy-rabbanite.html Qaraites are a Jewish group that began around 760 CE. They rejected the Talmud and rabbinic Judaism and insisted that Jews only observe halacha as expressed in the literal text of the Torah. "Qaraite" means "Scriptualist". The movement started in Iraq and Persia by Jews who objected to the authority of the leaders of the Babylonian Talmud Academies, the Gaonim. The Gaonim and their successors, the rishonim, are called Rabbanites because of their stance in defending the Talmud and rabbinic laws. Scholars have noted that many minhagim began as a response to the Qaraite movement. For example, the recital of Bameh Madlikim on Friday evening after davening [1] was started in the times of the Gaonim to reinforce the rabbinic stance on having fire prepared before Shabbos, in opposition to the Qaraite view that no fire may be present in one's home on Shabbos [2]. There is evidence that the reading of Pirkei Avos [3] on Shabbos afternoon, which began in Gaonic times, was to emphasize to the Jewish masses that the Oral Law was passed down since Moshe Rabbeinu as stated in the first mishna of Pirkei Avos. Professor Haym Soloveitchik [4] has argued convincingly that the unique arrangement of Hilchos Shabbos in Rambam's Mishna Torah was organized specifically with anti-Qaraite intent. Briefly, Rambam's formulation of the Shabbos laws does not follow a chronological order or any other expected logical order. See the above URL for more. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:03:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 11:25:27AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : R' Lichtenstein was bothered by this point and answered that we need to : rely on our teachers and Gedolim. : "Probably most significant, however, is our reliance upon our own mentors. : Sensing that modern gedolim, "the judge of your era" -- for our purposes, most : notably, the Rav, but not he alone -- have examined the issue and the evidence : and adopted a positive stance, we, ordinary students of Torah, follow in : their footsteps as we identify with their position... : I understand that for many of us that is not a very satisfying answer and : leads to many questions about why specifically here we follow minority : opinions as opposed to other places (e.g. wombs issues, etc.) but I don't : think there is a better answer. This is the way the halachic system works. To some extent, yes. However, I do not know what halachiccategory is "gedolim". My job is to have my own poseiq, someone ho cnot only knows the halakhah, but knows me and my situation. Or to get as close to that as possible. My rav's job is to have experts to inform him, and to know when a question is either too complicated for his skills, or the stakes to high (eg mamzeirus, potential intercommunal fallout, or....) to not consult others, starting with his own rav. Yes, you will eventually reach the few at the head of the pyramid, so I guess we can call them "the gedolim", and their opinions will end up shaping policy on big or broad issues. But I do not think RYBS would be happy learning that he had a talmid in the job of mara de'asra who had so little confidence in his own ability to map theory to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronos and desires of the people in it that he hands the job off to people who know less of that reality. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:19:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:19:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> References: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150812201911.GB8165@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 11:28:31PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the : influence of the outside world. The same sort of influence that reputedly : led to the cherem of Rabbi Gershom (Jews who are supposed to be the : upholders of morality cannot be seen to have more than one wife in a world : where that is seen as immoral)... I understood this as well as the Sho'el uMeishiv's take on intellectual property in a single way, and slightly different than your explanation. The Sho'el uMeishiv invokes "lo sehei Torah shelanu kesichah beteilah shelahem. If they recognize a kind of property as a right our native sense finds moral, we obviously must obligated to protect it as well. This is not DDD, as the protection isn't to the extent of the civi law, but to the extent of the halakhos of property. He is identifying a moral obligation we must halachically defend, not the civil law in and of itself... My understanding is that it's not that we learned morality from their law, but their law reflects a new social contract. The new expectations are a change in metzi'us. Now that we expect to have intellectual property, that is part of the new situation, to which a new pesaq applies. Similarly, I understood Rabbeinu Gershom's mandating monogamy in the same terms. He was less worried about being seen as immoral, or learning morality from Xian marriage norms. Rather, once society created different expectations of what marriage is, we had no ability nor obligation to reset to the old expectations (after all, even chazal referred to sister wives as "tzaros"), and therefore have to support a moral solution to the new expactations. A woman gets married expecting a man for herself. Rabbeinu Gershom mandated treating that woman morally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:22:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150812202233.GC8165@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:04:47PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : ... But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent : the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no corresponding : safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. Given the size of the two porn industries, or the difference between what "porn" usually refers to and locating smut in a romance novel, I would think that it's not just Chazal who would conclude the threat of objectfication is assymetric. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 16:24:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:24:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> References: , <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <13CC426F-297A-4E3A-AC33-979E5391FA35@sibson.com> > > But I do not think RYBS would be happy learning that he had a talmid in > the job of mara de'asra who had so little confidence in his own ability > to map theory to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronos > and desires of the people in it that he hands the job off to people who > know less of that reality. > > I agree but I think it's also true That RYBS would not be happy learning that he had a talmid in the job of mara de'asra who had so so much confidence in his own ability to create the theory to map to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronosand desires of the people in it that he doesn't hand the job off to those more qualified to break new ground. Kol tuv 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 20:21:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:21:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: I wrote: : ... But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent : the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no : corresponding safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. R' Micha Berger responded: > Given the size of the two porn industries, or the difference > between what "porn" usually refers to and locating smut in a > romance novel, I would think that it's not just Chazal who > would conclude the threat of objectfication is assymetric. Chazal were aware of the differences between those two industries, and they suggested reasons for it on the top few lines of Kesubos 64b. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 12:36:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:36:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Copyright Message-ID: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> Back in Jun 2001, Napster was in the news, and I heard a shiur from R Zev Reichman, then of REITS' Kollel Elyon. So at the first on-list mention of copyrights, I used it as an excuse to post a summary on-list at and . It's been 14 years, and I just learned of a beautiful einfahl by R' Asher Weiss on the subject. So, I'm reviewing the list, and adding to it. (v7n58 #13 is marked ">", #4 is marked ":".) > 1- Dina dimalchusa issues: > According to Tosafos on Gittin, dina dimalchusah dinah is only on > taxation. > The Beis Yitzchak does rule that ddd applies here. However, RZR opined > that ddd still wouldn't apply apply to Sony Bono's law that was aimed > specifically at Disney, allowing them to extend their copyright on some > animated characters. It's not an evenly applied rule. > 2- I already cited the most chamur, the Sho'el uMeishiv 1:44, who goes > beyond ddd. : The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral : obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it : is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership : of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal : (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights : are lehalachah also eternal. : Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for : that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a : halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos : of copyright. : I just want to note the SuM's assumption, and the importance he assigns : moral rights identified by the surrounding culture. > RZR wondered if the SuM would also recognize the French philosophy of > copyright: that the artist could sell reproduction and profit rights, but > eternally retains rights to controlling how the idea is changed. (So even > if you sell a painting, the owner is allowed to copy it, but not modify > it.) After all, this is also a secularly identified moral right. Would > it be a halachah only in France? > 3- Hasagas gevul: > There is an old cheirem, invoked in many if not most haskamos for a few > centuries, against copying sefarim. (The SuM mentions it.) The cheirem > is at least as old as the publication of Tomer Devora (about a century > after it was written) -- because it's mentioned in the haskamos. That > if one copies the sefer beli reshus, or buys such a copy he is subject > to the cheirem and will lose all the berachos showered on people who > learn TOmer Devorah listed in the begining of the haskamah. > The Chasam Sofer traces the cheirem back to the Maharam Padua's edition of > the Rambam. After he invested all the time and money preparing the plates, > a non-Jewish publisher, Justinian, took those plates and printed his > own copy of the Yad, charging one gold coin less than the original. The > Rama said that anyone who bought a Justinian edition was under cheirem, > as they prevented him from recouping his loss. > Given this lashon, the CS concludes that the problem is hasagas gezul. > However, as RZR noted, hasagas gevul only applies to unfair competition, > not to give copies away as a tzadakah or a fundraiser. > This is also the conclusion of R' Moshe. R' Bleich, back when he was > a talmid at Torah Vadaas found a rare publication of a notebook of R' > Chaim and had it published as a TvD fundraiser. The original publisher > found out about it and cried "hasagas gevul". They went to R' Moshe who > ruled in favor of R' Bleich. > 4- Issur geneivah: > R' Bleich himself, when writing on the subject, quotes "ein berei'ach > mishum me'ilah", and that there is no geneivah without a cheftzah. > 5- Hezek > Now we're in "Micha's 2 cents" territory. Li nir'eh that even for a > tzedakah to do it, even if not hasagas gevul, you are causing hezek to > someone who would otherwise earn money. > Even if not quantifiably assur, I would want to invoke bal tishaktzu on > this one. > 6- Chilul Hashem > In a case like Napster, where the case will have a kol and a trial in > the press, I would think that the risk of chillul Hashem, and therefore > *dinei nefashos*, is enough to assur it -- even in cases where the > copying would be found to be technically legal. 7- Chamas So I heard from R' J Ziring (YUTorah.org) that R' Asher Weiss in a 2013 shiur compared the theft of intellectual property to the dor hamabul (after revisiting some of the above). I found a blog post of RJZ's that describes it or : Chazal explain that the sin of the dor hamabul was that they would each steal less than a shaveh perutah. Thus, in the aggregate they would destroy people's livelihood, but none of them could be prosecuted in court. From here he argued that there is an issur to do something, which while not formally theft, lends to a society that destroys other people's financial well being. If no one respects intellectual property, then inventors, writers, and the like will have no way of supporting himself. Thus, even if no one can properly be called a gazlan, they have all participated in chamas. Tir'u baTov! -Micha > PS: While on the subject, I should point out that we obtain reshus to > include any emails that are reposted on Avodah. When asking, I make it > clear that a copy will appear in the web archive as well. -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 15:08:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baal Nefesh in the Igeros Moshe Message-ID: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> R' Elli Fischer contrasted the use of baal nefesh yachmir in the MB with its use in the IM. (Also heard via R' Jonathan Ziring.) The MB uses baal nefesh yachmir to refer to chumeros where the person is acting in a way to fulfill all shitos. The MB lists the more recent opinions, and then advises that the baal nefesh follow the most stringent. (Although I believe we found in previous iterations that the MB doesn't actualy use the expression particularly often. The IM argues that chalav hacompanies is actually chalav yisrael, so that there is no textual reason to only drink milk that was literally Yisrae'el ro'ahu, as opposed to using anan sahade eidus. But leshitaso, FDA certified milk is kosher even according to the Peri Chadash. (YD 1:47) In 1:48 he dismisses all other possibilities, and then says baal nefesh yachmir. RMF's baal nefesh is not being chosheish for all shitos, he dismissed those other shitos. Instead he is keeping minhag yisrael saba beyond halakhah. Pretty much the opposite of the MB's baal nefesh, who is ignoring accepted pesaq in order to make sure all the textual bases are covered. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 20:27:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 05:27:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Baal Nefesh in the Igeros Moshe In-Reply-To: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> References: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55CD6005.7020707@zahav.net.il> I don't have it open in front of me, but IIRC, in his psak on eating veal RMF makes it very, very clear that the baal nefesh will not eat it and anyone who does is (to use my words) walking on thin ice. The way he relates to a baal nefesh in the CY issue (it is a nice thing to do but if you don't keep, no big deal) vs the veal issue (you really shouldn't be eating this stuff) is stark. Ben On 8/14/2015 12:08 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In 1:48 he dismisses all other possibilities, and then says baal nefesh > yachmir. RMF's baal nefesh is not being chosheish for all shitos, he > dismissed those other shitos. Instead he is keeping minhag yisrael saba > beyond halakhah. > > Pretty much the opposite of the MB's baal nefesh, who is ignoring accepted > pesaq in order to make sure all the textual bases are covered. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 14 12:13:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Heather Luntz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 20:13:15 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> I have been struggling with this thread, but have not found it easy to explain why, although I will do my best: On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:153am EDT, R Saul Guberman wrote: : RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & : the Tosafists. : http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ : Our *Torah shebe'al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish : history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a : great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, : but the *Torah shebe'al peh* would have survived without him. However, : without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, : any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe'al peh* today. And RMB then wrote: >Which is a different statement than the subject line. >I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to >the survival of mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue understanding the gemara. I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? I really struggle with that statement. Now, if you want to limit the claim, and say that Rashi and Tosphos are far more key than the Rambam to what people do in modern day yeshivas all day, including (if not particularly) the Briskers, then it would be hard to disagree. But is what people are doing in yeshiva all day in the 21st century "the mesorah" or is the Shulchan Aruch "the mesorah"? What are the consequences if we relegate the Shulchan Aruch and elevate the Tosphists in terms of halacha as she is practiced? Somehow these seem troubling directions in which to be heading, but I must log off as shabbas is coming very soon in this part of England (and I, for one, am not about to rely on Rabbanu Tam, Tosphotist par excellence, regardless of his mesorah, I don't know about you,). -Micha Shabbat Shalom Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 14 13:48:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:48:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 08:13:15PM +0100, Heather Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> Which is a different statement than the subject line. : :> I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah :> through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who :> stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of mesorah :> than the parshanim... : : I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan : Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the : Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, : we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. : : Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the : Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? Let me make it far more more explicit. The subject line differs from my understanding of RGS' expansion of RYGB's idea in that it claims "Mesora ONLY through Rashi" (emphasis added), whereas I heard them talking about cofication being "less critical". Comparative terms, not absolute ones. IOW, the mesorah could survive without codes, if we had to. But it couldn't survive without parshanim. Without them we couldn't handle any new case that isn't in a code, nor even have the skills to always determine which are the new cases. In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that discusses how the conclusions are reached. Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The parshan connects the past to the now. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 15:41:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:41:09 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> I wrote: : I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan : Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the : Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, : we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. : : Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the : Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? And RMB replied: <<>Let me make it far more more explicit. The subject line differs from my understanding of RGS' expansion of RYGB's idea in that it claims "Mesora ONLY through Rashi" (emphasis added), whereas I >heard them talking about cofication being "less critical". Comparative terms, not absolute ones. >IOW, the mesorah could survive without codes, if we had to. But it couldn't survive without parshanim. Without them we couldn't handle any new case that isn't in a code, nor even have the >skills to always determine which are the new cases.>> Firstly of course, the Rambam wrote his perush on Mishnayos, so I don't think it is merely parshanut that distinguishes the two. Secondly, in the Rambam's code there are various "nire li" statements where he comes across areas where the answer from the gemora is not clear, and he therefore inserts his own view. It seems slightly bizarre to suggest that he or the Shulchan Aruch ever assumed that their code would make determining new cases more difficult, nor does that seem accurate historically. >In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that >discusses how the conclusions are reached. So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no Rambam and no Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any distinction at all between the halacha of the Orthodox and the halacha as championed by the Conservative movement? Is that not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would of necessity lead (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent than we have today - one that would perforce have to embrace the Conservative movement, and certainly all the forms of Open Orthodoxy that RGS is so vehemently against. Part of RAM's distress on one of the other threads on this list at the moment, regarding modern day psak vis a vis sexual relations versus the postion of the Shulchan Aruch has to do with the fact that Orthodoxy in general (although not, I would note, at least some of the Chassidic movements, such as Ger, and possibly increasingly not other groups within the Charedi world) has without appearing to notice, abandoned the position as set out in the Shuchan Aruch (albeit for one that can be said to be the more majority position of Chazal). But take the codes out of the equation and *all* these multiple rishonic positions become tenable, allowing a general free for all within the vastness of the parshanut tradition. The codes therefore are a critical part of what might be considered a dual process - equivalent to the situation where one first brainstorms ideas, and then whittles away to those most tenable. There are of course, situations where Sephardim do not posken like the Shulchan Aruch, and there are even more situations where Ashkenazim do not hold like the Rema, preferring a Shach, Taz or Magen Avraham (or even a Bach). But in the post-Shulchan Aruch world the conversation that RAM has been leading on the other thread is fundamental and critical - if we do not posken like the Shuchan Aruch in the particular case in question - we need to understand and investigate precisely why not, because by and large, the Shulchan Aruch draws the line as to where we go or do not go halacha l'ma'aseh. Without the Shulchan Aruch, we are only left with the brainstorming side of the halachic endeavour, and that means - as I intimated in my closing remarks, that if you find Rabbanu Tam's shkia analysis compelling (or indeed, that of a more minor rishon), there would seem to be little to prevent you holding like it halacha l'ma'aseh. What would hold us together? Indeed you are, I see, engaged in a debate regarding hair covering on another thread. But surely those who seek to justify the practice of many, many women who otherwise led and lead fully halachic lives are full square within the mesorah of tosphos. It is only those who also have an eye to the codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in the light of common practice. >Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The parshan connects the past to the now. That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation handed over to the next. And the generation of the Shulchan Aruch, in accepting it as "The" Code which shall be followed in most circumstances (with exceptions) handed that down to all generations following - making the Shulchan Aruch the mesorah par excellence. I can debate the nature of shkia with the Tosphotists in a conversation down the generations, but my mesorah regarding Shabbas is unlikely to be based upon any such conversation, nor is it expected to be. If you want to redefine the word mesorah to mean only that which Rashi has given us, then of course the title of this thread becomes 100% correct, just rather pointless. Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more of them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the Rambam, were able to formulate their halachic conclusions. Without them it would be far more difficult to have anything like the number of people we have today engaging with the gemora. The Rambam in contrast might well not see the point - if you can't manage without Rashi and Tosphos, then, in his view, maybe you shouldn't be trying, and should be relying on his code instead, leaving gemora engagement to the true elite who should be leading the people. That aspect of the Rambam's view has not dominated as "the mesorah" - using the more commonly understood use of the term. While we might debate the length of time that should be spent in yeshiva, and whether one should do work/army instead of long term yeshiva study - there is pretty close to universal agreement within Orthodoxy that all Jews should spend at least some significant time engaging with the fundamental texts, even if they are of only average intelligence. But what people do in yeshiva is still, in my view, only a small slice of "the mesorah", as it is commonly understood (as opposed to as redefined by RYBS) and a far greater slice is the Shuchan Aruch itself, and for that, the Rambam's influence is surely pre-eminent. >-Micha Shavuah tov Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 13:35:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:35:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim Message-ID: Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? [image: --] Shui Haber [image: https://]about.me/shuihaber *"The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are."* ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 19:20:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:20:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55CFF350.3030205@sero.name> On 08/15/2015 04:35 PM, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: > Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? Devarim 6:13, 10:20. Hil' Yesodei Hatorah 2:1 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 22:14:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:14:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R. Micha offered the following critiques: > Although there is long evidence of rabbis saying it's a problem, but > not a battle they can win. So the mimetic side is dismissable. (Also, > how does someone who advocates for more roles for women in shul make a > mimetic argument?) If the same rabbi's whose wives were not covering hair were the same ones saying it is a problem, this critique makes sense. otherwise, there is no reason to say that those whose wives were not covering their hair were unhappy with the mitziut. The mimetic argument here is that the shitta existed and was followed. It doesn't mean that it is obligatory. So I think this is apples and oranges regarding roles of women in shul. >: In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of >: uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is... >: If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered >: hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. > But saying it's not a breach of tzeni'us doesn't say it's allowed, > that's your addition not in the translated text you quote. RYB could > mean what the AhS says, that it's terrible things came to this, but you > may daven in her presence. Or, that whle it's not a tzeni'us problem, > it's still prohibited deOraisa as per the implication in parashas sotah. I think that you are making a moving target, one rationale knocked down and another rationale surfaces. Obviously hair covering could be mandated for a number of different reasons, but all of them? I am not sure it is necessary to be yotzei l'chol hadayot and even if so, the sources who permit, permit it regardless of the rationale against. I also have to go back and look at the source because I think it said more than the quote. >: Here is a list of easily accessable sources: >: Rabbi Marc Angel... > He presumes hair covering is das Yehudis, which makes his a rare > shitah. (Again, given the derivation from a pasuq.) > But then again, R' Ovadiah Yosef firmly disagrees. He obviously is not paskening like R. Ovadiah > But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And > two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. There are Ashkenazim among the sources as well.....I am illustrating that not only the shitah exists, but was followed and continues to be followed by a significant segment of the MO community. And, were it not for the shoah, it seems that a large segment of Lithuanian Jewry would still be following it. ... >: I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and >: not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. >: However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and >: everyone can come to their own conclusion. > ... which is what he does, that the theory is there, but it's a shitah > dechuyah. And noticably, he too quotes R' Yosef Masas, R' Moshe Malka > and the Kaf haChaim -- Sepharadi sources. >: Rav Yosef Haim... > So, assuming the woman doesn't eat qitniyos, may she go with her hair > uncovered? Again, apples and oranges, or peanuts and sesame. It isn't just a Sephardi shita. > And even if she does... At what point is a shitah dechuyah? Good question. From my limited point of view, if it makes sense and some Rabbonim of at least some stature (and I think Rav Messas et al quality) hold that position, it is not dechuyah. What is your definition? ... >: Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony >: of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. >: R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: >: "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did >: not cover her hair? ... >: Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in >: this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." >: I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the >: artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with >: uncovered hair. >: Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat >: common... > And yet the rabbanim protested. This isn't even admissable as mimetic > tradition, any more than noting how often people speak leshon hara or > buy off-the-books or anything else rabbis have failed to curb. I do not agree. Many in Meah Shearim protest that all women do not wear long thick stockings but that doesn't mean that every rabbi holds that long thick stockings are obligatory. if it is the rabbi whose wife didn't cover her hair, you have an argument. otherwise I suggest that those who protest do not speak for everyone. >: uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his >: wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. > He too, would only need to be convinced is wasn't ervah in the sense of > "all those men" sinning. But as we see in the AhS, that doesn't mean > it's allowed. It is a possible option, but not the probable one. It seems you are going out of your way to figure out how this could occur in consonance with your pre-selected approach, rather than accepting the most likely and obvious rationale. kol tuv. Noam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 16 14:05:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:05:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150816210531.GE28046@aishdas.org> : I think that you are making a moving target, one rationale knocked down : and another rationale surfaces... You gave two counterarguments: 1- Ashkenazi mimeticism 2- A list of sources that appear to be predominantly if not entirely Sepharadi. I therefore gave a teo part reply: 1- Ashk mimeticism was consistently gainst rabbinic will. Even the AhS who weighs halakhah-as-practiced as a major factor in pesaq laments the ubiquitous sin of neglecting this din. He also says it's not ervah. So, the sole person who does spell out Ashk position gives me no reason to equate either (1a) ubiquity nor (1b) a textual statement ruling out ervah with permissability. 2- Those sources are not only Seph, but are possibly dechuyos in their community as well. But at the end of the day, I did write: :> But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And :> two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. (And I still find it ironic that someone making a mimetic argument about hair covering wants to also change the role of women by looking at tets to the exclusion of 3-1/3 millenia of common practice.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 17 08:59:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 11:59:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Soloveitchik on Single Women Lighting Shabbat Candles Message-ID: <20150817155949.GA11283@aishdas.org> http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/single-women-lighting-shabbat-candles Snippet: Torah Musings Halakhic Positions of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik Single Women Lighting Shabbat Candles By Aharon Ziegler on Aug 14, 15 1:00 am in Halakhic Positions ... ... Those who have family customs and if their minhag [custom] is that the single women do not light their own candles then they should certainly not deviate from their custom- "Ve'al Titosh Torat I'mecha"... ... .... As a matter of fact Rav Soloveitchik suggested that Le'chat'chila, all women should indeed first turn off the electric lights, light the Shabbat candles, open the electric lights and then recite the Beracha. Regarding single girls, Rav Soloveitchik noted that this was the practice in Europe, even in his town, and that is how the Rav practiced with his daughters when they were single-that they lit their own candles, even with a Beracha, even when his wife also lit candles with a Beracha. Interestingly, RYBS promoted mimeticism in not taking on the practice of lighting candles if one's mother and grandmother didn't light when they were single and still living with their parents. Yet in the same discussion, he acknowledges how the new reality of electric lights makes relying on the mimeticism of making the berachah on the candles / oil alone just a bedi'eved. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 01:22:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 04:22:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Copyright In-Reply-To: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> References: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55D2EB40.1060303@sero.name> On 08/13/2015 03:36 PM, in a message that Gmail, for some reason, decided was spam, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Beis Yitzchak does rule that ddd applies here. However, RZR opined > that ddd still wouldn't apply apply to Sony Bono's law that was aimed > specifically at Disney, allowing them to extend their copyright on some > animated characters. It's not an evenly applied rule. This isn't true. > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, > it is impossible that the Torah is less moral. This assumes its own conclusion. The exact same reasoning could have been used during the Jim Crow era to "prove" that the Torah requires racial segregation of shuls and yeshivos, or during Prohibition to "prove" that the Torah requires teetotalism. > Now we're in "Micha's 2 cents" territory. Li nir'eh that even for a > tzedakah to do it, even if not hasagas gevul, you are causing hezek to > someone who would otherwise earn money. Even if not quantifiably assur, > I would want to invoke bal tishaktzu on this one. Why should he earn that money? You could invoke the same idea against giving anything away to someone who might otherwise have bought it. Every wedding takes parnassah away from wherever the guests might have bought their dinner that night. Sellers do not own their customers, and have no rights to them. > Chazal explain that the sin of the dor hamabul was that they would > each steal less than a shaveh perutah. [...] From here he argued > that there is an issur to do something, which while not formally theft, Stop right there. Stealing less than a shaveh pruta *is* formally theft. The thief is over on lo sigzol. It's not *returnable*, which is an entirely different matter. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 17 22:18:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:18:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Splendor of Clothes Message-ID: <20150818051824.9B2F7183235@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/the-splendor-of-clothes/ Rav Soloveitchik further added that wearing a Yarmulke, a Kippa, is more dignified than a baseball cap. He said, "If the President of the United States suddenly appeared and wanted to take a picture with me, would I wear a Russian hat, a baseball cap,- or a Kippa? That is the way we should stand Shemoneh Esrei when addressing the King of the Universe, HaKadosh Baruch-Hu. See the above URL for more. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 15:08:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:08:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150818220842.GA26873@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:35:26PM +0300, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: : Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? While it's obligatory (see Zev's citations), I am not sure it's halakhah rather than something prior to halakhah. As in Moshe rabbeinu's list: Mah H' sho'el mei'imakh, ki im - leyir'ah es H' Elokekha - lalekhes bekhol derakhav - ule'avah oso - vela'avod es H' Elokekha... - lishmor es mitzvos H' ve'es chuqosav... It would seem that MRAH is excluding these for thing from the realm of mitzvos and chuqim, and yet still mandatory. Even though the Rambam calls "lalekhes bekhol derakhav" to be "HILKHOS Dei'os". I don't know how to shtim this with the pasuq. It seems more like the Rambam's approach, that there is a duty of pursuing qedushah, yashrus and tov in ways beyond the limits of black-letter halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 10:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:17:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halachic Requirement for Dayanim Evaluating In-Person Facial Expressions of Parties in Bais Din In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150819171747.GA2506@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:49:07AM -0700, Baruch Cohen via Avodah wrote: : ... The Mishnah describes how the members of the Sanhedrin : sat in a row in the shape of a half-circle... : Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin 1:3) ... : The Tosefta : (8:1) cites differing opinions regarding the seating position of the : President of the Sanhedrin. Tanna Kamma holds that the President sat in the : center of the semi-circle, with thirty-five of the members of the Sanhedrin : seated on each side of him. R' Elazar b. Tzadok says that when Rabban : Gamliel sat in the Sanhedrin in Yavne, one of the sages sat to his right, : and all the others sat to his left.... My apologies to RBC that I don't have any thoughts about his intended topic, but he got me thinking about something else... To quote myself from 2010 : > REMT quoted the IE, which I found at Shemos 25:37, in what Bar Ilan > calls the short version of the IE: > Neiroseha: And the qadmonim said that one lamp was in the middle > ve"hashisha ne'erachim ze achar ze bachatzi iggul" (to cut-n-paste > from REMT's post) > And after the scripture said "vehei'ir al eiver paneha", and the > reason for "al eiver" one [eiver], behold the shape is clear. Not semicircular as seen from the front, but the lamps in that pattern as seen from above. Continuing: > The IE appears to very explicitly places all the lamps on the same side > of the middle one. Similarly, in the long version of the IE, Shemos 27:21: > Yaarokh: baavur hayos haneiros bechatzi igul. Ve'od adaber al zeh. Notice that leshitaso, the layout of the Sanhderin parallels the layout of the neiros in the keli most associated with chokhmah. Which makes it interesting that the definition of neir ma'aravi also parallels the machloqes about where the nasi sat. We generally assume it's the middle lamp, on the central shaft. However, Tamid 33a speaks of the two western lights, which we also find implied in Abayei hava mesader, "hatavas shetei neiros" being at a different time than "hatavav 5 neiros". >From which Rashi (see also Rashi Menachos 86b "mimenah hayah madliq") concludes that the neir ma'ariv was the 2nd in the row. So it looks like a two machloqes, leshitasam, setup. But... IE's semicircular menorah is based on the idea that the middle lamp was westmost, the other lamps curving off toward the NE and SE directions. A variant on the shitah that the menorah stood so the lamps run north to south. The idea that the 2nd was the ner hama'ari has the lamps running from west to east. The 2 neiros on the west are lit on their own. The second from the west end is the neir hama'arivi, a title not given the westmost candle because it is lit facing the NhM, with the wick on the east. But that leshitasam looked so pretty! Anyone want to help me salvage it? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 12:25:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:25:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? In-Reply-To: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> References: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150819192519.GB2506@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 12:28:27AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Question-from a torah point of view should it make a difference : who shows up at the therapist's (or Rabbi's)door (for any therapy or : advice)? How does Halacha balance the needs of the individual, the : family, the community, Jewish society and/or society in general? Confidentiality and for that matter focusing on the needs of the client serves society in general in the long run. Society needs not only therapists, but therapists clients are willing to get help from. If we tell therapists that they are to compromise client trust for the sake of the family, community or society, we will lose that. So, even if halakhah requires factoring others' needs in to a greater extent, it might not change things all that much. (After all, the profession developed those standards for a reason. That reason needn't reflect a different set of values.) There are also the secondary effects of the law... If someone loses the opportunity to offer therapy because disobeying those standards open them up to threat of suit or legal consequences, we still lose the therapy. Which has to be factored in to the halachic decision. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 14:45:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:45:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Bais Hamussar] The Small Things Message-ID: <20150819214542.GD812@aishdas.org> ----- Forwarded message from Bais Hamussar ----- Bais Hamussar Al Sheim HaRav Shlomo Wolbe zt"l Shoftim - Elul Rav Wolbe (Daas Shlomo) cites a mind boggling Medrash (Bereishis Rabba 2:7). Reb Avahu said, "From the beginning of time Hashem gazed at both the actions of the righteous and the actions of the wicked. Yet, it is not clear whose actions He desired. Once the Torah writes, 'And Hashem saw the light that it was good' it is clear that He desires the actions of the righteous and not the actions of the wicked." What is this supposed to mean? Could there be a possibility that Hashem prefers the actions of the wicked over the actions of the righteous? Rav Simcha Zissel Ziv, the Alter of Kelm, offers a beautiful explanation. Indeed, even the wicked perform good deeds. However, they limit their good deeds to grandiose actions whose effects can be heard around the world. They will found organizations, create moral ideologies and give their lives for the sake of their country. In contrast, the righteous focus on the small, even minuscule, actions. Chazal were asking who's good deeds are superior -- those performed by the righteous or those performed by the wicked? The answer was provided by the Torah: Hashem prefers the small actions of the righteous over the high-flying deeds of the wicked. A similar idea is mentioned by the Rambam. He asserts that for one who wishes to give tzeddaka, it is better that he give many small donations than one big donation. Many small mitzvos are preferential to a single big action. Rav Yisrael Salanter writes that the focus of teshuva also must be on the small actions. Many are overcome with despair when faced with the prospect of teshuva. "There is no possible way for me to stop speaking lashon hara" or "I simply can't overcome this middah" they lament. However, there is no room for despair when the topic is teshuva. They are absolutely right; at the present time they cannot entirely overcome their inclinations. Nevertheless, they can greatly reduce the severity of their actions if they would merely desist at the times when it is easy for them to refrain from transgressing. If they would take small steps and resist for five minutes here and there, they will already have progressed tremendously down the road of teshuva. With this in mind, our understanding of Chazal's well known statement becomes even more profound. "Hashem says to Klal Yisrael, 'Open for me a hole like the eye of a needle and I will open for you gateways that wagons and carriages will be able to pass through!'" Hashem specifically is interested in the small holes. Teshuva must begin with a focus on the small actions. "Just five minutes" is a mantra that can change your life. I will refrain from lashon hara just for five minutes. I will learn just for five minutes. I will spend just five minutes on helping another Yid. The truth is that sometimes one doesn't even need five minutes. A wave of the hand to motion that one can't talk now can save a person from pages of bittul Torah or loads of lashon hara. Moreover, Hashem guarantees that He will reciprocate our small gesture with a huge dose of Heavenly assistance, as He waves us through big gateways of teshuva! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 20:49:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:49:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: I'm really very unsure what this thread is asking. Let's take, for example, this paragraph from R' Micha Berger: > In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the > BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, > but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that > discusses how the conclusions are reached. What can you possibly mean, that we COULD HAVE limped along without it? We ARE limping along without it! There is so much that is ALREADY missing from the Mesora! There are so many masechtos missing from the Bavli, for example. I suppose it is possible that Ravina and Rav Ashi never saw a need to compile them, but it's much more likely that they were written and then lost, no? Now, imagine, if you will, a halacha which was decided (by a rishon, acharon, it doesn't matter) because of one obscure gemara that some ingenious thinker found and applied to a particular situation. Without this gemara, the halacha pesuka would have been different than we are accustomed to, but because that gemara -- obscure though it might be -- WAS found, and is a legitimate part of our Mesora, the halacha as we know it came to be. There must be hundreds of such halachos, maybe even thousands. But what if that particular gemara was not hiding in Chullin or Makos? Suppose it was a gemara in Terumos? Then that halacha would never be known to us, because that gemara has been lost. R"n Chana Luntz wrote: > Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more > of them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the > Rambam, were able to formulate their halachic conclusions. You do realize, of course, that there was no such person as "Tosphos". The Tosaphists were very real, and very important, but they were not the ones to decide on the inclusion or exclusion of any particular comment. That was the choice of the publisher of the gemara, and if his whim had gone in another direction, who knows what other views would have gotten more press coverage. (Yes, I know that there are many volumes filled with the writings of even the most obscure Tosaphists, but the fact remains that getting included in the standard printed edition is the path to widest influence.) My point is that while RMB and RCL are trying to imagine what Torah would look like without Tosaphos, as I see it, even the Tosaphos that we do have is a somewhat random document. If Hashgacha (or, some might prefer, blind luck) had gone in another direction, Tosaphos would be very different, and practical halacha with it. But it doesn't stop there. Need I remind anyone that even our Torah Sheb'ksav is a reconstruction (or, some might prefer, an approximation) created by the Baalei Mesorah? If the sources that they worked from had been just a bit different, then our Sifrei Torah today would be different too. And yet, somehow we manage. We use the Torah that we have today, because it rendered the previous versions (the source material of the Baalei Mesorah) to be passul. What an amazing concept! One day, these several Sifrei Torah, all with known yichus, each had its own chezkas kashrus. And the next day, a new document, different from those that preceded it, comes to center stage and replaces the others! I would like to suggest that this is exactly how it would have worked if there was no Rashi, or no Rabenu Tam, or no Rambam, or no Rav Yosef Karo: We would use whatever we did have, and that would be our Torah. It would be different than the Torah that we do have, but so what? Rashi's Torah was different too! IN CLOSING, RCL asked: > So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no > Rambam and no Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any > distinction at all between the halacha of the Orthodox and the > halacha as championed by the Conservative movement? Is that > not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would of necessity lead > (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent than > we have today ... If you've been following me, then my answer to this should be clear: No! This "much broader tent" is pure speculation. If we had no Rav ABC to guide us, the void would have been filled by Rav XYZ, whose views might have been to the right, to the left, or the same. And in *exactly* the same manner as how we are obligated by the new Torah created by the Baalei Mesorah, the possibility of differences is much less important than our confidence and emunah that this Torah is the right one FOR US. Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller on gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:19:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:19:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mesorah only through rashi Message-ID: <> Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against the concept. Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own interpretation and not rely or be bound by any text. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:29:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:29:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mimetism Message-ID: <> I understood mimetism and trying to follow the custom of one's family. This is of no help when the physical circumstances have changed. Would anyone suggest using outdoor toilets because that is what our ancestors did and would object to an indoor bathroom. Plumbing changed the halacha. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:25:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:25:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] splendor of clothes Message-ID: > Rav Soloveitchik further added that wearing a Yarmulke, a Kippa, is > more dignified than a baseball cap. He said, "If the President of the > United States suddenly appeared and wanted to take a picture with me, > would I wear a Russian hat, a baseball cap,- or a Kippa? That is the > way we should stand Shemoneh Esrei when addressing the King of the > Universe, HaKadosh Baruch-Hu. The average person would also not wear a black hat while taking a picture with the president. I have noted before there has become a new minhag of wearing a hat all the time not only when wearing davening or saying a bracha. I went this week to a charedi wedding and most of the men wore their hats throughout the meal. OTOH I also went to a shiur of Rav Zilberstein this week. Throughout the shiur he wore a kippah. In the break he took some food and put on his hat for the bracha and then removed it for the shiur. This is also what I observed from RYBS If so why do other rabbis insist on giving a shiur wearing a hat? [Email #2.] BTW I just received a copy of a formal photo of RYBS with Ed Asner. RYBS is wearing a black kippa -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 05:10:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 08:10:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] splendor of clothes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 3:25 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > I have noted before there has become a new minhag of wearing a hat all > the time not only when wearing davening or saying a bracha. I went this > week to a charedi wedding and most of the men wore their hats throughout > the meal. For me, at least, this is a practical matter: There is often no place to leave a hat, not even in the coat room; and certainly no place from which the hat can be easily retrieved before bentching. --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 16:16:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 19:16:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:49pm EDT, R Akiva Miller wrote: : I'm really very unsure what this thread is asking... Part of the difficult of this thread is that we came in mid-conversation. RGS quoted Qinot Mesorat haRav. The quote is long, so I'm just giving part: Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebe'al peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... This is a comment RYBS frequently made in shiur. Picture sitting in a brisker shiur, where every talmid needs a reference set of shas and Rambam. It is logical for the rebbe to need to remind people that they couldn't play this game of comparing that Yad back to shas if we didn't have Rashi and Tosados opening up shas to understanding. Interestingly, RGS compared this to the Yam Shel Shelomo: Rav Shlomo Luria, the Maharshal, famously said that Rabbeinu Tam was greater than the Rambam (introduction to Yam Shel Shlomo). In discussing Kinah 42, Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik suggests that the French and German Tosafists were more important than the Rambam, without discussing who was greater. The Maharshal was very opposed to the SA. He had a hostile attitude toward the whole notion of codification which goes way beyond RYBS's intent in ways RYBS wouldn't agree to. He and the Maharal (his brother) were of the "many" in RET's response. On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:19am IDT, R Eli Turkel wrote: : Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against the : concept. : Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own : interpretation and not : rely or be bound by any text. This coming in in the middle caused language confusion and consequent frustration for RnCL. On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:41:09PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the :> Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The :> parshan connects the past to the now. : That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. : Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation : handed over to the next. Yes, but if you want to know what RYBS meant, it requires knowing what the word means in RYBS's lexicon, with the connotations he assumed. Notice my suggestion about how "mesorah" was being used fits the quote from the qinos and the example of the Yerushalmi. I understand the frustration of thinking you were discussing a statement that meant one thing and only after formulating a log response being told that it likely meant something else. But that's a straightforward misunderstanding due to your being outside the target audience when RYBS was saying / learning Qinos, and therefore not being used to the connoctations he assumes; and Lewis Carrol refferences aren't needed. I intend to write a post on the meaning of the word "mesorah" as developed in RYBS's and RHS's thought as the start of its own thread. Because it not only comes up here, it comes up in the discussions raging elsewhere (Torah Musings, Cross Currents, Facebook) on RWMO's objections to Open O and feminism. RnCL argues for the importance of codes in that post: : So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no Rambam and no : Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any distinction at all between : the halacha of the Orthodox and the halacha as championed by the : Conservative movement? Is that not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would : of necessity lead (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent : than we have today... ... : But take the codes out of the equation : and *all* these multiple rishonic positions become tenable, allowing a : general free for all within the vastness of the parshanut tradition... ... : It is only those who also have an eye to the : codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in : the light of common practice. Actualy, it's only those who have an eye on common practice. After all, we discuss machloqesin between Rashi and the Rambam in halakhah lemasseh contexts all the time. And if Ashkenazim accepted Rashi's ruling, or one found in Tosafos, the Rama has no problem limiting his pesaq to that rather than that of the Rif, Rambam or Tur. And had there not been a Rama, then some shu"t or parshan could as well. For that matter, there is also the middle ground, the shu"t writer (eg the Ritva) who discusses halachic sevara and lomdus without either using a study of a pre-existing text as his organizing principle nor trying to codify a complete set of rulings. For that matter, the Beis Yoseif and AhS also sit in the middle ground -- code-like works that spend more space discussing how they understood the sources to get there. Returning to RAM's post for his reply to RnCL's question: : If you've been following me, then my answer to this should be clear: No! : This "much broader tent" is pure speculation. If we had no Rav ABC to guide : us, the void would have been filled by Rav XYZ, whose views might have been : to the right, to the left, or the same. And in *exactly* the same manner as : how we are obligated by the new Torah created by the Baalei Mesorah, the : possibility of differences is much less important than our confidence and : emunah that this Torah is the right one FOR US. Without the parshanim, there is no way to fill in the holes between se'ifim, to know how the conclusions were reached so that halakhah can survive beyond the limited set of cases in the Rambam or SA. However, without the codifiers, it's hard to find Rashi's ruling, but not impossible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 02:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:02:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha Message-ID: RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear as ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) 1) Prozbul - while the originial takanah was for individuals that made loans and meant a trip to bet din today it has become a piece of paper signed given to the rabbi or some ad hoc bet din (similar to hatarat nedarim). 2) nonJewish produce during shemitta - whther bought directly from nonJews or through heter mechirah the end result is that the consumer feels little difference between a shemitta year and a regular year. Only consumers that use Otzar bet din have to account for shemitta rules (of course it affects the farmer) 3) mechirat chametz - In the extreme one goes away for the entire Pesach, sells everything in the house and returns after Pesach to eat whatever is around, no need to even put away the chametz. For the rest of us it means putting what we sell in some closet and for some getting rid of "real" chametz like cakes 4) heter iska - again originally meant making a document for a specific loan and allowing a possibility pf loss. Today (in Israel) the banks and other financial insitutions have the document on the wall somewhere and most customers are not even aware of it. Because of court cases the heter iska has been refined so that the possibility of loss to the bank is essentially zero. In addition the heter iska today applies to non business loans - eg renovating a house, buying a car or going on a pleasure trip In addition to things that appear as cereonies to the average layman there are halachot called "ha-aramh" which is a trick way of avoiding the usual halacha. Again some eamples (again including inyana de-yoma" 1) paying the chazan for RH and YK for singing the first night of selichot 2) returning to shemitta - buying the lulav and throwing in for free the etrog 3) R Tarfon "married" 300 women so they could eat termah In an actual case involving yibum a couple without children and the husband was senile and near death while the brother-in-law lived in New Zealand. The solution was for the brother-in-law t "marry" the wife's sister and then divorce her but now the wife no longer needs a yibum or chaitzah. Note that pruzbol and heter iska began as ha-aaramah and later became a ceremony. I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview it. Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 11:57:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 14:57:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah Message-ID: <20150821185758.GA8815@aishdas.org> The word "mesorah" is overloaded with too many meanings. Literally, it's "that which was passed on". So logically, a common usage would make it synonymous with TSBP. And yet it's also used for the near opposite -- we speak of the mesoretic text, its vowels and its trope -- the ultimate in TSBK. And the collections of notes that describe that text are also called "mesorah". (So the mesorah describes the mesorah?! And you can join the email list if you wish to discuss the mesorah, diqduq, nusach hetefillah and the like.) More along the lines of the direction I want to head in, unlike talking about TSBP and thus focusing our attention on Divine origins, when we speak of mesorah we focus out attention on the chain of people. And so there is the usage of "mesorah" to mean mimetic tradition, and is often posed in contrast to textual TSBP. Notice R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik not only defines "mimetic tradition" as knowing what a kezayis is because you remember what your father and greandfather ate at the seder but also considers such cultural mesorah (my term) rather than textual transmission to be the carrier of value and emotion. It is the loss of mimetic tradition that he blames for the loss of dread of the Yamim Noraim and (in speech, not writing) for the loss of what his father RJBS called the "Erev Shabbos Jew" (from "On Repentance, pp 97-98): Even in those neighborhoods made up predominantly of religious Jews, one can no longer talk of the 'sanctity of Shabbat.' True, there are Jews in America who observe Shabbat... But it is not for Shabbat that my heart aches; it is for the forgotten 'erev Shabbat'.... There are Shabbat-observing Jews in America, but there are no 'erev Shabbat' Jews who go out to greet Shabbat with beating hearts and pulsating souls. There are many who observe the precepts with their hands, with their feet, and/or with their mouths - but there are few indeed who truly know the meaning of the service of the heart!" Then we speak of someone "having a mesorah" in two different uses: both if they have a received practice and cultural (as above) and if they have a known rebbe-talmid lineage. Still in contrast to texts, we're talking about the importance of all that Torah that doesn't fit into books. We also talk about those in the hands-on kelei qodesh, such as a sofer, a mohel, a shocheit, etc... also of "having a mesorah" from the one who taught them the craft. And that too is all about the kind of thing you need to learn with your senses and muscles, and not know from books discussing the topic in the abstract. To pasqen mar'os, a rav must also have a mesorah in that sense. It's a skill, a craft, that is learned from practice under the guidance of a mentor. Usually called "shimush". For regular pesaq too there is an element that is a craft, an art, a skill, the kind of thing one needs to learn from shimush, not by studying from abstract texts. Qara veshanah velo shamash TC, harei zeh am ha'aretz. ... - Sotah 22a This is why I like R/Dr Moshe Koppel's metaphor of laws of grammar for some usages rather than always comparing halakhah to civil law. (More as per his sefer "Metahalakhah" than in the essay "Judaism as a First Language" .) As I wrote in Feb : The "First Language" model is much like R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik's mimeticism, but also somewhat different. Halachic rules are an approximation of something that is inherently more complex in kind than rules and algorithms. Much the way grammar is only approximated by ever more complex rules which still never get a foreigner studying the language in class to the same feel for grammar that the native-speaker has. (And why TSBP loses something when not be'al peh.) So the ESL student may know what a past pluperfect is, and I don't, but the native speaker is more likely to know what is valid poetic license and what will produce non-English results. Similarly, a poseiq needs to pick up that feel, not the formal rules. Unstructured knowledge. I have two rather lengthy quotes that help create a feel for what I am talking about. They're quite beautiful, so I appreciate this excuse to share them. Notice how RYBS explicitly defines the word "mesorah" at the beginning of this first quote, UBiqashta miSham 10:1, pp. 63-65 (tr. RARR, The Rav, vol. I, pp. 247-250): Let me stress the idea of the Mesorah by telling you a personal story. I remember that when I was growing up I was frightened and lonely boy. I was afraid of the world. For me, the world was a cold and strange place. I imagined that everyone was mocking me. But I had one friend; do not laugh at me, it was the Rambam [Maimonides]. How did we become friends? Simply, we met. Rambam was a constant guest in our home. During the days when my father was newlywed, supported by my grandfather... father studied Torah day and night. A small group of outstanding young scholars gathered around him and eagerly absorbed his teachings. My father studied with his disciples in the room where my bed was located. My wont was to sit on my bed and listen to my father's words. He constantly quoted Rambam. His method was to first open the Talmud and analyze the text under discussion and the relevant commentaries. He would generally say: these are the explanations of Tosafot. Now, let us analyze the explanations of Rambam. My father would inevitably discover that Rambam rejected the basic explanation of the text and differed with Tosafot. My father would declare, as if to complain, that we cannot comprehend the approach and conclusion of Rambam towards the Talmud text. It was almost as if my father were directly saying to Rambam: "Rabbi Moshe, why have you taken this approach?" My father would continue, "at first glance, the Ra'avad (commentary on the Rambam) is correct at his criticism." The students would jump forward and each would express his thoughts. My father would carefully listen but would refute their proposed interpretations. Once again he would exclaim that the words of Rambam were incomprehensible. Nevertheless, my father would not give up. He would place his head on his hand and soon be engrossed in deep thought. The students would not disturb his thought process. Finally, my father would gradually lifts his head and begin to expound the true meaning of Rambam. Sometimes he would be lengthy, and on other occasions brief. I would strain my ears to catch my father's every word. In my young and impressionable mind, there developed a duel impression: First, that the Rambam was being attacked by enemies who wanted to hurt him, and second, that the Rambam's only defender was my father. I felt strongly that without my father, who knows what would happen to the Rambam? It was as if the Rambam himself were with us in the room, listening to my father's words. The Rambam sat next to me on my bed. What did he look like? I don't know exactly. He seemed to look like an exceedingly handsome and good father. His name was also Moshe, just like my father. Intensely following my father, the students absorbed his every word. Slowly but surely, the tension evaporated. My father continued his discourse with strength and courage. New ideas were clarified; the laws under discussion were classified and carefully articulated. A new light emerged; the questions were resolved and the topic properly explained. Rambam emerged triumphant, and my father's face was filled with happiness and delight. He had defended his friend, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon. The Rambam was comforted and smiled. I too was delighted and joined in the feeling of joy in the room. I would jump from my bed and run to my mother and cry out the good news: "mother, mother, the Rambam won; he beat the Raavad. Father helped him. Look how wonderful my father is!" But once in a great while my father did not succeed, and despite all his efforts the enemies of the Rambam defeated him. Their questions were as strong as iron. Although my father mustered all his strength, he could not save the Rambam from his detractors. Salvation did not come for the Rambam. Deep in thought, my father would lean on his head on the palms of his hands on the table. The students and I, and even the Rambam, waited in great tension for my father's words. But my father would raise his head and sadly state: "there is no answer. The words of the Rambam are difficult. The shiur ended with no explanation. The students were sad, and even my father was depressed. A sense of despair descended upon all of us. I cried. Even the eyes of the Rambam glistened with tear-drops. With a broken heart, I would walk slowly to my mother and cry out to her: "Mother, father cannot answer the Rambam. What will we do? He did not succeed today." And my mother would tell me: "Don't worry. Father will find and answer to the Rambam. If he does not succeed, then when you grow up perhaps you will find an answer to the Rambam. Always remember, my son, the important thing about Torah is to study it in happiness and enthusiasm." It is true that this story is part of my youth. It is not, however, the fantasy of a young child or the creation of mystical feelings. This story is an historic and psychological reality that guides me at all time. When I sit down to learn, the giants of the Mesorah are with me. Our relationship is personal. The Rambam sits to my right, Rabbeinu Tam to my left. Rashi sits at the head and explains, Rabbeinu Tam asks, the Rambam decides the halacha, and the Raavad objects. All of them are with me in my small room, sitting around the table. They look at me with fondness. They world the text out with me, and life a father, they encourage and strengthen me. Learning Torah is not just a didactic, formal, and technical experience whose purpose is the creation and exchange of ideas. Learning Torah is the intense experience of uniting many generations together, the joining of spirit to spirit, and the connecting of soul to soul. Those who transmit the Torah and those who receive the Torah are invited to meet one another at the same historic juncture. And Reflections of the Rav, vol II, pp. 21b-23 (original language in: RARR's The Rav vol II, pp 186-189) this quote winds up with mention of the mesorah: The old Rebbe walks into the classroom crowded with students who are young enough to be his grandchildren. He enters as an old man with wrinkled face, his eyes reflecting the fatigue and sadness of old age. You have to be old to experience this sadness. It is the melancholy that results from an awareness of people and things which have disappeared and linger only in memory. I sit down; opposite me are rows of young beaming faces with clear eyes radiating the joy of being young. For a moment, the Rabbe is gripped with pessimism, with tremors of uncertainly. He asks himself: Can there be a dialogue between an old teacher and young students, between a Rebbe in his Indian summer and students enjoying the spring of their lives? The Rebbe starts his shiur, uncertain as to how it will proceed. Suddenly the door opens and an old man, much older than the Rebbe, enters. He is the grandfather of the Rebbe, Reb Chaim Brisker. It would be most difficult to study Talmud with students who are trained in the sciences and mathematics, were it not for his method, which is very modern and equals, if not surpasses, most contemporary forms of logic, metaphysics or philosophy. The door opens again and another old man comes in. He is older than Reb Chaim, for he lived in the 17th century. His name is Reb Shabtai Cohen, known as the Shach, who must be present when civil law (dinai mamonot) is discussed. Many more visitors arrive, some from the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, and others harking back to antiquity -- Rabbeinu Tam, Rashi, Rambam, Raavad, Rashba, Rabbi Akiva and others. These scholarly giants of the past are bidden to take their seats. The Rebbe introduces the guests to his pupils, and the dialogue commences. The Rambam states a halacha; the Raavad disagrees sharply, as is his wont. Some students interrupt to defend the Rambam, and they express themselves harshly against the Raavad, as young people are apt to do. The Rebbe softly corrects the students and suggest more restrained tones. The Rashba smiles gently. The Rebbe tries to analyze what the students meant, and other students intercede. Rabeinu Tam is called upon to express his opinion, and suddenly, a symposium of generations comes into existence. Young students debate earlier generations with an air of daring familiarity, and a crescendo of discussion ensues. All speak one language; all pursue one goal; all are committed to a common vision; and all operate with the same categories. A Mesorah collegiality is achieved, a friendship, a comradeship of old and young, spanning antiquity, the Middle Ages and modern times. This joining of the generations, this march of centuries, this dialogue and conversation between antiquity and the present will finally bring about the redemption of the Jewish people. After a two-or three hour shiur, the Rebbe emerges from the chamber young and rejuvenated. He has defeated age. The students look exhausted. In the Mesorah experience, years play no role. Hands, however parchment-dry and wrinkled, embrace warm and supple hands in commonality, bridging the gap with separates the generations. Thus, the "old ones" of the past continue their great dialogue of the generations, ensuring an enduring commitment to the Mesorah. So there is a community of baalei mesorah that carries down a mimetic tradition of how to pasqen. A tradition of informal knowledge that cannot be codified into books and that creates a feel and emotional consequence. This is RYBS's usual usage of the word, "mesorah". No better or worse than any of the other usages, but more relevant to two of the conversations we've (we as in various members of the A/A chevrah, not necessarily here on Avodah) been having lately. In the discussion of feminism and Torah (which hasn't been here, but we have had identical cycles here before), RHS's piece "Preserving Our Mesorah in Changing Times" and others like it are often cited. RHS opens: What is Mesorah? Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today.[1] The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers.[2] 1. Avot 1:1. 2. For a more extensive discussion of mesorah, see Nefesh HaRav, pp. 34-58 and Beikvei HaTzon, pp. 21-37. Firmly in line with what we've seen from his rebbe, mesorah is used in the sense of the chain of transmission down time that conveys the art and culture of halakhah decision-making and Torah as a whole. And a bit further down he discusses "Who Is Authorized to Institute Change?" {emph mine): Changes in practice require delicate evaluations that only a master Torah scholar, a gadol baTorah, can properly conduct. Only someone with a broad knowledge and a deep understanding of the corpus of halachah, with an intimate familiarity with both the letter and the spirit of the law, WITH A MASTERY OF BOTH THE RULES AND THE ATTITUDES OF THE MESORAH, can determine when a change is acceptable or even required. The more wide-reaching the proposed change, the greater the expertise required to approve it. The evaluator must not only be a master of the mesorah, but he must also be able to consider new practices based solely on values internal to the mesorah, removing external influences from the deliberation.[14] 14. See Halakhic Mind, n. 98. But I think this example from a teshuvah (tr and poor title by YWN is more on-topic: Indeed, the Rav would often say (see drasha to Parshas Korach), that every person must recognize that he needs a Rav or a Rebbe. Even a Talmid Chochom whose Rebbe had passed away must constantly ask himself in truth (when they present questions to him) what his Rebbe would have said in such a scase, and what stance he would have taken. ... The expression that some of those who have permitted this utilize that according to the technical halacha a certain act is permitted, and that which people wish to prohibit it is because of political considerations is incorrect. For even a matter such as changing the mesorah the traditions of the Jewish people is in and of itself an integral section of halacha. When one rules on the donning of Tefillin for women it is not enough to merely examine the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch in Hilchos Tefillin and in the sources there and treat it as a simple question. The version of mesorah in RYBS's usage is the same concept RHS invokes to reject a "but it can be fit to the technical halakhah so your objection is merely political" attitude. Change must conform to mesorah to be valid, even if the textualists are satisfied. This is not an invocation of "daas Torah", because we're talking about questions of Torah, not politics or other metzi'us; we are invoking knowledge, if cultural and informal knowledge rather than book knowledge, and not invoking any metaphysical or mytical power; and because we do not expect a single correct answer that "the gedolim hold". But it still makes halachic decisionmaking when it comes to significant change subject to the skill of a few, and the rest of us are forced to submit to their understanding. The other use we've been knocking around, and this was here on-list, is RYBS's statement (Qinos Mesorat haRav, quoted by RGS here : Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebeal peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... RYBS identifies mesorah as the ineffible skill to think like a poseiq. And that we do get from those who explain how the prior generations developed the law, how the community down the ages conversed about the law, from living in the culture whose mimeticism is mesorah. And we saw Sotah's opinion of someone who learns without shimush. From only a little further down in that sugya (22a): Tanna: Hatannaim (those who repeat codified law) are swallowers of the world. Could you really think [they] are "swallowers of the world"? Ravina said: For they are morah halakhah from their repetition of the law. There is a a beraisa like this: R' Yeushua said, "And are they 'swallowers of the world? Aren't they settlers of the world, as it says 'halikhos olam lo' (Chavaquq 3)? Rather, because they are moreh halakhah from their repetition of the law. You can't pasqen from codes, from legal knowledge. It takes knowledge of how the codes reached their conclusion -- both textual knowledge obtained from the meforshim, and the skills to pasqen obtained by shimush. As R Yochanan quotes besheim Rashbi (Berakhos 7b), "gedolah shimushah shel Torah yoseir meilimudah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 22 16:06:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 00:06:16 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:41:09PM +0100, RMB wrote: :> Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the :> Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The :> parshan connects the past to the now. I replied: : That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. : Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation : handed over to the next. And RMB further replied: <> I read the quote and the original RGS posting before commenting on the thread because I generally try not to jump in mid-conversation without understanding what has previously been said. And that is precisely what I am objecting to. Because the RGS piece (including the quote) - is actually about our mesorah *regarding learning* (ie a much narrower slice of the wider definition). In that, as I said, I think it correct - our mesorah regarding how to learn - how to sit in Yeshiva and deal with the texts owes far more to Rashi and Tosphos than to the Rambam. But as stated in the quote, this suddenly becomes "our mesorah" in general and that is what I find problematic as I will try and articulate below. So let us look at the quote again: RGS quoted Qinot Mesorat haRav. The quote is long, so I'm just giving part: Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebe'al peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... The point I am making is that "any mesorah, "any chain of tradition" is much, much wider than what is done in Brisker yeshivas as part of the learning process. <> Now, if the point you are making is that RYBS was addressing yeshiva bochrim within a yeshiva setting (albeit explaining kinos on Tisha B'av) and hence explaining what it is that they do all day learning-wise- then the use of such language is probably excusable without the modifier - ie in this context mesorah is simply short for "mesorah with regard to how to learn". But the problem is that this language has now been pulled, by way of RGS's article (and lends itself to being pulled by its sheer breadth), into a wider application and wider audience, and not modified as such. It was then pulled across into Avodah, and the reference questioned, which I think it should be, because RGS's argument is implicitly if not explicitly far wider. And that I think is a problem, because what is true for one slice of "the mesorah" is not necessarily true for the whole. Whether this imprecision is RYBS's or RGS's is hard for me to be sure, as you say, this is a quote taken out of context. <> And this is where this slide from discussing one slice of the mesorah - what to do in Yeshiva, to a much wider slice of the mesorah becomes problematic, because of the implication you have just made which is that what is true of the section applies to the whole. And in this context you are dealing with what is called in common parlance the mesorah, not about conversations down time. So by slight of hand what you are doing is taking a definition which you acknowledge is a very limited and idiosyncratic one, but then sliding the conclusions that arise from that definition into the more standard debate, and claiming that was RYBS's opinion regarding the debate about what is more commonly known as "the mesorah". Let us therefore back up for a minute and discuss that aspect of RGS's post which in my view is unquestionably correct, even using the usual definition of mesorah: RGS comments that he and his father tried to learn meseches Nedarim just using the meforash, in the absence of Rashi, and were not able to do so (they were then only able to do it using the Ran, a much later commentary) - thus demonstrating the point of the post, which is, without Rashi, most of the Talmud Bavli would be a closed book to most people of average, and even above average, intelligence (like the Talmud Yerushalmi). This is unquestionably true. The Rambam was also aware of this problem (after all he learned all of Talmud Bavli without Rashi and everybody he knew either did so or tried to do so). His solution to RGS's problem was to tell RGS and his father, and people like him, not to try and learn Talmud Bavli, but to learn his, the Rambam's, Code instead. Ie instead of trying to tackle Maseches Nedarim, he would suggest that RGS and his father learn Hilchos Nedarim from the Mishne Torah. Now the truth is that if RGS and his father had in fact learnt all of Hilchos Nedarim from the Rambam, and all of the rest of the Mishne Torah, backwards and forwards and inside out - they are likely then to be well set up to tackle the Talmud Bavli without Rashi. Ie you *can* use the Rambam as a guide back into the Talmud if you are bright enough (because you have most of the concepts already explained by him), but it is not an easy way to do it. The Rambam assumed that the average person would stop with his Code, and only the best and brightest would need then to go back to the Talmud, to help determine the ambiguous cases not caught by his code, in a method not a million miles away from the one use by smicha students in learning Hilchos Shechita or Kashrus - first learn the Shulchan Aruch, then work your way back to the underlying gemoras so you are in a position to posken those cases the Shulchan Aruch doesn't catch. Our mesorah is like Rashi in this regard and not the Rambam (except when it comes to smicha students). We open up the Talmud Bavli even to children using Rashi and hundreds of thousands are sitting in yeshiva following Rashi. The problem is that people (it would appear including you) then generalise from "how we learn" to "how we posken" - which is what really is involved in the discussion regarding Open O and feminism. And they are not the same thing at all. Indeed, the fact that smicha students (those that are being set up to posken) are taught in a totally different way to the more general way of learning in yeshiva, and one that owes far more to the Rambam than to Rashi and Tosphos should alert you to that. I am then going to diverge a bit to discuss RAM's post, because he is discussing something completely different again: I wrote: > Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more of > them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the Rambam, were > able to formulate their halachic conclusions. And RAM replied: <> But you here (and it is even more explicit later) are discussing something completely different to what I was and am discussing. To best differentiate, I would say that you are discussing *content* and I am discussing *process*. Yes with regard to *content* it makes a difference which particular one of the Tosphosim were included on the page, and which weren't - but that is not what I am discussing. Rather I am discussing *how to learn* - ie how to make sense of this Talmud Bavli which (as RGS elucidated so eloquently) is so difficult for people to get into without help. What Rashi did was to provide a clear and simple explanation of the words on the page. What Tosphos did (and in this regard the whole commentary called Tosphos - despite the fact that it was made up of many different people, in fact teaches pretty much the same thing) was to teach people to say "hold on a minute, if we take the simple explanation provided by Rashi, then: a) there is a contradiction with what the gemora says somewhere else; or b) there is a contradiction with what in fact people do - so therefore we need to try and solve this problem. I then further goes on to teach people to say: very commonly we can solve this problem by: (i) re-interpreting this gemora; and/or (ii) reinterpreting that gemora; and/or (iii) finding some way of harmonizing the two gemoras, or the gemora and people's practice, or if we cannot manage to that (but only in extremis), (iv) working out that a certain gemora is more authoritative or the people are wrong. Note that when you are considering the process, it doesn't matter which particular sets of Tosphos' questions made it onto the page and which didn't - what is far more important is the fact that the commentary in general teaches people to ask these questions and mechanisms for trying to answer them. That is what a (eg child) who is first taught to study the gemora with Rashi suddenly encounters when he moves on to Tosphos. Hold on, Rashi's commentary may make a lot of sense in localised context, but we now have to try and consider the whole. Now of course the Rambam had not only to be his own Rashi, but he had to be his own Tosphos. He could not have written his Code if underneath the surface he did not deal with the fact that the gemora appears to contradict itself all over the place, and also to contradict what people are actually doing. The fundamental job of most meforshim on the Rambam is therefore (a) to explain how the Rambam understood the simple explanation of the gemora (ie what the Rambam would have said if he had written Rashi) and (b) how the Rambam resolved the contradictions in the various gemoras and with common practice (ie how the Rambam deals with the kinds of problems raised by the Tosphosim). But all of this is under the surface. All we have from the Rambam is the result, what we have from Tosphos are the questions. And it is the questions which give people a better window into how to learn gemora. So that is why, when discussing *process* it does not matter that: <> Because while we might have different Tosphos questions (ie content) on (or off) the page if hashgacha had gone in a different direction, or if there were gemoros on some of the mesechtos on which we have none, the process of *how* Tosphos (or the Rambam) would have dealt with that content is still the same. But if we would have had no Rashi and no Tosphos at all, ie the process they originated, but only the Rambam, we would all have learnt the code backward and forward, and a few bright sparks would have then used that to understand the gemora - a very, very different process of learning. In that regard our mesorah of learning comes from Rashi and Tosphos. On the other hand, RET is correct: <> Although I would modify that statement not to say "and not be bound by any text", as most at that point agreed that they should be bound by the gemora (and the Tanach as understood by the mishna/gemora), just not beyond that. And that is the point. There are two different concepts being discussed here, the mesorah of "how to learn" and the mesorah of "how to posken" (which then leads into what it is that people do). And when the Shulchan Aruch came out a lot of people strongly objected to the way of poskening that is a consequence of the codes. They thought that each posek should re-learn the relevant underlying gemoras, and work out their own harmonisation of them without being influenced, and certainly not bound, by what the Shulchan Aruch said. Some people perhaps thought that was a bit extreme, and that at least they should learn the underlying gemoras with all the rishonim, and, to the extent there was rishonic view, at least make a judgement within that spectrum (but not necessarily prioritise eg the Rambam, Rif and Rosh, or the Trumas HaDeshen and the Mordechai, being the most recent, over the others). The problem you have though is that - well, according to the gemora there are at least 50 ways of determining that a sheretz is kosher. Even if you then say that the gemora draws certain lines in the sand, there is no question that - well, let us take the hair covering question as illustrative. There are clearly (at least) two ways of reading the question: (a) hair covering for married women is an absolute and immutable d'orisa principle; (b) hair covering for married women is a tznius related convention - and given the convention at the time of the gemora (and earlier) it is required in those societies where it is practiced by modest Jewish women by virtue of rabbinic decree. If you can't see that the underlying sources (eg the mishna and gemora) *could* lead to either interpretation, then you are either wilfully blinding yourself or you can't learn. If you purely follow Rashi and Tosphos, then *if* you can read the underlying gemora sources in such a way as to harmonise with common practice today (even if you believe it is a bit of a dochek), then you would be free to do so, or at least, have no basis to criticise others who do this. However, nobody has that conversation today. The conversation you are having is about "how authoritative" are the various poskim (and from which tradition) who do appear to rule in one way or another. The power of Rav Broyde's article for example - is that he argues that the Rosh (and hence the Tur) and even the Rambam actually posken (b) out of the options, and this can be seen in the Shulchan Aruch. That is the kind of conversation we have today - with others of course rejecting that this is what can be read into the Shulchan Aruch. Hence I said: : It is only those who also have an eye to the : codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in : the light of common practice. And RMB replied: <> But neither Rashi nor Tosphos gave us any method of limiting where psak went, and indeed the Ri can hold one thing and Rabbanu Tam another within the same Tosphos. The Codes are far less open. And the language of the Shulchan Aruch is in the vast majority of cases the language of the Rambam thereby leading back to the thought process of the Rambam. The Rema then picks up a few of the cases where Ashkenazi practice differs and used a Code process to insert Rashi's explanation into the Code (although often where it had already been filtered through the Rosh and the Tur first). That is taking Rashi content and using it in a Rambam like way. Which is why the mesorah for how we posken is much closer to the Rambam than it is to Rashi. And what we do outside of the yeshiva is more about how we posken than about how we learn. Which is why I disagree: >Without the parshanim, there is no way to fill in the holes between se'ifim, to know how the conclusions were reached so that halakhah can survive beyond the limited set of cases in the Rambam >or SA. Of course there is, you have to go back to the original gemora - having first learnt through all of the related si'ifim in the Codes, and then make sure you understand how the rulings that are in the Codes relate to the underlying gemora. Once you have done that you can start to fill in the gaps, But only the select few who need to actually posken need to know this method - which is why it only needs to be taught to smicha students. But it is obvious that is the method used by the Rambam when answering questions outside of his own code in his teshuvos. <> And if you don't find it, it probably doesn't matter - because without the attitude of the codifiers, you really only need Rashi to understand the gemora and if you can do it without him, then great. And if you can't understand the gemora without him you wouldn't have a hope of formulating any ruling as the gemora would be a closed book. >Micha Shavuah tov Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 04:38:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:38:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Daf HaKashrus August 2015 Message-ID: <20150823113822.1203D183A0B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/daf_hakashrus_aug_2015.pdf This issue includes articles about bishul on Shabbos and dairy bread as well as other topics. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 02:10:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:10:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: [Email #1, in reply to R' Akiva Miller.] > My point is that while RMB and RCL are trying to imagine what Torah would > look like without Tosaphos, as I see it, even the Tosaphos that we do have > is a somewhat random document. I believe this is somewhat of an exaggeration. The school of Tosafot was basically begun by Rabbenu Tam followed by Ri (haZaken). Unfortunately we don't have much of their notes and Sefer haYashar is fragmentary. However, from Tosfat Shantz through Tosafot Tuch we have several manuscripts. It is true that the early publishers (or more exactly the rabbis chosen by these publishers) used whatever material they had however, I don't think that in most cases the differences between different talmidim were that great. Obviously some were more verbose and some less so and each included their individual rebbes and their own opinions. Nevertheless on the whole they were similar. Tosafot haRosh was the main version used in much of Spain. For reasons that are not clear to me this version was lost for many centuries before reappearing relatively recently. In individual cases one learns something new from Tosafot haRosh but I am not sure that on the whole it is that dramatically different from the printed versions [Email #2, in reply to me. -micha] > To pasqen mar'os, a rav must also have a mesorah in that sense. It's > a skill, a craft, that is learned from practice under the guidance of > a mentor. Usually called "shimush". I recall seeing recently (on avodah?) a machloket of poskim whether one needs shimush in order to pasken on maaros or it is sufficient to learn from seforim. In general some poskim feel that for many areas shimush is no longer needed now that we have detailed seforim. A number of gedolim of the 20th century essentially learned alone with minimal input from teachers. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 07:20:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 17:20:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] child conversion Message-ID: The recent court to allow conversion of under bar/bat mitzvah children is controversial. The bone of contention is whether it is considred a zechut for children to become Jewish when they grow up in a non-religious setting. R. Rosen recently gave a list of rabbis that allow it (at least bideved) and those that forbid it. I found the list interesting and not what I would have guessed Machmirim and not allowing the conversion: R Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor, Sridei Eish,R. Kook and R. Yisraeli Mekilim (at least bideved) Bet Yitzchak, Mateh Levi, Achiezer, RMF, R. Elyashiv, ROY -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 15:03:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:03:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150823220352.GA13158@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:10:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : In general some poskim feel that for many areas shimush is no longer : needed now that we have detailed seforim. A number of gedolim of the : 20th century essentially learned alone with minimal input from teachers. Well, RYBS's notion of "mesorah" is broader than that, as Rashi and Tosafos are considered part of it. Yes, shimush is more central to relaying a feel for how halakhah should be decided, but books that spell out past decisions also apparently play a role. But the truth is most of the gedolim in the 20th cent (Slabodka alumni aside) learned one-on-one often moving in with their rebbe. What you call "minimal" I would call "short and intense". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 25 18:27:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:27:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion Message-ID: The assumption is that it is better to be a non-religious Jew (thereby violating numerous halakhos) than a moral non-Jew. (I am being over simplistic as being non-Jewish citizen in Israel is more of a liability than elsewhere, so there may be a zechus to be a non-religious ger katan.) The irony as many have noted is that those who are most lenient about child conversion tend to be those who are also lenient in accepting that one could lead a perfectly good life as a non-Jew. Those who think that it is better to be Jewish than non-Jewish by extension should accept the conversion of a ger katan who will be raised by a non-religious family. The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for reasons of Nationalism. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 25 18:50:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:50:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) Message-ID: To parachute into an ongoing discussion, I have found that people use Mesorah in four different ways: 1) Personal Mesorah from a Rebbe to a Talmid. What a scholar or layman learns from his teacher. 2) Mesorah as the unbroken chain of Torah going back to Sinai. Rambam zt"l has the most famous mesorah chart, though I like Micha Berger's. (Parallels can be in Hadith transmission traditiona, Sufi traditions or the Catholic Church's assumption of an unbroken chain back to Peter). 3) Communal norms and traditions. This is how the term is commonly used in the Chareidi communities and also how it is being used in the ongoing discussion. This is the idea that there are legitimate practices, norms, values or halakhic understandings. For example different methodologies of learning. Or, as my brothers-in-law say to me, well if that is the mesorah of your community, then it is legitimate, even if they don't relate to this practice. (Personally, I do not relate to such a usage. Either an approach is valid/true or not valid/true.) I discussed the last category in an essay that Gil was kind enough to post: http://www.torahmusings.com/2011/07/two-types-of-orthodox-judaism/ There are probably other uses of the term *mesorah*, but I cannot think of them at the moment. Best wishes, Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 26 00:43:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:43:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] smart lighting Message-ID: can one use smart lighting on shabbat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_lighting -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 05:00:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:00:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov Message-ID: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? KVCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 10:37:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:37:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:00:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party : to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not : actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) My own lexicon: hakaras hatov: realizing that a good thing came into your life hoda'ah: acknowledging the one who / One Who provided that good Say Avi gives Berakhah a ball. Berakhah's hakaras hatov has an primary object, which is the ball -- the tov she received from Avi. Not taking life's gifts for granted. But her hoda'ah has a primary object -- which is Avi, and a secondary object, the ball. As in the grammar of "Modim anachnu Lakh al..."; the prespositional phrase giving you the secondary object is a list of all the things Hashem does for us. I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. Which, if you think about it, is what Chazal say about the early makos and how Moshe would not be the one to launch a makah that afflicts the water that saved him as a baby or the sand that hid the body. I'm not thrilled with the whole idea of exchanging favors, creating a market. It turns everything back on self-service -- every positive act is tainted by expectation of being repaid. : How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? Perhaps kibud av va'eim and kavod harav are their own concepts for a reason. And that hakaras hatov might explain the issur against hurting or cursing one's parents, but not kavod and yir'ah. I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 10:55:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:55:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". Tir'u baTov! -Micha Zechiyah uMattanah - Chapter Seven Translated by Eliyahu Touger Halacha 1 It is a universally accepted custom in most countries that when a man marries, his friends and acquaintances send him money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Then the friends and acquaintances who sent him this money come and eat and drink with the groom during all - or part - of the seven days of wedding celebration; everything should be done according to the accepted local custom. The money that he is sent is called shushvinut, and the people who send the money and then come and eat and drink with the groom are called shushvinin. Halacha 2 Shushvinut is not an outright gift. For it is plainly obvious that a person did not send a colleague 10 dinarim with the intent that he eat and drink a zuz's worth. He sent him the money solely because his intent was that when he would marry, he would send him money as he has sent him. Therefore, if the sender marries a woman, and the recipient does not return the shushvinut, the sender may lodge a legal claim against the recipient and expropriate the money from him. KVCT 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 12:01:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:01:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55DF5E92.9020405@sero.name> On 08/27/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". I believe the reference is to the law of shushvinin. But that is not a matter of hakaras hatov; it's an explicit quid pro quo arrangement. If you don't pay it back when it falls due, you're cheating the person of a quantifiable amount of money that you explicitly owe him, so he can sue you for it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 12:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <55DF64EA.6000201@sero.name> On 08/27/2015 01:55 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Mistranslation: This should be "...the expenses of the feast." -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 11:40:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 11:40:40 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus Message-ID: if there is a general assumption that one eats in another shomer shabbos' house without going thru their pantry, does the same hold in a shmitta year in israel where there are also multiple minhagim ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 14:08:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:08:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> On 08/28/2015 02:40 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > if there is a general assumption that one eats in another shomer > shabbos' house without going thru their pantry, does the same hold > in a shmitta year in israel where there are also multiple minhagim ? Lich'ora, since there is no consensus about shmita standards among shomrei shabbos, one who has a stricter practise can't assume that a randomly selected shomer shabbos is at least as strict as his. Therefore, without ascertaining this he can't eat those things which (according to his practise) are subject to shmita, but can eat those things which are not. Most importantly, though, he *can* eat from the other person's kelim, even if he *knows* that his shmita practices are more lenient than his own; for this purpose he can rely on "stam keilim einam benei yoman", even though normally one may only rely on this bediavad. This is the famous kula of "keilim divnei rhenus". -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 13:56:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:56:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov Message-ID: R' Micha Berger: <<< I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. >>> "Mah ashiv laShem, kol tagmulohi alai?" Akiva Miller On Aug 28, 2015 2:46 PM, "via Avodah" wrote: > Send Avodah mailing list submissions to > avodah at 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 at lists.aishdas.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." > > > A list of common acronyms is available at > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi > (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Child Conversion (Kaganoff via Avodah) > 2. Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) (Kaganoff via Avodah) > 3. smart lighting (Eli Turkel via Avodah) > 4. hakarat hatov (Rich, Joel via Avodah) > 5. Re: hakarat hatov (Micha Berger via Avodah) > 6. Re: hakarat hatov (Rich, Joel via Avodah) > 7. Re: hakarat hatov (Zev Sero via Avodah) > 8. Re: hakarat hatov (Zev Sero via Avodah) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:27:59 -0400 > From: Kaganoff via Avodah > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion > Message-ID: > oOARsdknGfHD5uwwUfKrmZGA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > The assumption is that it is better to be a non-religious Jew (thereby > violating numerous halakhos) than a moral non-Jew. > > (I am being over simplistic as being non-Jewish citizen in Israel is more > of a liability than elsewhere, so there may be a zechus to be a > non-religious ger katan.) > > The irony as many have noted is that those who are most lenient about child > conversion tend to be those who are also lenient in accepting that one > could lead a perfectly good life as a non-Jew. > > Those who think that it is better to be Jewish than non-Jewish by extension > should accept the conversion of a ger katan who will be raised by a > non-religious family. > > The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious > Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also > for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for > reasons of Nationalism. > > Yonatan > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150825/68f7e72c/attachment.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:50:52 -0400 > From: Kaganoff via Avodah > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) > Message-ID: > JWwz1eftmfgGuULn71A at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > To parachute into an ongoing discussion, I have found that people use > Mesorah in four different ways: > > 1) Personal Mesorah from a Rebbe to a Talmid. What a scholar or layman > learns from his teacher. > > 2) Mesorah as the unbroken chain of Torah going back to Sinai. Rambam zt"l > has the most famous mesorah chart, though I like Micha Berger's. (Parallels > can be in Hadith transmission traditiona, Sufi traditions or the Catholic > Church's assumption of an unbroken chain back to Peter). > > 3) Communal norms and traditions. This is how the term is commonly used in > the Chareidi communities and also how it is being used in the ongoing > discussion. This is the idea that there are legitimate practices, norms, > values or halakhic understandings. For example different methodologies of > learning. Or, as my brothers-in-law say to me, well if that is the mesorah > of your community, then it is legitimate, even if they don't relate to this > practice. (Personally, I do not relate to such a usage. Either an approach > is valid/true or not valid/true.) > > I discussed the last category in an essay that Gil was kind enough to post: > http://www.torahmusings.com/2011/07/two-types-of-orthodox-judaism/ > > There are probably other uses of the term *mesorah*, but I cannot think of > them at the moment. > > Best wishes, > Yonatan > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150825/4814ca39/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:43:29 +0300 > From: Eli Turkel via Avodah > To: Avodah > Subject: [Avodah] smart lighting > Message-ID: > < > CAGDtJ1GVgO0Ez55DoorrtQw_kfhbpGcPtQS8J8mV2rq-8rjYAA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > can one use smart lighting on shabbat > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_lighting > > -- > Eli Turkel > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150826/394e7ffd/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:00:05 +0000 > From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" > To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group (avodah at lists.aishdas.org)" > > Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: > <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de at VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party to > return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not > actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) > How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? > KVCT > 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. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150827/99422da9/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:37:32 -0400 > From: Micha Berger via Avodah > To: "Rich, Joel" , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <20150827173732.GA29088 at aishdas.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:00:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > : Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party > : to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not > : actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) > > My own lexicon: > hakaras hatov: realizing that a good thing came into your life > hoda'ah: acknowledging the one who / One Who provided that good > > Say Avi gives Berakhah a ball. > > Berakhah's hakaras hatov has an primary object, which is the ball -- > the tov she received from Avi. Not taking life's gifts for granted. > > But her hoda'ah has a primary object -- which is Avi, and a secondary > object, the ball. As in the grammar of "Modim anachnu Lakh al..."; > the prespositional phrase giving you the secondary object is a list > of all the things Hashem does for us. > > I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although > there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, > Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an > obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. > > Which, if you think about it, is what Chazal say about the early makos > and how Moshe would not be the one to launch a makah that afflicts the > water that saved him as a baby or the sand that hid the body. > > I'm not thrilled with the whole idea of exchanging favors, creating a > market. It turns everything back on self-service -- every positive > act is tainted by expectation of being repaid. > > > : How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? > > Perhaps kibud av va'eim and kavod harav are their own concepts for a > reason. And that hakaras hatov might explain the issur against hurting > or cursing one's parents, but not kavod and yir'ah. > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, > micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just > http://www.aishdas.org beginning. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:55:37 +0000 > From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" > To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group (avodah at lists.aishdas.org)" > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: > <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7 at VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > > Zechiyah uMattanah - Chapter Seven > Translated by Eliyahu Touger > > > Halacha 1 > > > It is a universally accepted custom in most countries that when a man > marries, his friends and acquaintances send him money to support the > expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Then the friends and > acquaintances who sent him this money come and eat and drink with the groom > during all - or part - of the seven days of wedding celebration; everything > should be done according to the accepted local custom. > > The money that he is sent is called shushvinut, and the people who send > the money and then come and eat and drink with the groom are called > shushvinin. > > > Halacha 2 > > > Shushvinut is not an outright gift. For it is plainly obvious that a > person did not send a colleague 10 dinarim with the intent that he eat and > drink a zuz's worth. He sent him the money solely because his intent was > that when he would marry, he would send him money as he has sent him. > > Therefore, if the sender marries a woman, and the recipient does not > return the shushvinut, the sender may lodge a legal claim against the > recipient and expropriate the money from him. > > KVCT > 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. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:01:38 -0400 > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > To: Micha Berger , The Avodah Torah Discussion > Group > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <55DF5E92.9020405 at sero.name> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > On 08/27/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > I believe the reference is to the law of shushvinin. But that is not > a matter of hakaras hatov; it's an explicit quid pro quo arrangement. > If you don't pay it back when it falls due, you're cheating the person > of a quantifiable amount of money that you explicitly owe him, so he > can sue you for it. > > -- > Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you > zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in > the street and commands me to surrender my purse, > I have a right to kill him without asking questions > -- John Adams > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:28:42 -0400 > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > To: "Rich, Joel" , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <55DF64EA.6000201 at sero.name> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > On 08/27/2015 01:55 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > > money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. > > Mistranslation: This should be "...the expenses of the feast." > > -- > Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you > zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in > the street and commands me to surrender my purse, > I have a right to kill him without asking questions > -- John Adams > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Avodah Digest, Vol 33, Issue 117 > *************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 30 20:32:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 23:32:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz - Lu'ach 5776 Message-ID: <20150831033207.C42DF1831DF@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 00:33:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 03:33:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz - Lu'ach 5776 Message-ID: <20150831073325.1618E182644@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 18:44:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 21:44:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: <20150901014419.GA6761@aishdas.org> Something I noticed... After the animal is shechted, a lung could be hollow, or full of liquid, and it's still kosher. But if there is a pinhole in both membranes around the lung, it's treif. Similarly the brain -- if the outside is solid, the inside could be rotten and the animal is still kosher. These are laws of tereifah that we refuse to change recardless of whether veterinary medicine disagrees about survivability. So I assume there is some point being made about chiyus in general in all this. However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is more important than penimius. Maybe something more like "fake it till you make it" -- as long as you keep the externals going, there is hope that the internals will fill in. But I'm fishing for better suggestions. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 19:18:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 22:18:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Factory Farming and Panicking the Animals Message-ID: <20150901021819.GA14109@aishdas.org> If the lung is tzemuqah (dried enough to be wrinkly like a raisin, but not dry enough to be called yeveishah)... There is a halakhah leMoshe miSinai that if it was due to fright caused by a person, the animel is tereifah if it's caused by HQBH (eg a lion attack), the animal is kosher. (AhS YD 36:70) If you do not know what the cause was, you check the lung -- man-made rei'ah tzemuqah won't rehydrate when soaked in water for 24 hours. But, this test is only used if the cause of the fright wasn't known (se'if 74); the cause of the stress is the iqar, not the dryness. Interesting is a comment at the end of se'if 70: Therefore it is correct that shoechtim be careful not to shecht one ba'al chai in front of another ba'al chai so that the lungs not get wrinkly and will require checking, ae will be explained. Also, there is tza'r ba'alei chaim in it ve'issur gamur hu and so wrote a number of gedolei ha'achronim. So I'm wondering, is our factory-style slaughter mutar? Can you say that this speed is a tachlis that makes the tza'ar needful, and thus mutar? Do people disagree with the AhS and his unnamed acharonim? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 20:52:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 05:52:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus In-Reply-To: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> References: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> Message-ID: <55E5210A.9050302@zahav.net.il> I would just add that like any other kashrut issue, a lot depends on why one has a particular practice. If one refuses to eat heter michira vegetables (that is the real issue) because he feels the HM is simply invalid, that is quite different than not using HM products because one wants to be machmir (assuming of course that not relying on the HM is a chumra). Ben On 8/28/2015 11:08 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > Lich'ora, since there is no consensus about shmita standards among > shomrei shabbos, one who has a stricter practise can't assume that > a randomly selected shomer shabbos is at least as strict as his. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 10:49:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 13:49:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another Tereifos Observation Message-ID: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> As I mentioned yesteday, any hole in the surface of the lung large enough to leak air would make the animal tereifah. What if the hole heals? AhS YD 36:7 (and elsewhere) says that a qerum (membrane) she'alah machmas makkah doesn't count. In se'if 14 he learns peshat in Rashi (Yavamos 76a "eino qerum") that there are two sevaros: 1- because this kind of closure isn't permanent 2- the closure is new. Akin to Chullin 68b "kivan shenitrefah, shuv ein lah heter) But in reality, the AhS says, "be'emes chad ta'amah hu" -- what makes the closure temporary is that it is made from the liquids of the makah. And therefore once the makah is healed, it has no cause. RYME notes that this is bedavqa when a new membrane is closing the hole. But if the side grow in until it closes, the lung is kosher. What about "kivan shenitrefah"? He writes "keshehaheter hayah mukhan be'eis hatarfus, lo chal alahh sheim tarfus ba'olam." Continuing what I wrote yesterday, that there must be much lehislameid from the halakhos of tereifos, given how we etched them in stone despite many of the rules losing their veterinary explanations.... We are told to have bitachon that before sending troubles, "Ein HQBH makeh es Yisrael ela im kein borei lahem refu'ah techilah" (Megillah 13b) This rule of tereifos, that the chalos sheim "tereifah" doesn't apply if the means by which the hole would close were pre-existing, seems to imply something further. In a sense, the makah itself isn't real because the refu'ah is already prepared. It is not that the bad times cause the good ones. Because they aren't permanent enough to be the root of permanent solutions. Rather, it is because it's all one process, the bad times being a bump in a road that from the moment you strarted traveling it leads to good. Or as Nachum ish Gam Zu said, "gam lu LEtovah" (emphasis mine), not "gam zu tovah". What redeems the bad times is that the route from them to tov is there before they even begin. ---- Language note: I noticed that rei'ah means "lungs", even though the term is in the singular and the translation is in the plural. There is no term of art for a single lung -- the main body of each lung is an omah and the lobes are onos or in Hebrew "aznayim". Tir'u baTov! -Micha Off-topic PS: I am seriously finding the beginning of YD turning me off to meat. -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 09:55:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 19:55:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Kosher Switch, Grama and Rav Osher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://podcast.headlinesbook.com/e/8-15-15-headlines/ where Rav Osher Weiss explains in detail his approach to grama, and electricity on Shabbos in general. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 11:17:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 14:17:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another Tereifos Observation In-Reply-To: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> References: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55E5EBB7.7060400@sero.name> On 09/01/2015 01:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Language note: I noticed that rei'ah means "lungs", even though the term > is in the singular and the translation is in the plural. There is no > term of art for a single lung -- the main body of each lung is an omah > and the lobes are onos or in Hebrew "aznayim". Yes, Chazal conceived of the lungs as a single organ. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 18:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 21:45:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > Similarly the brain -- if the outside is solid, the inside > could be rotten and the animal is still kosher. > ... > However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that > chitzonius is more important than penimius. > > Maybe something more like "fake it till you make it" -- as > long as you keep the externals going, there is hope that > the internals will fill in. > > But I'm fishing for better suggestions. I will offer another data point which also seems to suugest that chitzonius is more important than penimius. Mechaber 78:1 and Mishne Brurah 78:2,3 are obviously talking about a person who unfortunately suffers from incontinence. If he urinates while davening, he must pause, but can continue when the flow stops. This applies even if his legs and undergarments are totally wet, but NOT if the urine is on his outer garments. It seems that the cleanliness of one's outer garments is more important than the cleanliness of his undergarments, or even of his body itself. Similarly, if one needs to defecate, but he can hold himself for 4 mil, he will be yotzay davening b'dieved -- Mechaber 92:1. But that leniency is because it is mere pnimius; Mechaber 76:4,5 seems to be stricter once the tzoah has gone external. (Note: I think that it would not be difficult to show that chitzonius *is* important. The problem as I see it is that we've found some cases where it is *more* important than pnimius.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 00:17:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 10:17:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] bavli variants Message-ID: We are pleased to announce the launch of a new version (1.2) of the ' *Hachi **Garsinan*' Site for Variant-Readings of the Talmud Bavli. The site is freely accessible to all through the Friedberg portal: http://jewishmanuscripts.org . Version 1.1 of the website shows all hand-written text witnesses of the Talmud Bavli from the Cairo Genizah, with digital images (more than 4,600) and their transcriptions, in the framework of a software that allows the display of all text-witnesses of a specific Talmudic text in parallel columns in small units. Identical excerpts in a specific text-witness and in the Vilna can be marked, in order to spare the user the effort of comparing the texts. There are also additional helpful functions such as Save and Print, as specified in the website Homepage. *In the new version (1.2) - text witnesses from the following early printings have been added:* - *Guadalajara**(1480?), Spain / Portugal (Toledo? 1480-1490), Portugal (Faro? before 1498), Faro (1497?), Fez (1516-1521)* - *Soncino (1484-1489), Italy (1489-1498), Barco (1498-1499), Pesaro (1509-1516), Constantinople (1505-1509)* - *Venice** (1520-1523) * *(for details on tractates included in early printings - see Homepage). * *Furthermore, a function has been added to enable the user search for **terms or expressions in the Vilna** edition and each of the text witnesses that take part in the current version (Genizah and early printings) as well as a function to display the lexicon (**list of different words and their frequency**) of Vilna and of each of the other text-witnesses. Finally, the new version allows each user to alter the way that the text units are displayed on the variant-readings screen, using special editing tools designed for this purpose.* -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 05:05:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 08:05:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In my previous post, I cited some halachos which seem to demonstrate - surprisingly - that externals are *more* important than internals. Perhaps the source pasuk for those halachos might help us out. Devarim 23:15: "... v'hayah machanecha kadosh, v'lo yir'eh v'cha ervas davar..." "... your *camp* will be holy, and nothing unseemly will be seen in *you*..." We learn much from each of these phrases, but does anyone compare the relative importance of the reisha to that of the seifa? Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 08:31:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 11:31:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150902153128.GB27954@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 09:45:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Mechaber 78:1 and Mishne Brurah 78:2,3 are obviously talking about a person : who unfortunately suffers from incontinence... : Similarly, if one needs to defecate, but he can hold himself for 4 mil, he : will be yotzay davening b'dieved -- Mechaber 92:1. But that leniency is : because it is mere pnimius; Mechaber 76:4,5 seems to be stricter once the : tzoah has gone external. I am not sure these are examples. It may have to do with when tzo'ah smells, or when it starts being "tzo'ah" rather than part of the person. : (Note: I think that it would not be difficult to show that chitzonius *is* : important. The problem as I see it is that we've found some cases where it : is *more* important than pnimius.) Thinking about it more, I have more confidence in my earlier guess, that chitzonius is a better indicator of future penimius than current penimius is. Someone who is a passionate eved H', but for some reason isn't acting on it will likely lose that passion, and someone who develops the right habits in attempt to develop the feelings, mitokh shelo lishimah, ba lishmah. So it's not that it's more important; it's still of derived value. And yet, this reasoning explains Yahadus's focus on halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 18:30:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 21:30:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In Avodah V33n118, R'Micha wrote: > However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is more important than penimius. < Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what can be seen? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 06:30:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:30:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We recently had a thread which discusses the meaning of the word "mesorah". Coincidentally or not, I'd like to ask about the meaning of the verb "moser" as it occurs in the context of the Prozbul. I'd like to begin by giving two different *colloquial* uses of "moser": It can refer to the act of literally handing a fellow Jew to the authorities, but it can also refer to merely informing the authorities about a fellow Jew. My question about Prozbul is this: When the Prozbul says that the lender is "moser" the loans to Beis Din, does he actually hand them over, or does he merely inform? For decades, I had thought that the lender actually gives the loans to the Beis Din, in a manner similar to how anyone can use a commercial collection agency: Usually, if someone owes me money, I can sell that debt to a collection agency, but in the context of Shmitta, I give it as a gift to the beis din. Then, the beis din authorizes me to collect the debt on their behalf, and will allow me to retain 100% of it as my service fee. With the above, I have accomplished three important things: (1) When Rosh Hashana arrives, no one owes me anything, so I have no possibility of violating any halachos of Shmitas Kesafim. (2) When I collect from the borrower, I'm merely acting as an agent of beis din, to whom Lo Yigos does not apply, so I'm not violating anything. (3) Although the lender did not repay anything to me directly, my finances did not suffer, and future Shmitos will not influence to me avoid lending. BUT - From what I've learned, when a Prozbul is done, no kinyan ever occurs between the lender and the Beis Din, not even a kinyan sudar of the sort that I do when authorizing the rav to sell my chometz. Without a kinyan, I can't see how the loan ever leaves the ownership of the lender. So it is clear to me that Prozbul does NOT follow the "collection agency" model. Is there some other model that it does follow? The Mechaber Choshen Mishpat 67:8 talks about a situation that I will presume occurs before Erev Rosh Hashana: "If one claims money, and the other denies it, and the first sues in beis din and wins, and the psak din is that the second one must pay - this is a gibui, and shmita does not cancel it." If I'm understanding this correctly, then when a court verdict declares the A must pay B, this is not the sort of debt that shmita cancels, because the requirement to pay does not come from any interaction between the two men, but directly from the beis din's power. In other words, the lender can ask the borrower for money, but he is not asking for the loan to be repaid; rather, he is enforcing the court's ruling. This is a new obligation upon the borrower, which was created by the court, and is therefore exempt from Shmitas Kesafim. Perhaps this is how Prozbul works: Without any evidence or documentation, or even an itemized list, a person approaches the beis din and tells them that there are debts which are owed to him. The beis din responds with a court order that those debts must be paid. He can now collect them, because it is the *Beis Din* that wants them to be paid (irrespective of the fact that the lender wants them paid). This explanation solves the problem of Lo Yigos: The lender is not pressing the borrower for repayment of a personal loan; he is pressing the borrower to pay the court judgment. But the personal loan does still exist, doesn't it? The lender would still have an obligation to be personally m'shamet the loan at some point, but I think most people think that the Prozbul relieves them of that obligation. I'm stumped. When the lender is "moser" the loan to Beis Din, exactly what is happening? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 11:26:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 18:26:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0b20dda77d534fbdbec18095eaf0ce72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> We recently had a thread which discusses the meaning of the word "mesorah". Coincidentally or not, I'd like to ask about the meaning of the verb "moser" as it occurs in the context of the Prozbul. Akiva Miller ================================= Listen hear for discussion on point http://www.torahbase.org/prozbul-concept-halachos-5775/?lang=en Rav Asher Weiss-Prozbul ? Concept and Halachos 5775 Kvct 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 13:07:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:07:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch Message-ID: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> S"A O"C 55:11 as recorded in the 1st volume of the mishna brurah (it's not in my regular S"A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of the S"A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn't apply "now" because dina dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? KVCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 14:41:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2015 23:41:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What am I missing? Message-ID: <55EB6184.5050706@zahav.net.il> Re prozbul, I seem to be missing something. Personally I haven't loaned out any huge sums such that if I don't get them back, I would be reticent about loaning in the future. If I did loan out something small, why should I sign the prozbul? If the borrower doesn't pay me, well he doesn't have to (right?). If the borrower does pay me, he gets a bracha and everyone is a winner. What am I missing? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 21:10:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 00:10:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <55EBBC9C.9070304@sero.name> On 09/04/2015 04:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > S?A O?C 55:11 as recorded in the 1^st volume of the mishna brurah (it?s not in my regular S?A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of the S?A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn?t apply ?now? because dina dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? The note appears in the first edition, so presumably it was put there by the original publisher, in order to get it past the censor. Or perhaps it was inserted at the censor's insistence. In any case it houldn't need saying that it was not intended to be taken seriously by the intended audience. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49623&pgnum=170 (BTW, the censor's approval is dated 23-Dec-1882, the Hebrew date on the front page is 5683, but the secular date on the front page is 1884. Presumably that's how long publishing took.) -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 21:04:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 00:04:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Factory Farming and Panicking the Animals Message-ID: From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> If the lung is tzemuqah (dried enough to be wrinkly like a raisin, but not dry enough to be called yeveishah)... There is a halakhah leMoshe miSinai that if it was due to fright caused by a person, the animel is tereifah if it's caused by HQBH (eg a lion attack), the animal is kosher. (AhS YD 36:70) ....Interesting is a comment at the end of se'if 70: Therefore it is correct that shoechtim be careful not to shecht one ba'al chai in front of another ba'al chai so that the lungs not get wrinkly and will require checking, ae will be explained. << Micha Berger >>>> I remember reading that Temple Grandin had designed a spiral ramp with high walls for cattle to walk along before reaching the slaughtering spot. The design was such that the animal could not see out the sides or very far ahead as it walked, and would thus not witness other animals being slaughtered. This was meant to keep the animal calm and not frightened. I did not find the article with a quick google search but I am sure it's available somewhere. Temple Grandin is a famous expert in humane methods of animal slaughter. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 01:19:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 11:19:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? Message-ID: Most of selichos is us beseeching Hashem (poetically) for forgiveness and declaring that we are unworthy and sinners. However, the main part of selichos is the recitation of the 13 middos. However, the recitation of the 13 kiddos seems like almost magic, something we say because Hashem told us to as we say in the preceding paragraph "Hashem you commanded us to say the 13 [middos] ... as you told Moshe [the anav] ...". What is our kavannah supposed to be when we say the 13 middos? What should we be thinking? Why is saying the 13 middos so important? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 16:25:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 19:25:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150906232531.GA15175@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 11:19:51AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Most of selichos is us beseeching Hashem (poetically) for forgiveness and : declaring that we are unworthy and sinners. However, the main part of : selichos is the recitation of the 13 middos. However, the recitation of the : 13 kiddos seems like almost magic, something we say because Hashem told us : to as we say in the preceding paragraph "Hashem you commanded us to say the : 13 [middos] ... as you told Moshe [the anav] ...". What is our kavannah : supposed to be when we say the 13 middos? What should we be thinking? Why : is saying the 13 middos so important? Actually, the wording in the gemara is Whenever Israel sins *ya'asu* lefana keseder hazaeh, and I will pardon them. The point isn't to say the 13 Middos, they're just a reminder that we're supposed to do them. If we remember the essential, to be merciful people in His Image, HQBH is ready to pardon everything else. (I am defining "mocheil" as pardon as in being mochel a debt, in contrast to full forgiveness. That's a choice among how acharonim take selichah, mechilah and kapparah, so your mileage may vary.) I passionately recommend printing up and keeping it with your selichos and YK Machzor. It's a summary of the 13 Middos as per Tomer Devorah mapped to the version of the Thirteen Middos in Shemos that we say in Selichos. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 16:58:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 19:58:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 08:07:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : S"A O"C 55:11 as recorded in the 1st volume of the mishna brurah (it's : not in my regular S"A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of : the S"A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting : for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn't apply "now" because dina : dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. However, the MBs Poland wasn't it. Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 07:31:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 10:31:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: Let's go back to one of the sources: Yoma 72b - "Any talmid chacham whose tocho (inside) is not like his baro (outside) is not a talmid chacham." Is this speaking only of one who appears fine externally, but is deficient internally? Or does it also apply to one who is fine internally, but doesn't look it to an outside observer? If it applies to both, does anyone compare the two? I have always presumed that the one who is not-so-good on the inside is a bigger problem than the one who is okay on the inside. But if I understood them correctly, RMB and RMP brought independent reasons why one should focus on the externals. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 01:32:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 11:32:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What am I missing? Message-ID: R' Ben Waxman asked: > Re prozbul, I seem to be missing something. Personally I haven't loaned > out any huge sums such that if I don't get them back, I would be > reticent about loaning in the future. If I did loan out something small, > why should I sign the prozbul? If you have money in the bank in Israel then you have lent the bank money and therefore Shemitta will cancel your loan and the bank could keep your money. Now, the fact is that all the banks in Israel have a hater iska so that they can pay interest, but even with a heter iska half the amount is an iska but half is a loan, so the half that is a loan would be cancelled by shemita. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 17:56:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 20:56:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> I passionately recommend printing up . It explains the 13 Middos as found in Shemos and therefore Selichos in terms of the version in Michah and the Tomer Devorah thereon. Rather than repeating the same words / names over and over throughout selichos and much of Yom Kippur, it can become an opportunity to commit and recommit to emulating them. As the gemara (RH 17b) says Whenver Israel sin, they shall perform before Me like this structure (ya'asu lefanai keseider zeh), and I will forgive them. Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:27:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:27:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 08:56 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > As the gemara (RH 17b) says > Whenver Israel sin, they shall perform before Me like this structure > (ya'asu lefanai keseider zeh), and I will forgive them. > > Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:18:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:18:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55ECF3DF.8090003@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 04:19 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > However, the recitation of the 13 middos seems like almost magic, > something we say because Hashem told us to as we say in the preceding > paragraph Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we say them and invoke that promise. Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a magical power that the holy ketores has. The Malach Hamaves told Moshe Rabbenu about this trick, and when the occasion arose Moshe told Aharon to use it. "There are more things in heaven and earth..." -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:22:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:22:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was > written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? No. > Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law > and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't > practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. > > However, the MBs Poland wasn't it Yes, it absolutely was. > Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 12:08:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 15:08:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dr. Leo Deutschlander - Father of the Bais Yaakov Movement Message-ID: <20150907190830.A1951181640@nexus.stevens.edu> The name of Sarah Schneirer is invariably associated with the Bais Yaakov Movement. However, she was not the only one who was responsible for the success of the movement before WW II. Sarah Schneirer was an idealist who decided that religious schools for girls were needed in Poland and who set out to found such schools. However, WADR to Sarah Schneirer, she had a very limited academic background and her Jewish education was quite basic. (This was the case for most girls who lived when she did.) Thus others were needed to assist her in the development of the Bais Yaakov Movement. One such person was Dr. Leo Deutschlander. Up until today I knew very little about him. I did know that there had been an article in the Jewish Observer about his life, but I did not have access to it. Today a friend mine, who has a complete collection of all issues of the JO, brought me a copy of the article about Dr. Deutschlander. I have put it at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/deutschlander.pdf Note that other people who helped Sarah Schneirer with the development of the Bais Yaakov movement are mentioned and almost all of them have a Frankfurt background which means they attended the school that RSRH started in Frankfurt that educated both boys and girls. Thus in a certain sense RSRH is to be considered the grandfather of the Bais Yaakov Movement. Judith nee Rosenbaum Grunfeld played a key role in the development for the Bais Yaakov movement. See her article about Sarah Schneirer at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/sara_schenierer.pdf Anyone really interested in the history of the Bais Yaakov movement should read Rabbi Abraham Atkin's PhD thesis which is titled The Beth Jacob Movement in Poland 1917-1939. I have put this document at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/beth_jacob_movement_poland.pdf Note that the article about Dr. Deutschlander says that he never had children. To the best of my knowledge, he never married, yet he taught Bais Yaakov girls of seminary age and perhaps even younger, something that would be considered scandalous today! Given that Dr. Deutschlander never married, I find him being characterized by Chaim Shapiro as the "Father of the Bais Yaakov Movement" somewhat amusing. >:-} YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 11:41:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 14:41:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar Message-ID: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> Please click here to download a back issue of Halachically Speaking on eating before Shofar. ---------- From the article Custom of Some Gedolim The Steipler zt"l used to recite the zohar and other tefillos during the break. In his later years he recited portions of tehillim.[1] He did not make kiddush before tekios.[2] Harav Moshe Feinstein zt"l did not eat before tekios.[3] Harav Elyashiv zt"l [4] and Harav Yisroel Belsky Shlita do not eat or drink before tekios. [1] Orchos Rabbeinu 2:page 182:4. Refer to Darchei Chaim V'sholom 716:page 251. [2] Orchos Rabbeinu 2:page 181:1. Refer to Chelek Levi 189. [3] As related by Harav Aron Felder Shlita. [4] As quoted in Chag B'chag page 113:footnote 79. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 14:13:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 17:13:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar In-Reply-To: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <55EDFE13.7010505@sero.name> I have to admit that this is one of the Lubavitcher customs that puzzle me. All year, not just on Shabbos but also on weekdays, the official Lubavitch minhag is to allow eating before davening (after saying sh'ma, on weekdays in tefillin), on the grounds that it's difficult to daven properly without it. In the Tzemach Tzedek's words, "it's better to eat in order to daven, than to daven in order to eat". If you find that you're davening in order to get to breakfast, you'd do better to get breakfast over with and then daven with kavanah. And yet on Rosh Hashana, when one often doesn't get to kiddush until 2 or 3 in the afternoon, and when one needs kavanah in davening more than ever, Lubavitchers fast until kiddush! I don't understand it. If you can make it on Rosh Hashana, why not on any other day? And if you can't daven on an empty stomach on a weekday without thinking about breakfast, then how can you daven on an even emptier stomach on Rosh Hashana without thinking about lunch? -- Zev Sero KVChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 16:32:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:32:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:18:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. : Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we : say them and invoke that promise. : Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores : to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a : magical power that the holy ketores has.. Where is this made explicit? On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:27:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. : That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". Who said that remembering something in tefillah, unlike lekhishah, talks about the words themselves without internalization? What's the verb for tefillah, anyway? In any case, the idea that it's about saying the words until we're committed to emulating them isn't mine, it's R' Elimelekh miLetzhinsk's, the Chafeitz Chaim's and R YL Chasmin's. The latter two relate this gemara to "mah Hu 'Rachum' af atah..." Hashem is not only just, He's not a Vatran. The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 16:43:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:43:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:22:37PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was :> written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? : No. Source? :> Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law :> and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't :> practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. :> However, the MBs Poland wasn't it : Yes, it absolutely was. Again, source? Actual excommunications were commonplace. Comes up in teshuvos on agunah. :> Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. : Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could : be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the : MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. In the CC's hayday, Radun was in the Vilna Voivodship, Poland. And I didn't ask about censortship, I asked about autonomy, as in having courts empowered to punish, and the Jewish community certainly did. At least, azoi shteyt YIVO The Polish government never recognized Jewish communal autonomy de jure, but autonomy existed de facto in hundreds of local communities, school systems, and youth movements during the interwar period. Because regardless of whether this appeal to dina demalkhusa was real or to satisfy a censor, the mileau that created this footnote had to have such a law. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 17:42:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 20:42:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EE2EF6.2060509@sero.name> On 09/07/2015 07:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:18:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. > : Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we > : say them and invoke that promise. > > : Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores > : to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a > : magical power that the holy ketores has.. > > Where is this made explicit? It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell? Also, the gemara deduces that this is where Moshe must have got it, because how else could he possibly have known about it? Now if it was about the kavanos or the zechus of the mitzvah stopping plagues, then why couldn't Moshe Rabbenu have worked it out from first principles? This shows that it isn't anything that could be worked out, there's no reason why it should be so, it just is. In other words, magic. > > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:27:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. > > : That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". > > Who said that remembering something in tefillah, unlike lekhishah, talks > about the words themselves without internalization? What's the verb for > tefillah, anyway? "Lehazkir" doesn't mean to remember, it means to mention, to pronounce words. For that matter, the word "yaasu" that you're basing yourself on refers not to the midos themselves but to the "seder tefillah", i.e. the ritual of naming the midos. > Hashem is not only just, He's not a Vatran. The notion of magic words > that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah > would be very problematic. But that is what the gemara seems to say. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 18:06:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 21:06:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EE34A8.7060303@sero.name> On 09/07/2015 07:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:22:37PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was > :> written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? > > : No. > > Source? There is no source that it was banned then. Why would you even imagine that it would be? There is no such note in any edition of the Shulchan Aruch. In any case, the concept of banning cherem doesn't seem to have come up until the late 18th century. http://t95.el.sl.pt > :> Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law > :> and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't > :> practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. > > :> However, the MBs Poland wasn't it > > : Yes, it absolutely was. > > Again, source? Actual excommunications were commonplace. Comes up > in teshuvos on agunah. Catherine the Great banned cherem in 1795. Of course they ignored the law and did it anyway, but to get a sefer past the publisher they had to pretend to be obeying the law, so if the sefer mentioned cherem they had to note that this was written before it became illegal. > :> Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. > > : Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could > : be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the > : MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. > > In the CC's hayday, Radun was in the Vilna Voivodship, Poland. What Poland? There was no such place as Poland. It was Russia, and there was no autonomy. > And I didn't ask about censortship, I asked about autonomy, as in having > courts empowered to punish, and the Jewish community certainly did. > At least, azoi shteyt YIVO > > The Polish government never recognized Jewish communal autonomy de > jure, but autonomy existed de facto in hundreds of local communities, > school systems, and youth movements during the interwar period. Read what you just wrote: "The Polish government". What period could this paragraph possibly be talking about? The period when there was a Poland and a Polish government. IOW not the time we are discussing. And indeed if you look at the page again, you will see that it is explicitly discussing the interwar period, after Polish independence. > Because regardless of whether this appeal to dina demalkhusa was real > or to satisfy a censor, the mileau that created this footnote had to > have such a law. Yes, it did. Catherine's law that I mentioned above. And it also had a strict censorship law, which this sefer was subject to. If you need any further convincing, note the language of the censor's stamp. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 20:16:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 23:16:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Joel Rich wrote: > Listen hear for discussion on point > http://www.torahbase.org/prozbul-concept-halachos-5775/?lang=en > Rav Asher Weiss - Prozbul - Concept and Halachos 5775 Thank you very much for showing me this. I listened to it a few times, and it seems that he gives his conclusions right at the beginning: (00:42 to 01:05) "The takana of Pruzbul is that there is no need to physically give over your notes to Beis Din and there is no need Beis Din should be the ones to collect your money. Hillel was metaken: it is enough if you declare, either orally or in writing, Mosrani lachem..." (02:00-02:24) "The takana of Hillel was: It is enough if you write 'Mosrani lachem ploni v'ploni'. It is considered AS IF you transferred your notes to Beis Din, and when you collect the money, you would be considered AS IF you would be shliach of Beis Din even though it's not really the real thing in practicality. But that was the takana of Pruzbul." But how does it work? He clearly says (at 8:40 to 9:23) that the functions of a Beis Din do not include acting as a collection agency. There ARE (9:49 to 10:30) are very limited circumstances where Beis Din does have that function, such as collecting for yesomim, because that *is* one of the roles of the Beis Din, as "avi yesomim". One the other hand, (10:30 to 10:52) yesomim do not need to make a pruzbul at all, because Beis Din is *automatically* the Avi Yesomim, and their loans will not be cancelled by shmitta. So he suggests (12:19 to 12:40) that although it is not Beis Din's practice to accept the responsibility of collecting loans except for unusual cases, perhaps the difficulties posed by Shmitta put other loans in this category, and so if someone would be moser his loans to Beis Din, then Shmitta will not cancel them. But exactly why are such loans exempt? He explains (14:20 to 14:40), "You have to be m'shamet loans, but the moment you gave your notes, your loans over to Beis Din, it is k'gavui dami - it is as if those monies were already collected." He then compares this situation to the case where the lender has collateral for the loan, and that too is "already collected" and exempt from Shmitas Kesafim. It seems to me that this is how Rav Weiss understands the Pruzbul: The loan was and remains property of the lender, but Beis Din accepts the responsibility to go to the borrower to demand payment. From that point, it is considered as "already collected". Since it is already collected, not only is he allowed to request the money after Rosh Hashana, but there's no need to even state "M'shamet Ani". There is no need for any kinyan, because the loan remains property of the lender, and the role of Beis Din is simply to accept responsibility for collecting the loan; this occurs automatically at the inception of the loan where the lender is an orphan, and it also occurs automatically at the execution of a Pruzbul per Ezra's takana. ON THE OTHER HAND, over Shabbos a friend lent me his copy of Sefer Dinei Shviis Hashalem, published by Keren Hatarbut Degel Yerushalayim, which contains a photo of a pruzbul on the stationery of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and (apparently) in his handwriting, dated 29 Elul 5754. It contains a very interesting clause. Other pruzbuls avoid details, and simply say something like "I am moser my loans to beis din", but this one adds some very significant points. Here is the full pruzbul, as best as I can render it: "[B'mosav tlasa bei dina k'chada havinu] We were three dayanim sitting together, [uva l'faneinu...] and R' Aharon Dovid Goldberg came [v'amar lanu] and said to us: [Hen shana zu hee shnas hashviis] This year is the seventh year, [v'yesh li chovos b'shtar uv'al peh] and I have loans - both in writing and orally - [al ayzeh anashim] against certain people. [V'hareni moser lachem pruzbul] I am now moser a pruzbul to you, [viyhavis l'chon b'matana] and give it to you as a gift [b'kinyan dalet' amos karka] with a kinyan of four amos of land, [me'arah d'ees li] from the ground that is mine. [V'al gabayhon] And through that, [arshees yas'chon] I give you permission [limigbah kol chovos] to collect all my loans, [d'ees lee al inshee] which I have against people. [Mayatah t'havoon li daiyna] Henceforth you will be my dayanim, [v'sagbuhu uskabluhu li] and you will collect and accept payment for me. [V'im lo tagbuhu atem] And if you do not collect it yourselves, [mayata kayvan shemasarti lachem pruzbul zeh] then since I was moser this pruzbul to you, [ani goveh kol chov] so I can collect any loan [sheyesh li ad hayom etzel kol adam] which I have up to today against anyone, [kol zman she'ertzeh] any time I want. [next paragraph] - "[Anachnu beis din] We the court [shamanu dvarav] heard his words, [veefinu kocho] and affirm its validity, [shelo t'shamet lay] that he will not have a cancellation, [v'yigbeh kol chovosav] and he can collect all his loans, [al ydei pruzbul zeh] via this pruzbul, [k'takanas Hillel v'Chazal] in accordance with the takana of Hillel and Chazal. [next paragraph] - "[Banu al hechasum] We have signed below [yom kaf"tes l'chodesh Elul, shnas heh-tav-shin-nun"dalet] this day, 29th of Elul 5754 [poh Ir Hakodesh Yerushalayim] here, the holy city of Yerushalayim. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach [I cannot read the other two signatures]" (end of pruzbul) I don't understand the purpose of the four amos of land. (Yes, I'm quite aware of the requirement in halacha, I just don't understand why that requirement was included. That's a topic for another thread.) And I quite likely made some errors in the transliteration and the translation. But I think that I understood it well enough to state with confidence that it seems that RSZA does indeed subscribe to the "collection agency" model, which Rav Asher Weiss had so clearly rejected. RSZA explicitly uses the word "kinyan". One could argue that the "matanah" which the lender is giving to the beis din is merely the pruzbul and not the loans. One could also point out that after the kinyan has occurred, the lender continues to refer to the loans (which beis din would collect) as "MY loans", suggesting that they are still owned by the lender and not the beis din. But if that is so, then what does it mean to make a kinyan on the *pruzbul*? This pruzbul is merely a record of the court proceedings, and it seems very likely to me that the intent is for the court to acquire the loans themselves, in very much the same way that a modern collection agency works. If anyone disagrees, and feels that RSZA does *not* subscribe to the "collection agency" model, please explain how you think this pruzbul works. And if anyone does agree with me, then I wonder if any other poskim hold that way, because every explanation of pruzbul that I've seen describes the document itself, and no one ever mentions any requirement of kinyan. Thank you Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 02:10:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 05:10:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar Message-ID: And if you can't daven on an empty stomach on a weekday without thinking about breakfast, then how can you daven on an even emptier stomach on Rosh Hashana without thinking about lunch? Kal v?chomer, how can you daven on T?B and Y?K when you wake up without having even drinking or eating and then must go another good 12 hours on an empty stomach? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 03:51:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:51:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote; > "It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that > ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to > have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there > the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so > obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. > How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell?" Rashi in Chumash quoting the Mechilta offers a second explanation of why the ketores was used to end the plague. Bnei Yisrael were complaining about the ketores that it was a sam hamaves, that it killed people. The ketores killed Nadav and Avihu, it killed the 250 people, therefore Hashem said watch that it can stop the plague and that sin is what really kills people. We see clearly from this explanation that there was nothing magical about using the ketores, rather Hashem wanted to make a point to the Jewish people about the ketores. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 07:35:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:35:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very problematic. (Or perhaps "confusing" would be a better description, as it moves the focus away from a "problematic halacha", chalila, and towards my obligation to understand it.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 08:14:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 11:14:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:35:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a : measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very : problematic... And I don't believe there is such a thing, so I have no problem. I suggested twice now 2007 http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol23/v23n174.shtml#12 and 2010 http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n130.shtml that itzumo shel yom mechaperes only someone who acknowledges and embraces the etzem shel yom. >From 2007: > My understanding is that itzumo shel yom is mechapeir, but without inuyim, > one isn't connected to that etzem. IOW, someone who eats on YK doesn't > get kapparah, but someone who observes YK gets kapparah from YK itself, > not the zekhus of observance. > And it's clear from R' Elazar ben Azaryah on Yuma 86a that YK is never > effective in and of itself. > - For an asei, teshuvah is effective > - For a regular lav, teshuvah must first achieve selichah (removal of > onesh) before YK can effect kaparah > - For a chayav kareis, one needs teshuvah and YK for selichah, and onesh > brings kaparah > - For chillul Hashem, only misah brings kaparah. > The philosophical problems are > (1) The justice in YK being mechapeir > (2) Given a ba'asher hu sham approach, why would onesh or misah in and > of itself help? > I couldn't make heads or tails of it without stretching the notion, > and saying that YK is mechapeir to the extent that one allows oneself to > experience the soul-changing nature of YK, and thus change the ba'asher > hu sham. Similarly oneshim or misah. I know all this could be seen as dachuq BUT, Divine Justice is the 11th iqar. I would prefer to take a number of chazal's statements as colloquial shorthand for more nuanced ideas than to dismiss what we have blessed as a defining feature of Yahadus. Or IOW, given that Ani Maamin and Yigdal made it into the siddur, I feel the burden rests on those who take itzumo shel yom in its simple sense. (And yes, "problematic" should be tken as "a problem for us to understand.") Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 10:08:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:08:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 midos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55EF15F0.8060200@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 06:50 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote; >> "It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that >> ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to >> have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there >> the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so >> obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. >> How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell?" > Rashi in Chumash quoting the Mechilta offers a second explanation of > why the ketores was used to end the plague. Bnei Yisrael were > complaining about the ketores that it was a sam hamaves, that it > killed people. The ketores killed Nadav and Avihu, it killed the 250 > people, therefore Hashem said watch that it can stop the plague and > that sin is what really kills people. > > We see clearly from this explanation that there was nothing magical > about using the ketores, rather Hashem wanted to make a point to the > Jewish people about the ketores. Yes, this is an alternative explanation, offered because the primary explanation leaves some question unanswered. But it is the second explanation rather than the first, because the problem with it is obvious: Hashem didn't tell Moshe to do this. Moshe told Aharon on his own initiative, which is why the gemara wonders how he knew that it would work. This is also why the Malach Hamaves challenged Aharon's right to stop him; if the instruction had come from Hashem he would have had no reason to object to being stopped. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 12:04:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:04:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55EF3124.3060704@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 05:10 AM, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: > Kal v?chomer, how can you daven on T?B and Y?K when you wake up > without having even drinking or eating and then must go another good > 12 hours on an empty stomach? Absolutely. But you don't have a choice. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 12:07:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:07:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> References: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EF31E7.5090303@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 11:14 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:35:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > : True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a > : measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very > : problematic... > > And I don't believe there is such a thing, so I have no problem. > > I suggested twice now 2007 > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol23/v23n174.shtml#12 and 2010 > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n130.shtml that > itzumo shel yom mechaperes only someone who acknowledges and embraces > the etzem shel yom. Rebbi is the one who says Itzumo shel yom mechaper, and he explicitly says that one who eats on YK is automatically forgiven the moment he swallows the food, so that the only way to get kares for eating on YK is to choke on the food and die before swallowing it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 10:18:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:18:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] thermostats Message-ID: as thermostats for the house get more sophisticated do they present a shabbat problem? http://www.cnet.com/products/nest-learning-thermostat-third-generation/?ftag=CAD1acfa04 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 10:37:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:37:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 12:11:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 15:11:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> References: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F08476.8010605@sero.name> On 09/09/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay > (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan. Whether it's allowed is a different question from how it works. Moser Shtorosav leveis din worked even when shmitah was d'oraisa. Tosfos says that Hillel didn't invent it, he merely legitimised it. Before his day it was known, but it was considered unethical, and no reputable beis din would go along with it. To do it required finding a fly-by- night beis din willing to entertain it, so upstanding lenders didn't take advantage, and instead were reluctant to lend. Then Hillel decreed his "solution for rich and poor", which was to instruct botei din to accept and even encourage such applications, so that people would be willing to lend. And he only felt comfortable doing so because shmita was d'rabonon. -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 15:32:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 18:32:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 09:30:46PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V33n118, R'Micha wrote: :> However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is :> more important than penimius. : Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what can : be seen? How is the surface of a lung or brain more visible than the innards? The only difference is how much cutting is required. In general, halakhah only deals with what can be seen in principle, not what happens to be visible in this instance. You can't eat unchecked lettuce any more readily because the light bulb blew in the room you're in. And in principle, these things can be checked. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 17:23:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:23:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> Re: Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom - Rabbi Natan Slifkin From: Ben Rothke via Areivim <_areivim at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:areivim at lists.aishdas.org) > >> "The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom" is the latest book by Rabbi Natan Slifkin. I found it to be a fascinating work. My review is here: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/book-review-the-torah-encyclopedia-of-the-ani mal-kingdom Let me know what you think. << --Ben Rothke >>>>> I think the book is magnificent. I've seen the first volume and read a good chunk of it (the projected second volume is not out yet). It is a fascinating work based on tremendous research, and also aesthetically beautiful. The first volume is about wild animals mentioned in the Torah. The projected second volume I believe is about domestic and kosher animals. The book definitively answers, at least to my satisfaction, a question I've wondered about for a long time: What is a re'em? According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). In Moshe's brachos to the shevatim he says Yoseph has "the horns of a re'em" (Dev. 33:17). Bil'am says when Hashem took the Jews out of Egypt He had "like the strength of a re'em" (Bamidbar 23:22). R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs, a huge and powerful horned animal, a wild ox, nearly the size of an elephant, that lived in Europe, Asia and North Africa. It went extinct only about 400 years ago. The last recorded aurochs died in Poland in 1627. BTW a description and drawing of the aurochs can be seen on pages 17 - 18 of a lovely 28-page monograph that is particularly appropriate for this season. See *Exotic Shofars: Halachic Considerations* by R' Natan Slifkin. http://zootorah.com/assets/media/essays/ExoticShofars.pdf --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 21:37:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:37:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> ------------------------------ I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem?s love for His people: ?If you sin, even if you?re not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here?s a ?ticket? of sorts that I?m giving you _now_ to show my love for you, that if you ?remind? me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate that you see yourselves as close to me, and I?ll give you some measure of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah.? The best Mashal I could think of for this is a PBA placard ? you buy it and put it in your car, and when the cop pulls you over for speeding, you show it to him and he goes easy on you, because he sees that you?re really a friend of the police. NOT because you demonstrated regret for speeding, necessarily. Does that make sense? KT, MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:14:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:14:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Thinking about, knowing about, and knowing G-d In-Reply-To: <000601d0eb81$09d77c90$1d8675b0$@gmail.com> References: <20150901180343.GC11612@aishdas.org> <20150903002115.GA1793@aishdas.org> <55F08884.3010503@sero.name> <000601d0eb81$09d77c90$1d8675b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150910191452.GD3345@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:27:43AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Areivim wrote: : R' ZS: :> The Nachum in your story is too busy to think about HKBH, and that's not :> good, but OTOH HKBH Himself said "I wish they would forget me and keep my :> Torah", so this Nachum is better than someone who is constantly :> thinking about HKBH but doesn't keep mitzvos. But this is why Tanya :> (ch 41) says to interrupt ones learning once an hour to think about why one :> is learning. : This discussion reminds me that there's another step - not only to think : about Hashem, but to _know_ about Hashem, as in the old story (excerpted : from a piece I wrote for "A Daily Dose of Torah"): : R' Levi Yitzchok of Berditchev studied for an extended period of time with : the Maggid, R' Dov Ber of Mezeritch. When he returned, his father-in-law - : who did not approve of R' Levi Yitzchok's leanings towards chassidus - asked : him, "What did you learn there?" R' Levi Yitzchok answered, "I learned that : Hashem exists." His father-in-law, annoyed, protested that everyone knows : that, and to prove it, asked the maid, "Does Hashem exist?" She answered, : "Certainly!" : "She says it," R' Levi Yitzchok responded, "but I know it!" : Certainly pertinent to Malchiyos. I often quote something R/Prof Shalom Carmy wrote in (Aug '01): > [RGStudent: ] >> However, in his Al HaTeshuvah (pp. 195-201), R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik >> investigates what it means to "know" God. As he points out, it is >> impossible to know God. Rather, the Rambam means that we are obligated to >> constantly recognize God's existence. As it says in Mishlei (3:6), "In all >> your ways know Him." Cf. Rabbeinu Yonah's commentary to Mishlei, ad loc. > People who throw around big words on these subjects always seem to take > for granted things that I don't. > The people who keep insisting that it's necessary to prove things about > G-d, including His existence, seem to take it for granted that devising > these proofs is identical with knowing G-d. > Now if I know a human being personally the last thing I'd do, except as > a purely intellectual exercise, is prove his or her existence. RMYG's point is similar to that in the quote from RGS. There is a difference between knowing about Gcd and knowing Gcd. The latter is experiential, and doesn't demand proof. And IMHO more related to Malkhios. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:23:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:23:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150910192331.GA25852@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 04:56:04PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger: :> I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although :> there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, :> Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an :> obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. : "Mah ashiv laShem, kol tagmulohi alai?" I do not see obligation here. Rather, how can I possibly repay, given that everything I have is from Him. Even if voluntarily. Therefore (next pasuq), I will simply recognize what He gave me (kos yeshu'os esa) and that He was the One Who gave it (uvsheim H' eqra), follow through on what I already promised.... Do you see new obligations in this pereq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:47:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:47:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:02:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. : I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear as : ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) ... It's an intersting point, but relating it to RYBS's position just confuses the matter. You're using the word "ceremony" in nearly the opposite sense. And while you note that: : I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview it. : Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not : ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view This isnt' merely an answer, it's an indication that you're discussing two different topics. There is no question, just a miscommunication. Anyway, the contrast between the usages of the word "ceremony" interested me. You listed a number of cases where a halachic legality can be accomplished through something the lay-person considers meaningless ritual: pruzbul, mechiras chameitz, heter isqa, ha'aramos, etc.. RYBS made that statement about ceremony in the sense of ritual in which the person finds meaning, but lacks halachic structure. The two examples that most readily leap to mind are (1) his disparaging kiruv that focuses on white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos candelabra, and (2) his modifying the minhagim of the Three Weeks and Nine Days because leshitaso, the minhagim must follow the same forms as ones found in hilkhos aveilus. I posted about this in Aug '08 at . I also noted in 2011 that RYBS's position that minhag must mirror halachic structure is in opposition to the Brisker Rav's (his uncle's) shitah. RYZS holds that one makes berakhos on minhagim that have a cheftzah shel mitzvah (eg lighting a Chanukah menorah in shul), and that the Rambam and Rabbeinu Tam don't argue about that. What they do argue about is whether Chatzi Hallel is close enough to Hallel to qualify for a berakhah. However, leshitas RYBS, there are no such minhagim that wouldn't require a berakhah. If Chatzi Hallel didn't require a berakhah because it's not close enough to the cheftzah shel mitzvah, it would be "ceremony", and not a valid minhag. He therefore would have to reject his uncle's chiddush. Neo-Chassidus is basically a MO rebellion to this kind of Halakhic Man approach to Yahadus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 10:54:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:54:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle Message-ID: <20150910175503.5E910182948@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6500 Picture, if you will, the hallowed halls of almost any Yeshivah, almost anywhere in the world, on Rosh Hashanah morning. As the strains of Shiras Chanah conclude, followed by the post-Haftarah brachos, there suddenly is a loud bang on the Bimah and the Gabbai calls out "Kiddush!" Most of those assembled take a break for a quick Kiddush and then return for the day's main Mitzvah - the Tekiyas Shofar, the Blowing of the Shofar. The reciting of 'Lamnatzeach' soon reach a crescendo, not unlike a deafening roar, as the congregation eagerly anticipates and prepares for the Shofar Blowing. Although this is indeed the common custom in almost every Yeshivah, curiously, the idea of making Kiddush and eating prior to the main Mitzvah of the day is considered an anathema to some. In fact, the Matteh Efraim, who is considered the authority on issues relating to the Yomim Nora'im, writes that it is actually prohibited to eat before Tekiyas Shofar, barring if one is weak, and, even only then, a small 'Te'imah', tasting of food, in private, is allowed.[1] If so, why do so many make Kiddush[2] and eat before Tekiyas Shofar? To sum up the matter, and although this dilemma is quite complicated, one must ascertain from his knowledgeable halachic authority, as well as taking his personal situation, strength level, and minhag into account, as to what to do on Rosh Hashanah morning.[23] Postscript: One interesting upshot of this machlokes seems to be the recent proliferation of Vasikin Minyanim on Rosh Hashanah. In this way, it is possible to daven all of Shacharis and Mussaf and still be able to make Kiddush after completing davening but still before Chatzos, as well as gain all the spiritual benefits of 'Davening Haneitz'.[24] A seemingly excellent way to avoid spiritual conflict on the Day of Judgment, all the while literally fulfilling the Rambam's famous dictum (Hilchos Teshuvah Ch. 3: 4) of 'Uru Yesheinim Mi'shnascham, Wake up you slumberers, from your sleep', for the clarion call of the Shofar. See the above URL for more. ---------- Any one living in Flatbush is welcome to come to the YI of Ave J Haskama Minyan on RH morning. We start at 7:15 and davening will be over by 11:30 (with Musaf). Then there is plenty of time to go home and make kiddush before Chatzos. Davening is on the second floor in the Simcha Hall. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 08:46:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:46:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha responded to me: >> Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what >> can be seen? > How is the surface of a lung or brain more visible than the innards? > The only difference is how much cutting is required. And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an external tool is required in order to 'see' something. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 13:00:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:00:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:46:32AM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: : And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external : magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an : external tool is required in order to 'see' something. You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying glass. To me that seems obvious. But to articulate it, I find myself going to words like cheftzah, which is a bit too technical to be appropriate language for relaying why I find it self-evident. The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. The magnifying glass compensates for the fact that water bears and other microscopic beasties are not in the realm of experience. We aren't getting the situation right, we are compensating for something with the cheftzah itself. To put it another way, maggot eggs do not have halachic existence. Do tiny crustaceans cease to exist and come back into existence if you flip the light off or on? (This is just different kind of appeal to cheftzah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 13:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:19:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha noted: > You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. < I omitted the blown lightbulb because IMHO the level of required light is a murky subject (poor attempt at humor :)). > I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying glass. < And I am disagreeing: you need an external tool to reach that inside area. Since you're pushing your "kasuv hashelishi", you also need to define what level of light is "normal" -- surely you're not saying that a bug which can only be 'seen' when the level of light exceeds *olam-hazeh* norms (e.g. the lumen level exceeds that of the sun at its strongest) qualifies as visible? > The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. < I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:46:32AM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: > : And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external > : magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an > : external tool is required in order to 'see' something. > > You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen > by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. > > I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing > the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying > glass. > > To me that seems obvious. But to articulate it, I find myself going > to words like cheftzah, which is a bit too technical to be appropriate > language for relaying why I find it self-evident. > > The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, > the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside > the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an > aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is > within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. > > The magnifying glass compensates for the fact that water bears and > other microscopic beasties are not in the realm of experience. We aren't > getting the situation right, we are compensating for something with the > cheftzah itself. > > To put it another way, maggot eggs do not have halachic existence. > Do tiny crustaceans cease to exist and come back into existence if > you flip the light off or on? (This is just different kind of appeal > to cheftzah.) > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole > micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." > http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, > Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 17:40:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:40:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911004049.GA29555@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 05:20:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> The recent court to allow conversion of under bar/bat mitzvah children is :> controversial. The bone of contention is whether it is considred a zechut :> for children to become Jewish when they grow up in a non-religious setting. I thought we dissuade geirim (non-qetanim) in part because this is not true. Alternatively: How do the meiqilim justify this practice, particularly in venues (Golden Age of Spain, much of the world today) where there is comparatively little antisemisim? Rashi (Yevamos 74a, "de'amar) is concerned about the sinning convert's influence on other Jews. This being R' Chelbo's "qasheh ... kesapachas". Tosafos understand R' Chelbo as referring to the extra issurim of mistreating a geir, or that they make us look bad. The Semag (Lav 116, quoted by the BY YD 268) says we dissuade the ger to make sure he knows exactly what he is accepting, avoiding a "meqach ta'us" (my term). On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:27:59PM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious : Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also : for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for : reasons of Nationalism. Or, that being a Jew in Israel is so much better that zakhin le'adam shelo befanav applies. IOW, not by reasons of nationalism, but by taking nationalism into account as part of the metzi'us. Similar to those who rule that we do not dissuade a non-halachic convert, since they will be living among the Jews and their children will quite likely marry Jews either way. And in the latest volume of IM (vol 9, EhE 14), RMF similarly tells a BD to be proactive in convertain someone who thought until now they were Jewish. He even invoked the case of Timna, saying that to not do so would be to be repeating the avos' mistake. So we do see that facts on the ground about whether it is beneficial for the life they will be leading do matter. The bigger problem I have is qabbalas ol mitzvos. RnCL and I argued at length about whether the following qualifies as QOM, but whatever you want to call it.... Upon reaching adulthood, the geir has to affirm their acceptance of the mitzvos. While people pictures this means coming to BD on their 12th or 13th birthday, that is impossible -- the affirmation would have to be tokh kedei dibur of growing shenei sa'aros. Instead, BD sees if during that span of their lives they were observant, and if they were, we consider the geirus affirmed. This din is real enough that the gemara asks about a giyores from when she was less than 3, who is married of to a kohein as a qetana may be given terumah. After all, she might annull the geirus, in which case should would retroactively not have been an eishes kohein! The gemara answers based on rov (most children do not choose to convert out of the religion they were raised with), not that the affirmation is optional. So, what's going to happen to these qetanim when they reach adulthood? How can they be said to have effectively accepted ol mitzvos? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 17:20:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:20:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan >>> Agreed. But there still has to be rules, logic, framework. My original post was a request for help in identifying those rules. (And for now, Rav Asher Weiss' explanation seems quite plausible.). Example: If the streets in my town are a reshus harabim, there's no way to carry on Shabbos without actual walls. If the streets are merely karmelis, then we can make a haarama to say that the area is surrounded by a series of doorways. But they have got to be real halachic doorways; if even one lechi has the string on the side instead of above, forget it. So too here. I don't mind being moser to beis din, if only I was clear on what it is that I'm giving them, and how that happens, and what it accomplishes. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:04:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:04:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911010426.GA12008@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 08:20:47PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I actually thought pruzbul only works because : ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan >>> : : Agreed. But there still has to be rules, logic, framework... I was mostly dismissing your mentioning the lack of qinyan sudar. We can make a shaliach without one, for a ha'aramah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:25:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:25:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> References: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150911012558.GA18449@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:37:41AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: :> The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without :> necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> : I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem's love for His people: "If you : sin, even if you're not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, : here's a "ticket" of sorts that I'm giving you now to show my love for : you, that if you 'remind' me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate : that you see yourselves as close to me, and I'll give you some measure : of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah." But spending time demonstracting our desire for or actual closeness to HQBH is itself arguably a measure of teshuvah. And in any case avoids my problem with ascribing power to a sequence of syllables in and of themselves. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:29:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:29:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:23:44PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job : 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and : 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). : R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs... He argues that it's an auroachs. Calling any identification of this sort a "demonstration" is overly confident. Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we can use mythical creatures as metaphors. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 20:00:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:00:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I was mostly dismissing your mentioning the lack of qinyan sudar. We can make a shaliach without one, for a ha'aramah. >>> I presume you mean like how I can make the rav my shaliach for mechiras chometz without any kinyan. (In practice we do make a kinyan, but only as a chumrah.) So I don't need a kinyan at pruzbul either, and I can make the beis din a shliach without any kinyan. Okay. But if so, then exactly what is it that I'm making the beis din my shaliach FOR? What are they doing on my behalf? If I am making them my shaliach to collect my loans on my behalf, then that sounds like Rav Asher Weiss' explanation. Sure, beis din is patur from lo yigos, but it was a big chidush to me that that's enough to exempt me from being m'shamet a loan that I still own. (But if one wants to go with the Collection Agency idea, then shlichus is irrelevant - beis din would need to own the loan.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 20:51:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:51:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: <1a9316.271c37fb.4323a9c7@aol.com> In a message dated 9/10/2015 9:29:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, micha at aishdas.org writes: Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. >>> That is a fascinating and insightful point! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 02:00:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:00:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha In-Reply-To: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> References: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > Please elaborate BTW The Jewish Action had a recent article on the popularity of MO neo-chassidut. I went to a wedding this week where the chatan learns in a yeshiva from Ofra. To my sight it looked like a Breslov Yeshiva. Big white kippot with extreme dancing. The boys mostly has long peyot. The Rosh Yeshiva/mesader kedushin put on a tallit for the chuppa which I had never seen. He stressed that the chatan's tallit had techelet and he should make a shecheyanu but no bracha on the tallit since it was night, etc However, this was a RZ wedding with a bracha for the soldiers etc. On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:02:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > : RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. > : I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear > as > : ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) > ... > > It's an intersting point, but relating it to RYBS's position just > confuses the matter. You're using the word "ceremony" in nearly > the opposite sense. And while you note that: > : I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview > it. > : Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not > : ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view > > This isnt' merely an answer, it's an indication that you're discussing > two different topics. There is no question, just a miscommunication. > > Anyway, the contrast between the usages of the word "ceremony" interested > me. > > You listed a number of cases where a halachic legality can be accomplished > through something the lay-person considers meaningless ritual: pruzbul, > mechiras chameitz, heter isqa, ha'aramos, etc.. > > RYBS made that statement about ceremony in the sense of ritual in which > the person finds meaning, but lacks halachic structure. > > The two examples that most readily leap to mind are (1) his disparaging > kiruv that focuses on white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos candelabra, > and (2) his modifying the minhagim of the Three Weeks and Nine Days > because leshitaso, the minhagim must follow the same forms as ones found > in hilkhos aveilus. I posted about this in Aug '08 at > . > > I also noted in 2011 that RYBS's position that minhag must mirror halachic > structure is in opposition to the Brisker Rav's (his uncle's) shitah. RYZS > holds that one makes berakhos on minhagim that have a cheftzah shel > mitzvah (eg lighting a Chanukah menorah in shul), and that the Rambam > and Rabbeinu Tam don't argue about that. What they do argue about is > whether Chatzi Hallel is close enough to Hallel to qualify for a berakhah. > > However, leshitas RYBS, there are no such minhagim that wouldn't require > a berakhah. If Chatzi Hallel didn't require a berakhah because it's not > close enough to the cheftzah shel mitzvah, it would be "ceremony", and not > a valid minhag. He therefore would have to reject his uncle's chiddush. > > Neo-Chassidus is basically a MO rebellion to this kind of Halakhic > Man approach to Yahadus. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, > micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just > http://www.aishdas.org beginning. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 09:03:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:03:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> I have been asking this question to various people, and several have suggested that the answer is somewhere in the range of "hefker bes din" and "amiraso legavoah kimsiraso lahedyot". IOW, beis din doesn't need to make a kinyan; its inherent power is sufficient to take possession of your loans as soon as you verbally relinquish them. -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 08:02:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:02:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony Message-ID: <> It would seem that RYBS's definition of a ceremony is almost a tautology. If it is anything of religious significance then its not a ceremony. Otherwise who cares. It is only modern customs that present a difficulty because we don't establish new categories. In the old days customs like lighting the menorah in shul or havdala in shul became invested with religious significance because they were public customs Question minyana d-yoma Is the custom of "simanim" on RH a ceremony? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:53:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:53:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911175305.GC18449@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 06:02:04PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : It would seem that RYBS's definition of a ceremony is almost a tautology. : If it is anything of religious significance then its not a ceremony. If a ritual is of halachic significance then it's not a ceremony (as RYBS used the word in coining the aphorism we're discussing). Now, to Halakhic Man, one can say there is no Yahadus except halakhah, and therefore ceremony is not part of Yahadus. So, RYBS's position on ceremony is a natural consequence of Halakhic Man, but they aren't a tautology according to other derakhim. To other hashkafos, white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos licht may not define Shabbos, but they can for many help foster the atmosphere hilkhos Shabbos create. Which is why I mentioned the spread of Chavaquq-like Judaism in YU. Because Chassidus is big on ritual. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 05:49:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:49:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. >>> R' Michael Poppers responded: <<< I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. >>> The lungs of a *dead* cow are easily accessible if one has a knife; no super-vision is needed there. It is only the lungs of a *living* cow where one would need super-vision (especially if I need the cow to stay alive for more milk next week). Hmmm... Do we consider the lungs of a living cow as visible like a large insect, or as nonexistent like beitzei kinim? The nafka mina is the kashrus of that cow's milk. I would *like* to say that the lungs are invisible and inconsequential. But IIRC we can drink the milk because of rov - most lungs are kosher. There is a real possibility that the lungs are treif, and we deal with that possibility in a manner *other* than "lo nitna Torah l'malachei hashareis". Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 09:47:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:47:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] asmachta Message-ID: see point 5 , on the idea that could asmachta be a talmudic example of , well let the reader decide http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/09/artscroll-and-more.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:23:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:23:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? Message-ID: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, but again whatever Hashem does is good.) Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 11:06:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:06:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150911180646.GE18449@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 01:23:04PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" : (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever : Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the : year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, : but again whatever Hashem does is good.) >From my blog post at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov :-)BBii! -Micha Shetir'u baTov The Bostoner Rebbe (of Boston) commented once on the expression "Shanah tovah umsuqah - a good and sweet new year", which is related to the famous custom of having apple and honey on Rosh haShanah.What does "umsuqah -- and sweet" add, beyond the notion of "tovah -- good"? As Rabbi Aqiva often said, "All that the All Merciful does, He does for the good". An echo of the words of one of his rabbeim, Nachum ish Gamzu, who would greet events that would disappoint or depress most of us with "Gam zu letovah -- this too is for the best." So actually, wishing one another a good year could be thought of as being redundant. Everything is good, how could this year be any different? However, not everything I was told was "for my own good" was particularly pleasant. Therefore, the rebbe teaches, we wish that the year not only be tovah, good, but also be mesuqah, sweet to our perception as well. Along the same lines, I had a thought about a phrase in Shabbos and Yom Tov davening : Our L-rd, and the L-rd of our fathers, sanctify us bemitzvosekha (through Your mitzvos), and put our portion beSorasekha (in Your Torah), satisfy us mituvekha (from Your Goodness), and make us (or: our souls qua living force) biyshuasekha (in Your salvation)... The predicate prefix has an oddity: it says bemitzvosekha, beSorasekha, and later, beyshu'asekha. But by goodness, the prefix is "mituvekha" -- "from", not "be-" ("in" or "through") like by the others. The reason, I believe, is because we are asking for something inherently different. We can ask G-d to make us more holy by allowing us to do more mitzvos, or give us the opportunity to learn more Torah, or make us happier by saving us more often. This is "be-", we are asking for more of a gift by asking for more of the vehicle He uses to give it to us. Since everything G-d does is good, we can't be asking for G-d to give us more good, and thereby make us more satisfied. There is no more good for us to get. Rather, we are asking for more satisfaction with the goodness He already provides. This is why the "mi-" prefix is used. This is also in contrast to Rebbe's words (Berakhos 50a) about benching, that a wise person says "uvtuvo chayinu -- and through His good we live", and a boor, "umituvo chayinu -- and from His good, we live". Rebbe says that "umituvo" is incorrect because it says that we live through some of His Good, implying that Hashem gives meagerly. Perhaps it's different here, when we ask for happiness, because the truth is that if we had a full realization of even a small part of His Good would be enough to satisfy. Like the piyut we sing at the seider. We list fifteen things Hashem did for us when taking us out of Egypt. But had He done any one of those 15 alone, "Dayeinu"! R Shelomo Wolbe^zt"l would part someone's company wishing him "shetir'u batov -- may you see the good!" Because the tense of "tir'u" is ambiguous, this is both a berakhah and a mussar shmuess. Taken in the future tense, "May you see", it becomes a blessing that Hashem allow him to see all that's good in his life. In the imperative, the same work becomes "Look", advice to the person to take the initiative and seek out the good of every situation. To aspire to the middah of Nachum ish Gamzu and Rabbi Aqiva of realizing the Hand of G-d in everything, and looking to see how even the tragedies in our lives are necessary steps to something bigger which He has in store for us. The two together yields a profound combined meaning. Live is the product of a partnership between myself and G-d. It is the sum of my free-willed decisions and the hand Hashem deals me. "Shetir'u beTov" addresses both at the same time, by praying that Hashem show the person good, and that the person look to find it. A greeting that recognizes the fundamental covenant by which man is redeemed. It's a beautiful greeting, one worth adopting. Wishing others could taste the sweetness. Shetir'u baTov! (With thanks to RYGB for helping me find the gemara.) Like this: Like Loading... Related You may also like... * [13]3 [14]The Devastating Power of Leitznus ? ???? ???? - December 28, 2006 * [15]0 [16]The Desire to Desire ?? ????? ???? - August 28, 2007 * [17]0 [18]Nine Qavim at the Buffet ?? ????? ???? - March 27, 2008 2 Responses * [19]Comments1 * [20]Pingbacks1 1. Anonymous says: [21]? ????? ???? - September 29, 2006 at 1:25pm Possibly related - stolen waters are described as sweet, which tells us something unpleasant about the human condition. Perhaps what we are requesting is not only an objectively good year, but the ability to appreciate that goodness, similar to the way in which we regrettably now enjoy the prohibited. - Moishe Potemkin [22]Reply 1. [23]Aspaqlaria ? Blog Archive ? ?? ???? ???"? ?? ????? ???? - September 5, 2007 [...] berakhos for a Shanah tovah umsuqah, as the Bostoner Rebbe put it, a year that is we not only conceptually know to be good, but has a sweetness we can taste and [...] And your thoughts...? [24]Cancel reply IFRAME: [25]jetpack_remote_comment Follow: * * * * * [26]Next story Sweet Charoses * [27]Previous story Nine Qavim at the Buffet ____________________ Subscribe Name: ____________________ email: ____________________ * [28]Entries * [29]Comments * [30]PodCast New & Popular * [31]Recent Posts * [32]Popular Posts * [33]Recent Comments * [34]My Life as a Pendulum ? ????? ???? - September 3, 2015 * [35]Copyright ?? ??? ???? - August 13, 2015 * [36]What does Hashem ask of you? ?? ??? ???? - August 7, 2015 * [37]?? ?????? ???? ? ??? ???? - July 23, 2015 * [38]Gratitude and Thankfulness ?? ????? ???? - July 16, 2015 * [39]Emunah Peshutah vs Machashavah ?? ????? ???? - November 30, 2004 * [40]Balancing Simplicity and Authenticity ? ????? ??? - July 1, 2010 * [41]The Kuzari Proof, part I ?? ???? ???? - December 22, 2004 * [42]What is Frumkeit? ? ???? ? ???? - February 9, 2014 * [43]The Curriculum at Volozhin ? ????? ???? - May 23, 2012 * David Zalkin says: [44]Regarding giving precedence to the Aruch HaShulchan over the MB, my... * Eliezer Eisenberg says: [45]Excellent. Thanks for sharing. * Ilana Sober Elzufon says: [46]Intriguing. I really value the all-women's spaces that Orthodox Judaism provides,... * micha says: [47]You're right. A poor choice of words. Correcting.Thank you. * Dr. Yitzchok Levine says: [48]You wrote, "Shul looks like a boy's club because it was... Aspaqlaria ? 2015. All Rights Reserved. Powered by [49]WordPress. Theme by [50]Alx. * * * * IFRAME: [51]likes-master %d bloggers like this: References Visible links 1. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/feed 2. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/comments/feed 3. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov/feed 4. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 5. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/sweet-charoses 6. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ 7. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/category/mussar/middos 8. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#comments 9. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/author/admin 10. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#stbt 11. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/01/vetaheir-libeinu.shtml 12. http://www.aishdas.org/rygb 13. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus#comments 14. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus 15. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire#comments 16. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire 17. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet#comments 18. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 19. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#commentlist-container 20. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#pinglist-container 21. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov/comment-page-1#comment-72 22. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov?replytocom=72#respond 23. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/09/%d7%9b%d7%92-%d7%90%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%9c-%d7%aa%d7%a9%d7%9e%d7%90.shtml 24. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#respond 25. http://jetpack.wordpress.com/jetpack-comment/?blogid=11004584&postid=134&comment_registration=0&require_name_email=1&stc_enabled=1&stb_enabled=1&show_avatars=1&avatar_default=identicon&greeting=And+your+thoughts...%3F&greeting_reply=Leave+a+Reply+to+%25s&color_scheme=light&lang=en-US&jetpack_version=3.7&sig=04e58004b358ee700890b798c328f7cfd8e7fee6#parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aishdas.org%2Fasp%2Ftireh-betov 26. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/sweet-charoses 27. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 28. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/feed 29. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/comments/feed 30. http://feeds.feedburner.com/AspPodCast 31. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-recent 32. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-popular 33. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-comments 34. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/my-life-as-pendulum 35. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/copyright 36. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask 37. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/%d7%91%d7%9f-%d7%97%d7%9e%d7%99%d7%a9%d7%99%d7%9d-%d7%9c%d7%a2%d7%a6%d7%94 38. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gratitude-thankfulness 39. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/emunah-peshutah-vs-machashavah 40. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/balancing-simplicity-and-authenticity 41. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/kuzari-proof-part-i 42. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-is-frumkeit 43. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-curriculum-at-volozhin 44. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/textualism-mb/comment-page-1#comment-60227 45. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask/comment-page-1#comment-60184 46. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60105 47. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60102 48. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60101 49. http://wordpress.org/ 50. http://alxmedia.se/ 51. http://widgets.wp.com/likes/master.html?ver=20141028#ver=20141028 Hidden links: 53. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus 54. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire 55. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 56. http://www.facebook.com/micha.berger 57. http://www.linkedin.com/in/rmsberger 58. https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MichaBerger 59. http://www.twitter.com/aishdas 60. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/textualism-mb/comment-page-1#comment-60227 61. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask/comment-page-1#comment-60184 62. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60105 63. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60102 64. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60101 65. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov 66. http://www.facebook.com/micha.berger 67. http://www.linkedin.com/in/rmsberger 68. https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MichaBerger 69. http://www.twitter.com/aishdas From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:01:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:01:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> Message-ID: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when shmitta is d'Orayta again? On 9/11/2015 7:03 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > I have been asking this question to various people, and several have > suggested that the answer is somewhere in the range of "hefker bes din" > and "amiraso legavoah kimsiraso lahedyot". IOW, beis din doesn't need > to make a kinyan; its inherent power is sufficient to take possession > of your loans as soon as you verbally relinquish them. > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:05:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:05:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F56682.4070005@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 04:01 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when > shmitta is d'Orayta again? Why wouldn't it? Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din declares it unethical. And I don't think that will happen, because such a declaration wouldn't stop it, it would just drive it to the disreputable batei din. Now that everyone knows about it you can't make people forget it; Hillel uncorked the idea and it can't be pushed back into the bottle. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:05:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:05:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> On 9/11/2015 4:29 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:23:44PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: > : According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job > : 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and > : 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). > > : R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs... > > He argues that it's an auroachs. Calling any identification of this sort a > "demonstration" is overly confident. Agreed. > Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever > sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim > who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we > can use mythical creatures as metaphors. How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty plural to me. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:02:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:02:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you won't experience that as a good thing. On 9/11/2015 8:23 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A > good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever > Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the > year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, > but again whatever Hashem does is good.) > > Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." > > Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. > > YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 02:22:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 05:22:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:02 AM 9/13/2015, you wrote: >On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But if >you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you won't >experience that as a good thing. Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries. If your injuries are not severe, and you collect a hefty sum from the driver's insurance company, then you may indeed view it as a good thing! All things have to be considered in context. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:57:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:57:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 05:22:08AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: :> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But :> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you :> won't experience that as a good thing. : Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries... We're getting off point. I believe Lisa's reponse was similar to my repeating the distinction between "shanah tovah" and "umsuqah", without leading to the problem of the "wrong" word being used in "Leshanah tovah tekhaseivu". We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- what ra? I thought there is no ra? It would seem we often speak of tov vara in terms of how they're experienced, rather than some abstract reality in which we know (or should know) "gam zu letovah". Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:57:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:57:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 05:22:08AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: :> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But :> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you :> won't experience that as a good thing. : Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries... We're getting off point. I believe Lisa's reponse was similar to my repeating the distinction between "shanah tovah" and "umsuqah", without leading to the problem of the "wrong" word being used in "Leshanah tovah tekhaseivu". We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- what ra? I thought there is no ra? It would seem we often speak of tov vara in terms of how they're experienced, rather than some abstract reality in which we know (or should know) "gam zu letovah". Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 06:39:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:39:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. In RM's opinion, shmitta won't be d'Orayata again until the Messiah comes. Ben On 9/13/2015 10:01 AM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when > shmitta is d'Orayta again? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:46:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:46:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: <<< Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din declares it unethical. >>> Perhaps. But I would think that the impropriety of using pruzbul in a d'Oraisa time was pretty implicit (perhaps even explicit) in how Hillel promoted it, and there is no need for a future beis din to point it out. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 06:41:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 09:41:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor Message-ID: <09a801d0ee29$ef34d030$cd9e7090$@com> The sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor is avail for free download at - http://hebrewbooks.org/53838 review of sefer - http://seforim.blogspot.ca/2015/09/review-of-dovid-bashevkins-sefer.html Review of Dovid Bashevkin's Sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor By Rabbi Yitzchok Oratz Rabbi Yitzchok Oratz, a musmach of Beth Medrash Govoha, is the Rabbi and Director of the Monmouth Torah Links community in Marlboro, NJ. God knows the nature of every generation, Rabbi Dovid Bashevkin has written a Sefer uniquely appropriate for the nature of ours[1]. Take a trip to your local Jewish bookseller during this time period, and you will find numerous seforim, old[2] and new[3], on the themes of sin and repentance. Although they certainly vary in style and quality, a common denominator among many is the heavy reliance on Rambam's Hilchos Teshuva and Sha'arey Teshuva of Rabbeinu Yonah of Gerondi[4]. And this is to be expected. Timeless classics, these works of the great Rishonim are unmatched in their systematic and detailed discussion of sin and punishment, free will[5] and repentance, and are a prerequisite study for any serious discussion of Teshuva. But therein lays the dilemma. For although Rabbeinu Yonah maps out the exalted levels of Teshuva that one should certainly strive for, they seem not to be for the faint of heart. Is our generation really up to the task of embracing the sorrow, suffering, and worry, the humbling and lowering oneself[6], without allowing for the concomitant sense of despair[7] and despondence[8]? And how many of us can honestly stand before the Creator, and proclaim that we will "never return" to our negative actions, to the extent that God Himself will testify that this is the case[9]? If confession without sincere commitment to change is worthless[10], does repeating last year's failed commitments not require choosing between giving up and fooling ourselves? This is where B'Rogez Rachem Tizkor comes in. Based heavily on the thought of Izbica in general, and Reb Tzadok ha-Kohen of Lublin in particular, it discusses the value of spiritual struggle, the interplay between determinism and free will, the redemptive potential of sin, and the status of those who have not yet arisen from their fall. Overall, the sefer is a good introduction to R' Tzadok for those who are not familiar with his thought, and offers many insightful and fascinating comments even for those who are. My main critiques are that some of the discussion of the more controversial statements of Izbica required more elaboration[14], the lack thereof leads to a seeming conflating of two similar, yet far from identical, concepts, and more contrasting and supporting texts (both from within Izbica and R' Tzadok's thought and without) would have made for a stronger case and deeper understanding. My hope is to fill in these gaps in some small measure. Hopefully it will further enlighten those whose appetite was whet by this fine work. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:05:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:05:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F59EAF.30104@sero.name> See Tanya chapter 26. There is really no such thing as bad; there is merely the good that we can see and the good that we can't see. But we'd much prefer the kind that we can see, and we ask Hashem to give us that kind of good rather than the other kind. http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7905/jewish/Chapter-26.htm -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:11:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:11:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F5A021.4040809@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 08:46 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The >> only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right >> to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when >> shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din >> declares it unethical. > > Perhaps. But I would think that the impropriety of using pruzbul in a > d'Oraisa time was pretty implicit (perhaps even explicit) in how > Hillel promoted it, and there is no need for a future beis din to > point it out. How so? He didn't say anything about it being improper when shmita is de'oraisa, he merely said here is a solution we can use. The question is why nobody did it before, and the answer is because batei din considered it unethical. Now when were these batei din considering it unethical? In the time of Bayit Rishon?! No, it was in Hillel's day, which is why he needed to make his takanah. And in his day it was already derabbanan. The only relevance of it being derabanan is that had it been deoraisa in Hillel's day, he would not have felt he had the right to promote a way around it, no matter how great the need he saw. But since it was derabanan, and he saw a problem that needed fixing, he was bold and publicised this trick, and declared that nobody should feel guilty about using it. There's no indication that he mentioned shmita's drabanan status at all. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 08:52:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:52:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In Avodah V33n123, RAkivaM responded to me: >> I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. << > The lungs of a *dead* cow are easily accessible if one has a knife; no super-vision is needed there. It is only the lungs of a *living* cow where one would need super-vision (especially if I need the cow to stay alive for more milk next week). < A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the human eye without opening it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 11:55:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:55:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150913185550.GC10636@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 08:57:35AM -0400, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: ::> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But ::> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you ::> won't experience that as a good thing. ... : We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- : what ra? I thought there is no ra? Addenda in response to private email: Well, I didn't mean to get all Izhbitz... I meant the evil we experience, the tragic, and not the evil that we do, the wrong.. But I did buy into more univeralistic models of hashgachah peratis, that at least every person's fate is subject to HP (pace the Rambam or Or haChaim), and thus the tragic has a point. If not itself tovsh, it is letovah. Which still leaves us with R/Prof Levine's original question sbout blessing others with shanah tovah. ... : Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be : experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even : that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) But even the evil that we do is more like a missed opposrtunity for good than a beryah. Much the way Yeshaiah pairs evil with darkness "yotzeir or uvorei choshekh ... uvorei es hara." Althouh it's possible that Yeshiah considered darkness to be a beryah, the way Chazal talk about the thick darkness of makas choshekh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 12:00:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:00:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:52:48AM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the : human eye without opening it. The sun is also an external tool. This is wh I think we need more nuance here. It might depend on whether a hollow inside the lung is judged as a lung that is defective in a way we can't see without a knife, or the hole is a mum that we could be able to see ourselves if the ourside of the lung weren't in the way. But in either case, I still csn't articulste what seems to me to be a obvious difference. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 07:07:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 10:07:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akeidah of the Mind Message-ID: <20150913140741.CE67A180E46@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from pages 588 - 590 of Rav Schwab on Chumash. Please note the words "Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave the human being a mind to understand Him. Whatever one studies in the world, be it science, history, economics, mathematics, or anything else, it is actually the study of the revelations of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Our mind is given to us to enable us to understand as much about C-d as is humanly possible. This is borne out in many places throughout Torah and Nach ... This means that we are not merely to accept that which our forefathers have taught us about C-d but we are to attempt to know, to understand as much as we can about Hashem ... The Rav (Rav Shimon Schwab, ZT"L) was firmly convinced that since Moshe emes v'Toraso emes, the Torah and our Rabbinic mesorah are inviolable and, one day, answers would be found answers these questions. He would say that sometimes one must offer his mind as an "akeidah" to Hakadosh Baruch Hu where human reasoning has not yet found answers to apparent contradictions between the inviolable eternal truth of the Torah, the truthful writing (Daniel 10:21), and historical or scientific finds which are subject to change. In his lectures on Iyov, he offered the following comments on this subject. "... By accepting C-d's command, Avraham Avinu had sacrificed his own mind to comply with the will of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. While Avraham attempts to understand C-d, nevertheless, when C-d1s command contradicts that understanding, Avraham sacrifices his mind to the will of C-d, just as one would forfeit his life if the halachah required it, rather than violate the three cardinal sins. "Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave the human being a mind to understand Him. Whatever one studies in the world, be it science, history, economics, mathematics, or anything else, it is actually the study of the revelations of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Our mind is given to us to enable us to understand as much about C-d as is humanly possible. This is borne out in many places throughout Torah and Nach ... This means that we are not merely to accept that which our forefathers have taught us about C-d but we are to attempt to know, to understand as much as we can about Hashem ... "... This is why the mitzvah of learning Torah is so important; in fact it is our most important mitzvah. When we learn Torah, we employ our mind in the service of Hakadosh Baruch Hu by studying C-d's will as revealed to us in the Torah. And if we have questions or contradictions, we must use our mind to the best of our capacity to attempt to resolve them within the parameters of Torah study. "... So, while we are encouraged to use our mind, as much as reason allows, to serve C-d, to understand Him, and to answer questions, nevertheless, when all reason fails us, and we cannot go any further with human understanding, when our mind is staggered, we must be prepared to I/sacrifice our mind/I to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. We must throw up our hands and say that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is right whether we understand it or not. One could call this 'the akeidah of the mind.' "When science poses questions which seemingly contradict our basic truths, we must make an effort to answer these questions. But if the answers are elusive, we must sacrifice our mind and subjugate it to the revealed truths of the Torah. Fortunately, baruch Hashem, as yet, I have not found any questions of this sort- for instance, regarding the age of the universe, evolution, ancient civilizations- for which I have not found possible answers. But it could happen, and one has to be ready for it. If suddenly a scientific discovery were to arise which clearly seems to contradict the Torah, we would then have to admit that the question is excellent but nevertheless, the Torah is right because it is the revealed wisdom of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. It is "Toras Emes, 11 absolute truth, all questions notwithstanding. Answers will no doubt eventually be found to such contradictions, but in the meantime, by accepting the veracity of the Torah without reservations, we will have offered our mind as an 'akeidah' to Hakadosh Baruch Hu.'' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 11:36:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:36:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? Message-ID: <1f9d87.3cc2b5a7.43271c34@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, but again whatever Hashem does is good.) Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. YL >>>>> When others wish you well you should wish them well too, mipnei darkei shalom. A long philosophical treatise about how even illness, accidents and financial losses are actually all good things will not endear you to anyone. Another answer to your question is: we wish our friends (and ourselves) brachos from the Ribono Shel Olam that are sweet and obvious even to our limited human eyes, and not the other kind. Certainly we appreciate that the dentist's drill or the surgeon's knife is doing us a favor and repairing what needs repairing, but we prefer not to have the cavity and not to need the surgery in the first place. However if you simply cannot bring yourself to utter a blessing that seems philosophically dubious to you, I would suggest that you overcome that feeling, bentsh your fellow Jews anyway, and may Hashem in turn overcome His philosophical doubts and bless you and all of us in kind. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 07:15:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (RCK via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 17:15:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty > plural to me. >Lisa Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book *Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew * [image: Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] [image: Academia.edu] [image: Google Scholar] [image: LinkedIN] [image: Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:00:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:00:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F59DB4.6080103@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 04:05 AM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >> Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever >> sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim >> who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we >> can use mythical creatures as metaphors. > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty > plural to me. Because Yosef is a shor, not a re'em, even if each of his horns is that of a re'em. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 12:29:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:29:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 10:15 AM, RCK via Avodah wrote: > Lisa wrote: >> How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty >> plural to me. > Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=11650&pgnum=227 I don't understand the Bachur's comment. Surely the Radak explicitly addressed his objection, so why does he still raise it? (Unless these notes were not written on the Shorashim at all, and some printer decided to mash them together at random.) -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 13:59:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 16:59:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> References: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha replied: > The sun is also an external tool. < Which is why I previously differentiated between the sun _or_ a substitute light source no brighter than it and between what I call "external tools." > This is wh I think we need more nuance here. < My theory is that anything we, a 6th-Day "creation", can see with the tools provided as part of the *b'riyah* (or, again, a fair substitute) is within our Halachic field of vision. Best wishes for a *shanah tovah umsuqah* from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:52:48AM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: > : A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the > : human eye without opening it. > > The sun is also an external tool. > > This is wh I think we need more nuance here. > > It might depend on whether a hollow inside the lung is judged as a lung > that is defective in a way we can't see without a knife, or the hole is > a mum that we could be able to see ourselves if the ourside of the lung > weren't in the way. > > But in either case, I still csn't articulste what seems to me to be > a obvious difference. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea > micha at aishdas.org of instincts. > http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter > Fax: (270) 514-1507 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 15 10:01:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (RCK via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:01:11 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> References: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> Message-ID: It's a good question, in fact, the Bayis HaGadol (also known as Biur) on Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer (end of ch. 19) asks this on HaBachur. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book *Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew * [image: Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] [image: Academia.edu] [image: Google Scholar] [image: LinkedIN] [image: Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/13/2015 10:15 AM, RCK via Avodah wrote: > >> Lisa wrote: >> > > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty >>> plural to me. >>> >> > Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. >> > > http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=11650&pgnum=227 > > I don't understand the Bachur's comment. Surely the Radak explicitly > addressed his objection, so why does he still raise it? (Unless these > notes were not written on the Shorashim at all, and some printer decided > to mash them together at random.) > > -- > Zev Sero KvChT > zev at sero.name > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 15 17:45:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:45:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150916004501.GA21666@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 04:59:29PM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: :> This is wh I think we need more nuance here. : My theory is that anything we, a 6th-Day "creation", can see with the tools : provided as part of the *b'riyah* (or, again, a fair substitute) is within : our Halachic field of vision. You mean, like a sharp rock? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 01:43:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:43:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: R' MYG wrote: "I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem?s love for His people: ?If you sin, even if you?re not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here?s a ?ticket? of sorts that I?m giving you _now_ to show my love for you, that if you ?remind? me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate that you see yourselves as close to me, and I?ll give you some measure of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah.? The best Mashal I could think of for this is a PBA placard ? you buy it and put it in your car, and when the cop pulls you over for speeding, you show it to him and he goes easy on you, because he sees that you?re really a friend of the police. NOT because you demonstrated regret for speeding, necessarily. Does that make sense?" Not really, Hashem is perfect and all knowing, you can't bribe him. Why should you need to remind him of anything? Hashem knows exactly who you are and how close you are to him. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 02:35:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:35:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916093543.GA10685@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:43:35AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Not really, Hashem is perfect and all knowing, you can't bribe him. Why : should you need to remind him of anything? Hashem knows exactly who you are : and how close you are to him. That's ust an inherent limitation in the mashal. (Any mashal where the nimshal is G-d, is going to be limited for the same reason you give.) Lemaaseh, He may Remember everything, but I don't. Going through the exercises keep my own beliefs more conscious and reinforces them. Setting up a pointless reminder to remind Him has function in that it reminds me. Which is how I understood RMYG's original answer: that reciting the 13 middoes is "more of a symbol of Hashem's love for His people: 'If you sin, even if you're not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here's a 'ticket' of sorts that I'm giving you _now_ to show my love for you...'" We need to remember the closeness, to keep it real in our minds, which then deepens our belief in it. Which is why I then said that this in itself is a minimal teshuvah, and not merely reciting words. IOW, if someone said the 13 Middos and didn't even think "these are G-d's 13 Middos of lovingkindness that He gave us", would they still be guaranteed not to leave empty-handed? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 01:58:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:58:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > There's no indication that he mentioned shmita's drabanan status at all. The simple reading of the Gemara in Gittin 36a-b which is the source of pruzbul says that pruzbul only works when shemitta is d'rabbanan and in fact this is how the Rambam understands the Gemara and how he paskens. The Gemara first states that Hillel was mesaken pruzbul and then asks how could Hillel be mesaken pruzbul and say that loans are not cancelled when the Torah says that they are? Abaye answers shemitta nowadays is derabban. The Gemara then asks how could the Chachamim be mesaken shemittas kesafim medrabban (and cancel loans) and Rava answers hefker beit din hefker. The simple reading of the Gemara is that the whole takana of pruzbul only works when shemitta is derabbanan. Rashi and the Raavad however understand the Gemara that Rava's answer also answers the first question of how could Hillel be mesaken pruzbul when the Torah cancels loans based on hefker beis din hefker and that pruzbul works even when shemmita is d'oraysa. [Email #2] R"n Lisa Liel asked: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when shmitta > is d'Orayta again? and R' Zev Sero asked why wouldn't it? Actually this is an explicit machlokes the Rambam and the Raavad and Rashi and Tosafos (Gittin 36a-b). The Rambam writes in Hilchos Shemitta V'Yovel (chapter 9) v'ein haprozbul moeel ela b'shmitas kesafim shehee midvrei sofrim aval shemitta shel torah ayn haprozbul moeel bo The Raavad there argues that prozbul will work even when shemmita is d'oraysa based on his understanding of Rava's answer of hefker beis din hefker (like Rashi in Gittin). From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 02:50:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:50:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916095007.GD14423@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:00:56PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : If I am making them my shaliach to collect my loans on my behalf, then that : sounds like Rav Asher Weiss' explanation. Sure, beis din is patur from lo : yigos, but it was a big chidush to me that that's enough to exempt me from : being m'shamet a loan that I still own. (But if one wants to go with the : Collection Agency idea, then shlichus is irrelevant - beis din would need : to own the loan.) The big problem is that the difference in sevaros may make a particular pruzbul text valid or not. For example, how does hefqer BD hefqer work today, when courts do not have a central Sanhedrin organizing them? I am giving the loan to three hedyotos. Which 3? The three I named? (Are we invoking Beis Shammai's notion that one can be mafqir only to a given person or set of people? [Ymi Pei'ah 6:1 19b]) Then how is it HBDH and not a simple matanah? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 03:09:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:09:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20150916100941.GE14423@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 03:39:14PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey : wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of : Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all : those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the : number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. : : In RM's opinion, shmitta won't be d'Orayata again until the Messiah comes. Also, the machloqes Rashi and Tosafos as to whether "kol yosheveha aleha" is by sheivet. I don't know what Tosafos do with the machloqes (Sanhedring 110b) about whether the lost shevatim will ever be restored. If they hold like R' Aqiva, this would have to refer to the descendents of those refugees from Malkhus Yisrael who fled to Malkhus Yehudah. Or, is that in itself enough reestablishment of the shevatim to contradict R' Aqiva? The masqanah of the gemara appears to be Rabba bb Chana (citing R' Yochanan) refuting R' Aqiva's position in favor of R' Eliezer -- that the missing shevatim will be restored (quoting Yirmiyahu 3:!2). Maybe they just consider the question closed. The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority of Benei Yisrael. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 05:08:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:08:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: from wikipedia Thus, if one would agree that shmita does not apply when Israelites are dispersed,[6] Hillel, great as he was, would not have changed a law of the Torah in order to fit the needs of his time. He and his beth din would have enacted a rabbinic exception to a rabbinic law. As the Rambam notes in Shmita V'Yovel chapter 9, when most Jews again live in the Land of Israel and the observance of the sabbatical and jubilee years are Toraitic commandments, the prozbul will no longer be able to be used. According to this theory, Prozbul, like `eruv , is a rabbinic exception to a rabbinic enactment. Prozbul cannot be used to get around the Torah commanded shmita and yovel, just as `eruv cannot be used to get around the fact that Torah prohibited carrying in the public domain. I recently saw the opposite question: There are many ways to avoid the problem of shmitta annulling laws without resorting to prozbul. One simple example is to make the loan end immediately after RH of this year. There are many other options. So the question is why the need for prozbul The only answer I saw was that the general population was not aware of the alternatives or else they were too cumbersome [Email #2] > In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench > that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the > true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people > who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is > much higher than we believe it to be. I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even for direct maternal descendants. i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. I would assume that a descendant of annusim would be Jewish since they kept their Jewish identification through various customs -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:40:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:40:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:36:20PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were :> exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on :> Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority :> of Benei Yisrael. : How do you know? (I assume you mean the reisha about yovel and therefore shemittah de'oraisa ending when eiver hayardein was conquered, not my last sentence.) Eirachin 32b Rambam, Hil Shemitah veYovel 10:8. GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 09:36:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:36:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> On 9/13/2015 4:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey > wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of > Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all > those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the > number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. On the contrary. The number of people who identify as "Jewish" in polls who are actually non-halakhic "converts" or children of non-Jewish mothers is vast, so the number of Jews is much *lower* than we believe it to be. [Email #2] On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were > exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on > Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority > of Benei Yisrael. How do you know? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:40:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:40:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F9A97D.2080405@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 08:08 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> >In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench >> >that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the >> >true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people >> >who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is >> >much higher than we believe it to be. > I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that > once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with > yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even > for direct maternal descendants. > > i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim > through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. That is an extreme daat yachid, with a very tenuous basis. Nobody else agrees with him, so there's no reason to expect R Melamed to take this view into account, or even to be aware of it. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:49:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:49:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Moderator Vacation Message-ID: <20150916174900.GC6146@aishdas.org> While Areivim has a team of mods, Avodah is still entirely dependent on me. Which makes me feel an obligation to forewarn y'all before I go on vacation. Tomorrow I will be leaving for 3 weeks in Yerushalayim ih"q. (Barring messianic intervention, to leave again the day after chutznik Simchas Torah.) I do not know what my internet access will be like, but it's quite likely moderation approval delays will increase. Please be patient. Yerushalayim crew: Avodah/Areivim Simchas Beis haSho'eivah anyone? Discussion on Areivim...) GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 11:30:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:30:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916183023.GD6146@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 03:08:53PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that : once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with : yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even : for direct maternal descendants. This was his famous teshuvah on the Brother Daniel case. That there are limits even on maternal descent. I found a nice summary by R/Dr Judah Goldberg : i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim : through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. >From there, RAL's meqoros in shas: In Yevamot 16b, Rav Assi states that if a gentile betroths a Jewess, we cannot dismiss the validity of the marriage, for perhaps he descends from one of the ten lost tribes. When Shmuel heard this ruling, however, he responded, "They did not move from that place until they made [the descendants of the lost tribes] into absolute gentiles, as it says, 'They have betrayed God, for they have begotten alien children' (Hoshea 5:7)" (17a). Similarly, Chullin 6a tells how Rav Ami and Rav Assi discovered that the Samaritan community, which had long been suspected of engaging in pagan worship, was no longer observing Jewish law at all. In response, They did not move from that place until they made [the Samaritans] into absolute gentiles. He cites three shitos from rishonim, although the Rambam's pesaq is as explacated by R' Chaim Brisker. 1- Rashba: The Samaritan's conversion was annulled, not that one can stop being a Jew. R Pinchas Horowitz (Sefer Ha-mikna) applies parallel reasoning to the 10 shevatim -- they didn't stop being Jews, they are just an ignorable mi'ut that only a derabbanan kept us from ignoring. And that was repealed. 2- A mi'ut hold that the geir who stops believing ceases being a geir, but we have to worry about what's really going on in his head, so lechumerah we have to acknowledge his marriage. 3- The Rambam as explained by RCB (contrasting Ishus 4:15 with peirush on Niddah 7:4, where he says a dead Samaritan is not metamei tum'as ohel) that someone who gives up his self-identity as a Jew and acts on it is But in either case, the hypothetical Ephramite is a machloqes amoraim. Unless you agree with the author of the Hafla'ah that it's just an issue of mi'ut, and therefore the one who could prove he is in the mi'ut would be Jewish. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless micha at aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 13:39:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:39:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Moderator Vacation In-Reply-To: <55F9B9EA.70600@sero.name> References: <20150916174900.GC6146@aishdas.org> <55F9B9EA.70600@sero.name> Message-ID: <43db8966934f6c727f16a67e6896f9cb@aishdas.org> It is much easier when my mechutan's work address is "1 Kotel Plaza" -- Yeshivat Netiv Aryeh. Thanks for the _berakhos_. _Gemar chasimah tovah_! On 2015-09-16 2:50 pm, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/16/2015 01:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > >> Tomorrow I will be leaving for 3 weeks in Yerushalayim ih"q. > > Mazal tov. Even if Moshiach doesn't come in the next week or so, > you can still fulfil a zecher to hakhel. I was there 14 years > ago at the "hakhel" rally at the kotel, but unfortunately I was > unable to be there 7 years ago, and barring either Moshiach (and > the real hakhel) or a lottery win I will not be able to be there > this year either. > > (Actually I'm not aware of any source that Moshiach will provide > transportation, so even if he comes today it may be impossible > for everyone to get there in time for hakhel.) _Tir'u baTov_! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 11:54:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:54:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> On 9/16/2015 8:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:36:20PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: > : On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were > :> exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on > :> Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority > :> of Benei Yisrael. > > : How do you know? > > (I assume you mean the reisha about yovel and therefore shemittah de'oraisa > ending when eiver hayardein was conquered, not my last sentence.) Actually, I meant your last sentence. How do you know that the area of the 2.5 shvatim didn't include a majority of Bnei Yisrael? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:47:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:47:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 09:54:59PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : Actually, I meant your last sentence. How do you know that the area : of the 2.5 shvatim didn't include a majority of Bnei Yisrael? Because the gemara has to explain why 2-1/2 shevatim needed as many arei miqlat as the rest of BY. And the answer is because those who settled for land on that side of the Yardein built a more careless culture. (See Rashi Bamidbar 35:14 which is based on Abayei Makos 10a, and the Maharal on the Rashi to explain that Rashi [and Abayei] assume that the number who need galus will be greater whent he number of murderers does.) Notice the answer was NOT "because HQBH knew there would be at least as many people Mei'eiver haYardein before bayis rishon ended". It would also take a notable statistical anomaly for the largest population to grow out of a small initial state, and yet never get a navi telling them anything, etc... GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your micha at aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender, Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:41:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:41:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question Message-ID: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: > Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking around at books and online. I see no > discussion whatsoever on whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, e.g. books > I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an > obligation to return a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? Thanks, Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:54:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:54:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F9E518.5090701@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 05:47 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Because the gemara has to explain why 2-1/2 shevatim needed as many arei > miqlat as the rest of BY. And the answer is because those who settled > for land on that side of the Yardein built a more careless culture. Do you understand that question and answer? How do the population *or* the number of manslaughterers affect the number of arei miklat needed? Surely the only determinant is geography. A manslaughterer has to cover the same distance regardless of how sparse the population, or how careful they are. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 12:37:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:37:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: I was asked to provide a list of (me-possible) mitzvaot which were considered kiyumit. Does anyone know of such a list? GCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 15:07:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:07:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 05:41 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: > >> Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking >> around at books and online. I see no discussion whatsoever on >> whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, >> e.g. books I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that >> addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an obligation to return >> a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? > I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? Shemita applies only to halva'ah, not to she'elah. English uses the same word, but they are very different transactions. It's actually strange that English, which is usually the most precise language, does not distinguish them. A book is a she'elah; the book remains her property, and she expects the borrower to return it. Thus it is not at all affected by shemita. It is also not subject to the prohibition on ribbis; not only is there absolutely nothing wrong with charging people to borrow your stuff, the Torah explicitly endorses it as one of the four forms of shemirah. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 15:29:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:29:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Li Nir'eh Message-ID: <20150916222914.GE26081@aishdas.org> In AhS YD 39:48, RYME draws a conclusion from the fact that the Rama in Darkhei Moshe says "nir'eh li" rather than "veli nir'eh". "Veli nir'eh" implies he is choleiq with the BY? Anyone hear before of a distinction between the two idioms? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 16:20:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:20:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:06:16AM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> I intend to write a post on the meaning of the word "mesorah" as developed :> in RYBS's and RHS's thought as the start of its own thread. See http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/what-does-masorah-mean : And this is where this slide from discussing one slice of the mesorah - what : to do in Yeshiva, to a much wider slice of the mesorah becomes problematic, : because of the implication you have just made which is that what is true of : the section applies to the whole... Well, that's sort of it, isn't it? You're making a distinction between learning in a semichah shiur and learning how to pasqen. I don't think RYBS would. IOW, his whole point about needing mesorah is because he denies your premise. Leshitaso, you pasqen more from lomdus than from codes; or to put it more clearly -- you need a Rashi and a Tosafos to teach you how to fill in between the data points of a Yad or SA. For that matter, this is clearly the AhS's approach to pesaq. And the entire school which runs from Gemara to Rambam vs Rosh (at al) to Tur, BY, SA, Rama, Shach, Taz (et al)... This is how pesaq comes to be. Not from deciding between codes but from using the flow of mesorah to decide between them. Otherwise, shu"t would read like surveys; and even ROY doesn't end with his survey. : RGS comments that he and his father tried to learn meseches Nedarim just : using the meforash, in the absence of Rashi, and were not able to do so : (they were then only able to do it using the Ran, a much later commentary) - : thus demonstrating the point of the post, which is, without Rashi, most of : the Talmud Bavli would be a closed book to most people of average, and even : above average, intelligence (like the Talmud Yerushalmi). Actually, RYBS said that. : This is unquestionably true. : : The Rambam was also aware of this problem (after all he learned all of : Talmud Bavli without Rashi and everybody he knew either did so or tried to : do so). His solution to RGS's problem was to tell RGS and his father, and : people like him, not to try and learn Talmud Bavli, but to learn his, the : Rambam's, Code instead... Not really. His code is mishnah, not gemara. He tells beginners to do their shelish bemiqra in his code. And then you should be able to graduate from it, and from the whole need to divide one's time into thirds. ... : Our mesorah is like Rashi in this regard and not the Rambam (except when it : comes to smicha students). We open up the Talmud Bavli even to children : using Rashi and hundreds of thousands are sitting in yeshiva following : Rashi. Huh? Rashi didn't expect kids to start with Tanakh? Where does this come into the whole discussion? : The problem is that people (it would appear including you) then generalise : from "how we learn" to "how we posken" - which is what really is involved in : the discussion regarding Open O and feminism. And they are not the same : thing at all. Indeed, the fact that smicha students (those that are being : set up to posken) are taught in a totally different way to the more general : way of learning in yeshiva, and one that owes far more to the Rambam than to : Rashi and Tosphos should alert you to that. I do not believe the closing sentence. RYBS was giving one shiur to cover both. But that's RYBS, not my own leanings. I do see lomdus, in which the goal is to justify every opinion, and pesaq, in which the goal is to decide which opinion is most justified, to be different. But again, one doesn't pasqen from codes without the tools learned from lomdus. For that matter, if it's a halakhah pesuqah, one isn't pasqening at all. : What Rashi did was to provide a clear and simple explanation of the words on : the page. : What Tosphos did ... And the Me'iri opened the gemara in a third way. That seems to be a pretty complete taxonomy of parshanim. Then there are codes. Then there is shu"t. And most recently, encyclopedias / collections. ... : On the other hand, RET is correct: :> Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against :> the concept. :> Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own :> interpretation and not rely or be bound by any text. : Although I would modify that statement not to say "and not be bound by any : text", as most at that point agreed that they should be bound by the gemora : (and the Tanach as understood by the mishna/gemora), just not beyond that. The Maharal's actual objection: To decide halakhic questions from the codes without knowing the logic of the ruling was not the intent of these authors [Rambam, Tur, SA, et al]. Had they known that their works would lead to the abandonment of Talmud, they would not have written them. It is better for one to decide on thebasis of the Talmud even though he might err, for a scholar must depend solely on his understanding. As such, he is beloved of God, and preferable tothe one who rules from a code but does not know thereason for the ruling; such a one walks like a blind person. See Nesivos Olam, Nesiv haTorah ch 15. (I invoked the above thought about shelish bemishnah only being for beginners [from Hil TT] and the MT only being a replacement for the hoi palloi to justify the Maharal's statement WRT the Rambam. See RMRabi's and my months-long discussion.) Actually, what I think won the day for the SA was that the SA stopped being a code when they started publishing everyone on the sides. That's what it seems from the Maharal. Presumably his brother, the Yam shel Shelomo, would agree. ... : And RMB replied: :> Actualy, it's only those who have an eye on common practice. After all, we :> discuss machloqesin between Rashi and the Rambam in halakhah lemasseh :> contexts all the time. And if Ashkenazim accepted Rashi's ruling, or one :> found in Tosafos, the Rama has no problem limiting his pesaq to that rather :> than that of the Rif, Rambam or Tur. And had there not been a Rama, then :> some shu"t or parshan could as well. : : But neither Rashi nor Tosphos gave us any method of limiting where psak : went, and indeed the Ri can hold one thing and Rabbanu Tam another within : the same Tosphos. The Codes are far less open... But they only cover specific cases. They don't teach how to extent beyond those cases. So in general, the codes are more open than Rashi, the Ri or Rabbeinu Tam who help you by providing a why that tells you how far to take the point. A code is way open except for the cases they covered. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 16:38:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:38:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: References: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150916233829.GA3601@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 08:01:11PM +0300, RCK via Avodah wrote: : It's a good question, in fact, the Bayis HaGadol (also known as Biur) on : Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer (end of ch. 19) asks this on HaBachur. Since you clearly saw it, and some of us are kind of busy (and about to take leave of my library), could you please summarize the discussion there? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 18:31:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:31:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55FA17E2.6020200@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 07:20 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > That's > what it seems from the Maharal. Presumably his brother, the Yam shel > Shelomo, would agree. The Maharshal was not a brother of the Maharal! AFAIK they were not related. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 19:19:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:19:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel quoted Wikipedia: > ...According to this theory, Prozbul, like > `eruv , is a rabbinic exception > to a rabbinic enactment. Prozbul cannot be used to get around the > Torah commanded shmita and yovel, just as `eruv cannot be used to get > around the fact that Torah prohibited carrying in the public domain. As few days ago, I was thinking about comparisons between Prozbul and Eruv, and it seems clear to me that while Eruv *is* an exception to an enactment, Prozbul is a whole 'nother thing. I think it makes no sense for Prozbul to be "an exception to an enactment", because "why bother?" If the agricultural Shemitta stops being d'Oraisa, then Chazal can certainly enact it on a d'rabanan level. But to do that for Shemitas Kesafim means to legislate the following three things simultaneously: 1) Enact a law requiring cancellation of loans 2) Loans are exempt from cancellation if Prozbul is done 3) For the benefit of both poor and wealthy, everyone should do a Prozbul Why enact such a set of laws? Wouldn't it be far simpler to just let Shmitas Kesafim lapse, and NOT be enacted on a d'rabanan level? Regardless of whether one holds Prozbul to work on a d'Oraisa level, I think everyone can agree that Prozbul was enacted specifically because (as the Torah feared) too many people refrained from lending money as Shmitta got near. Therefore, it seems clear to me that IF Shmitas Kesafim was enacted as a d'rabanan, THEN Prozbul was enacted LATER, and not at the same time. In sharp contrast, I understand that Eruvin was a real "exception to an enactment": Simultaneously to the new law which prohibited carrying in a karmelis, an exception was included exempting certain areas under certain condiitons, allowing the carrying there. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 20:25:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:25:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55FA328E.1080708@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 10:19 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > In sharp contrast, I understand that Eruvin was a real "exception to > an enactment": Simultaneously to the new law which prohibited > carrying in a karmelis, an exception was included exempting certain > areas under certain condiitons, allowing the carrying there. An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. I don't know who prohibited carrying in a karmelis, but there's no reason to suppose it was Shlomo. Shlomo prohibited carrying in a *reshus hayachid with multiple owners*, and instituted eruv as a way around that prohibition. (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 05:01:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:01:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and > thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. My language was not precise. I apologize. What I meant was that prior to the establishment of these d'rabanans, one was allowed to carry from an unwalled non-thoroughfare to either a walled area or to a major thoroughfare. But it was easy to get confused between the general outdoors and a main road, so the general outdoors was made into a Reshus Harabim D'rabanan, with the following exception: Whereas a Reshus Harabim d'Oraisa requires actual walls to allow carrying, for a Reshus Harabim d'Rabanan it is sufficient to surround an area with doorways (tzuras hapesach). > I don't know who prohibited carrying in a karmelis, > but there's no reason to suppose it was Shlomo. Shlomo > prohibited carrying in a *reshus hayachid with multiple > owners*, and instituted eruv as a way around that > prohibition. I'm fuzzy on the history too. The law as I described it above may or may not have been part of the same legislation that RZS described here. What we have here are two distinct - but easily and often confused - d'rabanans within the melacha of hotzaa. It doesn't really matter which came first, or if they came together. My point was that they are excellent examples of an exception being built into the law from the very beginning, as opposed to Prozbul, which (if shmitas kesafim is d'rabanan) was a separate enactment from shmitas kesafim (because if they were done at the same time, the goal of Prozbul could have been acheived even more easily by simply not enacting shmitas kesafim). > (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an > eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple > owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) I'm not sure if there is a rigorous definition of "loophole". (The wikipedia article is a great place to start.) I tend to think that it is a general pejorative to describe any leniency that one has an emotional objection to. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 05:17:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150917121734.GA8567@aishdas.org> Li nir'eh the difference is that by eruv, it was all done in one sitting of beis din -- when they assered a karmeelis, they also promulgated the idea of eruv. IOW, explicitly they only assured a karmelis that didn't have an eruv. (A conscious exemption more than a loophole, as I would use the terms.) Pruzbul was a loophole in an earlier taqanah and that was and promulgated by a later beis di GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 09:58:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:58:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55FAF148.5080904@sero.name> On 09/17/2015 08:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and >> thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. > My language was not precise. I apologize. > > What I meant was that prior to the establishment of these d'rabanans, > one was allowed to carry from an unwalled non-thoroughfare to either > a walled area or to a major thoroughfare. But it was easy to get > confused between the general outdoors and a main road, so the general > outdoors was made into a Reshus Harabim D'rabanan, with the following > exception: Whereas a Reshus Harabim d'Oraisa requires actual walls to > allow carrying, for a Reshus Harabim d'Rabanan it is sufficient to > surround an area with doorways (tzuras hapesach). Mid'oraisa a set of four tzuros hapesach works in reshus harabim too. It was the rabanan who said "ein me'arvim reshus harabim bekach", and only allowed it in a karmelis. Whether they did this at the same time that they forbade carrying in a karmelis, I don't know. My impression is that it was later, because the first we hear of it is in a braisa, and it's subject to machlokes, whereas the concept of karmelis is taken for granted by all. > My point was that they are excellent examples of an exception being > built into the law from the very beginning, as opposed to Prozbul, > which (if shmitas kesafim is d'rabanan) was a separate enactment from > shmitas kesafim Yes, this is clear. > (because if they were done at the same time, the goal of Prozbul > could have been acheived even more easily by simply not enacting > shmitas kesafim). You don't need to go there. It's obvious that shmitas kesafim midrabanan preceded Hillel, because if it hadn't then how could he have observed the problem that resulted? Clearly it long predated him, presumably all the way back to the end of shmita d'oraisa, or at least to the return from Bavel. But the *efficacy* of pruzbul is not Hillel's takana at all. It's de'oraisa (Sifri, quoted by Tosfos Gittin 36a dh Mi Ika Midi) >> (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an >> eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple >> owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) > I'm not sure if there is a rigorous definition of "loophole". > (The wikipedia article is a great place to start.) I tend to > think that it is a general pejorative to describe any leniency > that one has an emotional objection to. The WP article is seriously defective (WP:OR for one thing) and needs to extensive a rewrite for me to bother with. A loophole is built into a wall; it's *meant* to be there. There's nothing pejorative about it. An exception to a law is a case where the law doesn't apply; a loophole is where the law *does* apply, and this is how it applies. It's not that an eruv permits one to carry in a RHY with multiple owners, it's that an eruv turns it (for this purpose) into a RHY with a single owner. Similarly eruv techumin doesn't allow you to walk more than 2000 amos from your residence, it merely moves your residence. That's not an exception, it's a loophole. If you want an example of an exception, look to eruv tavshilin. The chachamim, whether because of kevod shabbos or kevod yomtov, forbade the ha'arama of cooking for guests whom you aren't really expecting, *unless* you make an eruv. The eruv is an exception built into the original takana. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 03:33:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 13:33:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "I think it makes no sense for Prozbul to be "an exception to an enactment", because "why bother?" If the agricultural Shemitta stops being d'Oraisa, then Chazal can certainly enact it on a d'rabanan level. But to do that for Shemitas Kesafim means to legislate the following three things simultaneously: 1) Enact a law requiring cancellation of loans 2) Loans are exempt from cancellation if Prozbul is done 3) For the benefit of both poor and wealthy, everyone should do a Prozbul Why enact such a set of laws? Wouldn't it be far simpler to just let Shmitas Kesafim lapse, and NOT be enacted on a d'rabanan level?" If you look at the sugya of pruzbul (Gittin 36a-b) these points are all addressed: The Gemara starts out with the fact that Hillel was mesaken pruzbul. Then the Gemara asks how could he do that if the Torah (shemitas kesafim) cancels the loan? Abaye answers that Hillel only made his takana of pruzbul when shemittas kesafim was derabbanon. The Gemara then asks how could the Chachamim be mesaken shemmitas kesafim derabbanon if min hatorah the lender has to pay back the loan? Rava answers hefker beis din hefker. We see clearly from the Gemara that the historical progression was 1. Shemmita ceased being min hatorah 2. Chachamim were mesaken shemitta miderabbonon including shemittas kesafim 3. After shemitta derabbonon was already established Hillel saw that people were not lending money and therefore was mesaken pruzbul In other words these things did not happen simultaneously, pruzbul was enacted after shemmitas kesafim was already established. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 06:03:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 09:03:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] An Important Clarification Regarding Some Relevant Halachos for Yom Kippur Message-ID: <20150921130412.485F3183A12@nexus.stevens.edu> [] Some Relevant Halachos for Yom Kippur: A Clarification The following is an excerpt from the article on selected halachos relative to Yom Kippur: "At the conclusion of Yom Kippur, one may not do melachah (labor prohibited on Shabbos/ Yom Kippur) until one recites (or hears) Havdalah over wine (or the equivalent) or recites A ttah Chonantanu in Ma'ariv, or says Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol. Although reciting any of these allows one to do melachah, one may not eat until after reciting (or hearing) Havdalah over wine (or the equivalent). Accordingly, married men should hurry home after Ma'ariv on Motza'ei Yom Kippur to recite Havdalah so that their wives will be able to eat." Clarification : Following the conclusion of Yom Kippur, after one recites Attah Chonantanu in Ma'ariv or says Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol, one may drink water even before reciting (or hearing) Havdalah. Thus (for example), a woman whose husband is delayed in coming home after Ma'ariv on Motza'ei Yom Kippur may recite Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol after nightfall and drink water before hearing Havdalah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 15:18:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 23:18:00 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> Message-ID: A summary of Pruzbul I have in front of me (written by Rabbi D Tugendhaft, London) says: "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" On 16 September 2015 at 23:07, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 09/16/2015 05:41 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > >> A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: >> >> Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking >>> around at books and online. I see no discussion whatsoever on >>> whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, >>> e.g. books I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that >>> addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an obligation to return >>> a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? >>> >> > I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? >> > > > Shemita applies only to halva'ah, not to she'elah. English uses the > same word, but they are very different transactions. It's actually > strange that English, which is usually the most precise language, does > not distinguish them. > > A book is a she'elah; the book remains her property, and she expects > the borrower to return it. Thus it is not at all affected by shemita. > It is also not subject to the prohibition on ribbis; not only is there > absolutely nothing wrong with charging people to borrow your stuff, > the Torah explicitly endorses it as one of the four forms of shemirah. > > -- > Zev Sero GChT > zev at sero.name > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 06:53:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:53:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Haqeil Message-ID: <55FC174B.6090900@zahav.net.il> Anyone here understand sound? Assuming best case scenarios (loud voices, no background noise, good hearing), how many people could possibly hear the king read at Haqeil? It would seem that there is no way the king could project his voice so that most could hear him (????). If few actually came to the tekes, OK, but if most people came how could it possibly work? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 07:57:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:57:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] From Medieval Ashkenaz Techinah Supplication to Iconic Segulah: The Chasidic Transformation of G-d of Abraham Message-ID: <20150918145828.8F30C183A9B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/pwg839c From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 10:20:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 20:20:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] vort on teshuvah Message-ID: 1) Rambam in hlichot teshuva (7:6) discusses the effect of teshuva yesterday (emesh) i was far from G-d hated ... and now I am beloved RYBS asks why the Rambam here uses such poetic language in particular using "emesh" instead of "etmol" . He asnwers that "etmol" indicates a 24 hour period while "emesh" can be a fraction of second between being hated by G-d and being loved by G-d 2) Someone who marries on a woman on condition that he is a Tzaddik the marriage is valid even if it is known that he is a rasha perhaps (shema) he did teshuva. Someone in the shiur noted that "shema" read backwards is "emesh" . Meaning that rasha who proposed marriage did teshuva a fraction of a second before the proposal -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 10:15:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 13:15:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reciting 100 Brochos Daily Message-ID: <20150918171648.24C57181A25@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/njmnbgn From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 15:12:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shmuel Weidberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:12:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? Message-ID: Hello everybody. I haven't been active on this list in a long time. I just had a look around the internet to see if there was anything new with the Kosher Switch, and I remembered an issue with it that I haven't seen discussed anywhere. The makers say that there is a certain amount of randomization involved in whether the light flashes into the detector and whether the detector detects the light. There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create random numbers. They create pseudo-random numbers which means they take a seed number and perform a complex calculation on it to get the next number, which looks like it bears no relation to the first number, but which in fact is completely determined by the first number. Computer can get real random numbers, by generating the seed by looking at actions that take place that the computer cannot predict such as when somebody presses a key on a keyboard, or when some other sensor is activated. Alternatively, they can get random numbers from a special piece of hardware that is designed to physically make random numbers. However, I believe such pieces of hardware are quite specialized and if there actually was one in the switch it would be advertised. In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. Regards, Shmuel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 10:59:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:59:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> Message-ID: <56004574.4040004@sero.name> On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour > because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in > its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to she'elah. Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 11:29:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:29:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. ------------------------------- Yes, much as a complete understanding of the physics involved would determine the roll of the dice as it left one?s hand. Yet we call this ?random? (and iirc statisticians can?t prove any set of numbers was truly random, only that they appear likely so. Gct 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 22:35:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 01:35:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <063901d0f4f8$8c2cd700$a4868500$@gmail.com> R? Shmuel Weidberg: The makers say that there is a certain amount of randomization involved in whether the light flashes into the detector and whether the detector detects the light. There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create random numbers. They create pseudo-random numbers which means they take a seed number and perform a complex calculation on it to get the next number, which looks like it bears no relation to the first number, but which in fact is completely determined by the first number. In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. --------------------------- Isn?t the lomdus of their approach that you, the person flicking the switch, doesn?t DO anything because you?re only covering a light pulse without knowing when it will come next? So it doesn?t really matter if it?s random, it matters that you don?t know when it will next illuminate. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 07:04:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:04:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56004574.4040004@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> Message-ID: <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. On 9/21/2015 8:59 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > >> "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour >> because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in >> its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" > > Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to > she'elah. > Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 11:00:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:00:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> Message-ID: <56019748.5060907@sero.name> On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 9/21/2015 8:59 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: >>> "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour >>> because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in >>> its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" >> Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to she'elah. >> Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. > But a book, you return the same one. Usually. Not usually, always. There are two utterly different kinds of transaction for which the English language uses the same words: loan, borrow, lend. This is surprising, since usually English is a more precise language than most, but it is so. She'elah: I give you my property, with permission to use it. It remains my property, and you must return it on the agreed-upon date, or when I ask for it, in reasonable shape given the time you had it and the use to which you put it. In other words, in slightly worse shape than when I gave it to you. I may do this as a favour, but there is no mitzvah for me to do so. I am entitled to charge you for it, in which case the transaction is called "sechirus", or in English, "rental". Shemitah does not apply to this transaction. Common examples: a book, a car, a tool, a pen. Halva'ah: I give you my property, and it becomes yours. I do not expect it back, ever. On the agreed-upon date, or when I ask, you must give me something exactly like what I gave you. Since you are a Jew, I have a mitzvah to do this as a favour for you, and am forbidden from charging you anything for it, and you are forbidden from paying me anything for it, in any form. Shemitah applies. Common examples: $100, a cup of sugar, a rubber band. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 12:48:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 22:48:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56019748.5060907@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> <56019748.5060907@sero.name> Message-ID: <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > >> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. > > Not usually, always. Several years ago, we borrowed a book from my brother-in-law. A while later, we wanted to return it, but we couldn't find it. So we bought another identical copy and returned that in its place. So I'm going to stick with "usually." Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 19:11:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 22:11:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> <56019748.5060907@sero.name> <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> Message-ID: <56035BCF.7000400@sero.name> On 09/23/2015 03:48 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> >>> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. >> >> Not usually, always. > > Several years ago, we borrowed a book from my brother-in-law. A while > later, we wanted to return it, but we couldn't find it. So we bought > another identical copy and returned that in its place. So I'm going > to stick with "usually." Your obligation was to return the exact same book. Once that became impossible, you became liable as a shomer; a shomer sachar and a socher are liable for geneiva va'aveida, so at that point you became liable to pay the value of the lost book, and that sum became a milveh, and thus subject to shemitah and ribbis. -- Zev Sero Gut Yomtov zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 12:09:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:09:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a > random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the > time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it > simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. Do you know whether the Star-K-certified "Sabbath mode" ovens use pseudo-random numbers or true random numbers? (Thermal noise would do fine; and many processors, even some embedded ones, have such a random number source.) --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 12:03:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 15:03:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150924190308.GA28981@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 06:12:07PM -0400, Shmuel Weidberg via Avodah wrote: : I just had a look around the internet to see if there was anything new with : the Kosher Switch... : There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't : computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create : random numbers... I don't think this particular distinction makes a halachic difference. The question is whether the person doing the action has a reasonable chance of predicting the outcome. Actual mathematical randomness might not be at issue. As long as I can't know what my flipping the switch would do, I would think it should all be the same. (Think of it as a first cousin to ignoring water bears and other zooplankton that can only be seen with a magnifying glass when drinking water.) ... : Computer can get real random numbers, by generating the seed by looking at : actions that take place that the computer cannot predict such as when : somebody presses a key on a keyboard, or when some other sensor is : activated... Actually, that's not really random, just less predictable because the seed generation is outside the machine. A specially designed can get truly random numbers by using quantum effects. Such as picking up on the brownian motion of molecules due to heat. But really, I don't think we have to worry about the difference between "random" and "not humanly predictable". Also a side note: I might point out that there are numerous hashkafos in which every event, or at least every event that impacts a human being, is subject to hashgachah peratis. And thus, nothing we ever experience is actually random. Or alternatively, that the word "random" needs a different translation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 14:20:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:20:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shemittah beyond Shemittah Message-ID: <20150924212050.B6B10182CED@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://cor.ca/view/720/shemittah_beyond_shemittah.html From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 14:37:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:37:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shemitta Sheilos: Using Arbah Minim of Sheviis - Parts I and II Message-ID: <20150924213723.28661183A0D@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://ohr.edu/6522 and http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6527 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 25 00:32:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:32:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Buying minim from a child Message-ID: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> When I was in yeshiva, we were told to refrain from buying any of the four minim from a child. If the product was stolen, a child can't take possession via shinu reshut or ma'aseh. Therefore the theft falls on the buyer and his minim are pasul. Thinking about during my jog, I had a few questions: 1) Is this a real chashash or simply are we trying to cover all halachik corners? Meaning, if I do buy from a child do I really have anything to worry about? And if it isn't a real concern, then why am I not being oveir on "chosheid b'kesheirim"? 2) If it is a real chashash (the presence of stolen minim in the market) than why buy from an adult? Buying stolen goods is also a sin. At the very least, one can only buy from a place with a heksher. 3) Or can one? Can we assume that the kashrut agencies really check were their minim come from? 4) Who determines if there is a significant presence of stolen goods in the market every year? I assume that the amount of stolen goods has to be above a certain minimum for there to be a real issue? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 21:44:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 00:44:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur Message-ID: In the case where an ill person is eating on Yom Kippur, the Magen Avraham 618:10 brings varying views on whether he needs Lechem Mishne, whether he includes Yaaleh V'yavo in bentching, and whether he must make Kiddush. Kaf Hachaim 618:60 repeats much of that, with some changes and additions, and in 618:61 he points out that the same would apply to children and women who have recently given birth. Similar things appear in the other nosei keilim on that se'if. I got the impression that the pros and cons on these questions were based mostly on practical and halachic concerns, such as whether or not these halachos were ever enacted for Yom Kippur. I'd like to know if the *historical* side is discussed anywhere. I'm focusing now specifically on Lechem Mishne, and I'm now ignoring Kiddush and Birkas Hamazon. Here are my questions of historical fact: During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the children eat? There are several possible answers I can think of: Perhaps mon fell on Yom Kippur, but only at the homes where where children or yoldos live. Perhaps mon did not fall on Yom Kippur, but those homes got a double portion on Erev Yom Kippur. Perhaps neither of the above happened, and the children and yoldos had to make do with whatever other food might have been available. (This possibility seems odd to me, as it throws a curve ball into the whole "40 years of miracles" idea: Exactly once each year, the children had no choice but to eat non-miraculous food, and the day for this chinuch was Yom Kippur.) I suppose I should also include another possibility, which is that everyone received their normal supply of mon on Yom Kippur just like on every other day, but that seems like quite a waste. Perhaps they ate it on Motzaei Yom Kippur. In which case I'd wonder if only a half-portion might have fallen that morning. I also question whether Hashem would have placed such a michshol at the doorways, leaving their mon in the reshus harabim. Does anyone know of any Midrashim or other sources that might talk about this? Akiva Miller (PS: I only asked about children and yoldos in the midbar, and I did not ask about other cholim. That's because I think that in the miraculous Midbar, no one was ever sick, and no one died except on the night of Tisha B'Av. If anyone wants to discuss this, please begin a new thread.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 20:33:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ken Bloom via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 23:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? Message-ID: Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in depth than Sefer HaToda'ah. Does anyone know of something analgous to how the Maharal's Gevurot Hashem explains Pesach, or have other recommendations about the holiday? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 22:19:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 01:19:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: : Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better : understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully : understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in : depth than Sefer HaToda'ah. Does anyone know of something analgous to how : the Maharal's Gevurot Hashem explains Pesach, or have other recommendations : about the holiday? RYHutner's Pachad Yitzchaq. (Although the volumes are arranged around Shabbos & YT, and thus would seem particular to those topics, I would consider it one of the canonical Jewish philoosphy works of the 20th cent. Not to be skipped by anyone serious about learning hashkafah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 30 12:53:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:53:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Whole Hallel on Sukkos Message-ID: <20150930195335.GA18194@aishdas.org> I just noticed something that is likely to be meaningful. We say whole Hallel every day of Sukkos because the qorban mussaf differs each day. The mussaf differs by the number of cows, which total 70 across the YT. The 70 cows are keneged the 70 nations. Among the things we would have otherwise skipped was "Lamah yomeru hagoyim..." So... Because we bring qorbanos on behalf of the 70 nations over the course of Sukkos, we pray for their abandonment of AZ on each day of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 30 13:03:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:03:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Buying minim from a child In-Reply-To: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> References: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <560C400E.6080206@sero.name> On 09/25/2015 03:32 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > When I was in yeshiva, we were told to refrain from buying any of the > four minim from a child. If the product was stolen, a child can't > take possession via shinu reshut or ma'aseh. Therefore the theft > falls on the buyer and his minim are pasul. > > Thinking about during my jog, I had a few questions: > > 1) Is this a real chashash or simply are we trying to cover all > halachik corners? Meaning, if I do buy from a child do I really have > anything to worry about? And if it isn't a real concern, then why am > I not being oveir on "chosheid b'kesheirim"? > > 2) If it is a real chashash (the presence of stolen minim in the > market) than why buy from an adult? Buying stolen goods is also a > sin. At the very least, one can only buy from a place with a heksher. > > 3) Or can one? Can we assume that the kashrut agencies really check > were their minim come from? > > 4) Who determines if there is a significant presence of stolen goods > in the market every year? I assume that the amount of stolen goods > has to be above a certain minimum for there to be a real issue? The chashash is not for actually stolen goods, but that the land on which the minim were grown was stolen hundreds or thousands of years ago, and since karka eina nigzeles it still belongs to the rightful heirs of the original owner. Thus the person who harvests the minim is technically the gazlan, ye'ush happened a long time ago, so we need a shinuy reshus, which happens when you buy from the "gazlan", but not if he's a katan. If he bought it from someone else then this problem doesn't exist, but there's another problem: it won't be shelachem, which it needs to be for the first day. This is also why one should not use minim one cut oneself, but rather sell those and buy ones that someone else cut. All of this only applies in countries where land title is uncertain; where it can be traced directly back to a valid kibush milchama, there is no problem. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you". From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 07:15:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 10:15:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <5593124A.2040905@sero.name> References: <20150630.152626.19374.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> <5593124A.2040905@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150701141526.GB24797@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 06:03:54PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 06/30/2015 03:26 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : >>From what I've seen, it is NOT said even if a minyan says Birkas Hamazon, : : Why would it? When a minyan says Birkhas haMazon, the zimun changes, it creates a minyan one may not break (by benching on their own or with a normal zimun), but no Qaddish. When a minyan says Pesuqei deZimra, nothing changes, there is no specific issur on leaving in the middle, and yet it is closed with Qaddish (even if you lose the minyan during PdZ). I think RAM's question why is quite fair. It would be nice to think the minhag follows some well-defined rule. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 05:35:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:35:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Bio of RSRH Message-ID: <20150701123548.93E2D182CC3@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/p5h866u From this URL. When Rav Yisroel Salanter read a copy of The Nineteen Letters in 1873, he said that it should be translated into Russian and Hebrew. He also remarked, "Is there a Gan Eden big enough for Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch?" See the above URL for more. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 14:33:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:33:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakarat Hatov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 03:56:25PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Does Hakarat Hatov engender a measurable "liability" (e.g. require a : marginally greater action) between the recipient and the provider of the : "Tov", or is saying "Thank you, I appreciate it" the only requirement? Moshe isn't the trigger for the first makkos because he "owed" the Ye'or and the sand for saving him in the past. As Chazal put it (BQ 92b) WRT "velo sesaeiv Mitzri ki ger hayisa ve'artzo", it justified the common saying "bira deshasis mineih, lo tashdi beih kala" (into a well from which you once drank, don't throw clods of dirt). That said, I don't think reducing gratitude to *nothing more than* a favor-economics is healthy. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness, micha at aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom. http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 1 14:37:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 17:37:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Hakarat Hatov In-Reply-To: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> References: <20150701213345.GA8329@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150701213753.GA24874@aishdas.org> PS: I started with the aggadic story and didn't say why I opened with a medrash rather than a gemara. The Nile and the sand wasn't actors. Moshe didn't really owe them anything. It's like "not embarassing" the challah by covering it. Apparently the notion of repaying a favor is so important, HQBH expects us to practice it for a middah exercise even when the other side isn't a real 2nd party. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 2 12:08:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 15:08:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish with mixed seating Message-ID: Following up upon my earlier post about the permissibility of saying the *kaddish *of a *siyyum* at a dinner with mixed seating. I spoke to RIETS RY last week and he said that we only require *mechitzah* in a *Shul*, based upon the *Gemara* in *Succos*, which requires separate seating at a *shul*. This is clear from the original textual source of mechitzah, the Gemara in the fifth perek of Succos, that the basis of *mechitzah* is the *Bais ha-Mikdash*. As our Synagogues are modeled after the Bais ha-Mikdash, we apply the principals underlying the *Gemara* in Succos to our Shuls. (Similarly, *Tosfos* justifies the practice of bringing children to Shul using the model of *Hakhel*.) As the Kaddish for a Siyyum has nothing do to with a Shul there is no need for separate seating. I also spoke to one of the Dayanim in our community he did not even think that saying *kaddish* with mixed seating was an issue as he thought that mixed seating was only an issue in a *Shul*. Others told me the same (i.e. that only a *shul* requires separation) in the name of Rav Schachter *shlit?a* . However, I saw Rav Herschel Schachter *shlit?a* at shacharis this week so I asked him my question. He responded that it would be better if they would have the *siyyum* before the dinner. I asked why and he responded ?*Davar She?bekedushah*?. I asked him so why do people recite *Kedushah* after a *siyyum* with mixed seating. And he responded, ?Nu, Nu?. (Which is a common response from Rav Schachter to questions of that sort.) Interestingly enough the Gemara in Succos brings a ?proof? for separation of men and women from a non-?*Davar She?bekedushah*? the funeral in *Zecharyah*. Of course we are not discussing whether a particular practice is good or bad or even ?best practices?, but rather whether it is required or not. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 08:32:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 11:32:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] From Succot to Moshiach Message-ID: Ma tovu ohalecha: ?Tents? are temporary and refer to olam hazeh ?.mishk?nosecha: ?Dwelling places? refers to olam haba. In other words, we are first in the antechamber, the temporary abode, which tents symbolize; then, once we leave our temporary homes, we hopefully ascend to our permanent ?dwelling place.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 14:44:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 17:44:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Historical Bil'am Message-ID: <20150703214448.GA32213@aishdas.org> H/T RYGB, see http://www.livius.org/source-content/deir-alla-inscription He asks on his blog: Why isn't this more widely known? The full article includes an image of the instription and a complete translation. This is just the opening. :-)BBii! -Micha Livius.org Articles on ancient history Deir 'Alla Inscription Deir 'Alla Inscription: inscription, found in the Iron Age town of Deir 'Alla, mentioning the Biblical prophet Balaam. Deir 'Alla is situated in western Jordan, about eight kilometers east of the river Jordan, and about a kilometer north of the Jabbok. The excavators found a very large Bronze Age sanctuary that had suffered in the period of wide-spread destruction in the thirteenth/twelfth centuries. Unlike other settlements, which were abandoned, Deir 'Alla remained in use well into the fifth century BCE. That is remarkable. Even more remarkable, however, was the discovery of a painted text that contained a prophecy by Balaam... (The site of Deir 'Alla is, technically, on the [11]Ammonite side of the river Jabbok.) The text refers to divine visions and signs of future destruction, in a language that is close to that of the Bible. For example, we read about the "Shaddai gods", an expression that is close to the Biblical El Shaddai, "God Almighty". On the other hand, the setting is not monotheistic: we read, for instance, about a gathering of a group of gods. The word elohim, which in the Bible (although plural) refers to one God, refers to more than one god in the Deir 'Alla text. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 3 15:16:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 18:16:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> In a recent blog post, R' Aryeh Klapper (Cc-ed) writes http://moderntoraleadership.wordpress.com/2015/07/03/chok-mishpat-and-obergefell Imagine pre-snake Adam and Eve walking into the Jewish camp. They would not praise the Jews for their modesty, and they would have no idea why the tents' openings did not face each other. For Bilaam to praise the Jews' virtue, even in the context of his deep and unremitting hatred, he had to be capable of understanding that modesty was a relevant evaluative category. What would it take for Bilaam to have this capacity? Unlike the prelapsarian original couple, he would have to be conscious of his own sexuality, and experientially aware that sexuality could be associated with shame. He might nonetheless choose exhibitionism for himself, and for his culture. He might decide that sexual shame is the root of neurosis and dedicate himself to its cultural eradication. But he would understand what he was eradicating. Perhaps there would even be moments when he regretted his victory. My tentative suggestion is that the Torah teaches us here that there is a value in making our moral premises intelligible even to our enemies; this is part of our mission to be the light of the nations. I want to be clear that this value is not pragmatic, and that we are not safer, or less likely to be hated, if we are understood. Like Bilaam, the world may use its understanding of our virtue to learn how best to undermine us. It is simply part of our job to enable as much as we can of humanity to make informed moral choices. I suggest further that perhaps we can understand the Seven Noachide Commandments as intended not to provide a formal code of behavior, but rather to identify a set of moral premises. Perhaps our mission is particularly to make those premises universally intelligible. Making premises intelligible is not accomplished through rational argumentation. Rational arguments depend on mutually intelligible premises. ... One core premise: let us identify it with the Noachide commandment against forbidden sexual relationships, or arayot -- that is no longer intelligible to many Americans is that sexuality can be evaluated in nonutilitarian terms, that a sexual act can be wrong even if no one gets hurt. We have replaced sexual morality with sexual ethics. Conversations on topics such as chastity, masturbation, and adultery are wholly changed from what they were even two decades ago, and tracts from back then can seem less contemporary than prehistoric cave art. There are many reasons that traditional rationales in the area of sexuality have moved rapidly from self-evident to unintelligible. Here are two: (1) Effective birth control and in vitro fertilization have broken the connection between intercourse and procreation. It is no longer self-evident to speak of intercourse as potential recreation, or as inevitably associated with the risk of pregnancy. (2) Many human beings with homosexual orientations have told compelling personal stories of pain and alienation. In the secular world, the natural reaction to a premise's social unintelligibility is the repeal of any laws that depend on it. In the Orthodox world, where immediate repeal is rarely a viable option, one reasonable reaction is what I call "chokification," or the declaration that laws that once depended on the now-unintelligible premise should be regarded as either beyond human comprehension or else as arbitrary rules intended to train us to obedience. Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. I utilized the following "Lonely Man of Faith" based idea to open "The Talk" with my sons.I wanted them to understand the sanctity of sex, so before getting into the mechanics of it, I tried to open by setting a religious context. As far as I can tell, the Torah gives two purposes for marriage: 1- In Genesis 1, the goal is to procreate and raise children. This is Adam I's drive "to fill the earth and conqure it", his place at the end of a sequence of creation -- above the animals, but more quatitatively than qualitatively. 2- In Genesis 2, the goal is to reunite the two halves, Adam and Eve, who were originally created as a single unit. Adam II seeks redemption through community. In this case, romantic love. Sex in its role of making a bond between people. And therefore a problem of premarital sex is that one thereby learns to minimize the bond thereby created. It weakens that function of sex, so it won't be as effective once you are married. Either alone -- procreation or the romantic reunification of the two halves of the original Adam (which again, I mean psychologically, not mystically) would be sufficient reason to justify sexual intimacy. But without either, it's the pursuit of our mamalian drives for insufficient reason. The objectification (or at least animalization) of the self. In order to buy into #2, one needs to believe that gender (as opposed to biological sex) is an innate set of existential and psychological differences, and not just a role imposed by convention. And therefore Adam and Eve are distinct and different halves of a whole. That this is an existential and deep-psychological truth, which will hold no matter how much society attempts to change those roles and bury gender differences. Notice that despite the social trends that brought the Supreme Court to conclude last week that traditional sexual morality (in contrast to sexual ethics) is irrational and thus prejudicial bias, the above implies that the Torah's ban on homosexuality can be explained in mishpat terms. On a different note, the shift from morality to ethics is typical for postmodernism. When all narratives are equally valid there is no way to insist there is an absolute moral code. Never mind determine what it contains. Therefore, one encourages a freedom to act as an end itself, rather than as a means to greatness. (Which is a logical progression from the American legal system, the concept of rights-based law taken to its extreme. It's notable that a society that values a "maavir al midosav" would not laud taking rights as far as all that. As a legal philosphy, though, it is the best we've come up with to avoid "ish es rei'eihu chaim bal'o", which is the central role of a secular gov't, no?) However, the lack of establishment of a common moral code is itself damaging to society. No one private violation of moral code, whatever the society holds it to be, will necessarily harm others. But living in a society that doesn't promote morality, that doesn't work toward aiming that autonomy toward some higher end, is harmful. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 15:20:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:20:08 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> References: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is the purpose to make things even worse? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 16:28:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 19:28:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> References: <20150703221624.GA3180@aishdas.org> <5599AD98.7040905@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150705232816.GA29598@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:20:08PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. : Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a : moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is : the purpose to make things even worse? As I quoted from RAK, because they classically were not considered chuqim. Until our contemporaries took the issue from sexual morality to sexual ethics, these truths were considered self-evident. It's the choqification of dinei arayos that's inauthentic. In any case, since one doesn't pasqen from taamei hamitzvos, the din is the same either way. Nothhing in such exploration can "make things even worse". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 15:57:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:57:04 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon Message-ID: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> In Pirkei Avot, Hillel HaZaken says: "Be among the talmidim of Aharon, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them close to the Torah." I don't get it. I honestly don't. If we see a bunch of Jews who don't know anything about Judaism, shouldn't we try and get them to keep the mitzvot? If you know that they're more likely to violate the mitzvot if they don't know, it's it our responsibility to teach them what God wants of them? The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this subject. I look at gay people and I see them overwhelmingly part of the nihilism of the left, but I don't think being gay automatically makes people like that. But what else are Jews supposed to do when they're being pushed away from the Torah? Jews have neshamas that were at Sinai. A Jew who was raised without Torah has an empty space inside that's just *begging* to be filled with Torah. But because of the wrongheaded idea that gay people have to either pretend they aren't gay, or they must be ostracized from the Torah community, they wind up filling that empty space with the even emptier slogans of the left. Because of the belief held by so many frum Jews that gay people who acknowledge themselves to be gay are simply *incapable* or unwilling to keep mitzvot, we, as a community *deliberately* withhold the Torah from them. It makes no sense to me. I mean, worst case, you tell someone gay, "There are things you aren't allowed to do according to Jewish law. Are you willing to abide by that?" But we aren't even doing that. We're assuming that the answer is going to be no, and by so assuming, we're *making that happen*. At 120, when you're standing before the Kisei HaKavod and you're asked why you pushed so many Jews away from His Torah, I wonder what you'll answer. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 17:34:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 20:34:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon In-Reply-To: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> References: <5599B640.30100@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150706003423.GB14365@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:57:04PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: : In Pirkei Avot, Hillel HaZaken says: "Be among the talmidim of Aharon, : loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them close : to the Torah." : : I don't get it. I honestly don't. If we see a bunch of Jews who don't : know anything about Judaism, shouldn't we try and get them to keep the : mitzvot?... First, a minor correction. Hillel says "berios", or as in the tradition "loving people and bringing them..." IOW, not only kiruv, but bringing non-Jews to NNoachidism. : The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since : the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of : the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't : get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so : many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this : subject. I'm not so sure. The SCOTUS ruled in favor of a right that is based on the idea that believing the Torah's position about homosexuality is bigotry. But in any case, it's like any other rule of tochachah... You need to tell them what they're doing is wrong n a way that gets constructive change. The usual rule for when you should shut up is "mutav sheyihyu shogegim", but here nearly everyone involved know what we pasqen it's assur. So, you're not turning anyone into meizidim. : It makes no sense to me. I mean, worst case, you tell someone gay, : "There are things you aren't allowed to do according to Jewish law. : Are you willing to abide by that?" But we aren't even doing that. : We're assuming that the answer is going to be no, and by so assuming, : we're *making that happen*. But the US law in question is itself to permit something you aren't allowed to do in Jewish law, and in the Minchas Chinukh's opinion -- nor in Noachide law. The general problem of people hating the sinner rather than the sin isn't limited to this one. Perhaps here things are more extreme because the accusers do not attempt to separate an instinctive loathing from actual halachic concerns. Either we should be getting similar bile when discussing business cheats, or we should be getting quiet on both fronts. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 5 18:46:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 01:46:19 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Alternate texts for the Prayer for the Government Message-ID: <20150705.214619.1506.0@webmail08.vgs.untd.com> R' Mordechai Harris wrote: > Here's the one I shard last time from the De Sola Pool Siddur. > www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/deSolaPoolPrayerForGovernment.pdf R' Simon Montagu asked: > Can you also share the publication details and/or title page of > this siddur? What I know as the De Sola Pool Siddur is not the > same as in this link. I have ... RMH's link was for "The Traditional Prayer Book for Sabbath and Festivals", the official siddur of the RCA, published in 1960. A very different, longer version appears in many other siddurim, with rather minor differences: The Hirsch Siddur, published by Feldheim The Authorized Daily Prayer Book by Chief Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz The Daily Prayer Book by Philip Birnbaum The Koren Siddur by Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks and in the new Nehalel beShabbat by Michael Haruni (website and free sample at nehalel.com) I was going to remark that I have found this prayer only in siddurim that have an English translation, but is not correct. First, it would seem to appear in whichever siddur the Hirsch was adapted from. But moreover, this same tefila also appears in my copy of "Siddur Eishei Yisrael al pi daas Maran HaGra." (I know there are many siddurim with similar names; all I can tell about this is that the title page lists no publisher, only "Yerushalayim 5735".) The Nehalel siddur is worth noting for this thread. I have not seen this siddur to be too widespread or popular (yet - it's only from 2013), but I'd like to point out that it has TWO versions of this prayer. The version which is very similar to the others is on a page marked "In the United States of America:". But the following page is marked "In the United Kingdom and Commonwealth:", and is markedly different -- but not nearly as different as the De Sola Pool version. This makes me stop, and wonder, and consider the fact that although my Hertz siddur and my Sacks siddur are both of British authorship, they both used American publishers (Bloch and OU Press respectively), and were possibly designed for an American audience. Which leads me to ask those of the chevra who currently reside in the Commonwealth: What version (if any) is said in your shuls? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5599de50e59b55e504270st04vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 06:29:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:29:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: VBM-SICHOT75 - 41: The Philosophical Principles of Inheritance Message-ID: <20150706132902.GB31051@aishdas.org> Just because taamei hamitzvos is supposed to be one of the core topics of this email group's host organization.... BTW, my grandfather a"h was named Pinechas after this week's sedra, his bar mitzvah parashah. When it was time to name my oldest, I checked with my uncle how his name appeared on their kesuvah, as their mesader qiddushin was a key rav in my grandfather's life. (R/Dr Mirsky zt"l met two teenage boys coming off the boat and took them under his wing. My grandfather and great-uncle then earned enough to bribe the rest of the family's way out of Litta before the Nazis came to power.) Anyway, it seems R/Dr Mirsky held my grandfather's name was Pinechas, pei-yud-nun-ches-samekh, as it is spelled in the chumash (ignoring the size of the yud as usually written in the beginning of the parashah). And thus the sheva is na, Pinechas - not Pinchas. If you want to make a derashah out of a Mitzri name, it's Pi Nachas, not Pen Chas. Reason for this tangent... I would have expected "Gushies" to get the sheva in the parashah name right. After all, they have the patach under the reish in Parashat. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov VBM-SICHOT75 - 41: Parashat Pinchas Sicha of HaRav Mosheh Lichtenstein Adapted by Motti Guttman Translated by David Strauss Yeshivat Har Etzion "In Place of Your Fathers Shall Be Your Children": The Philosophical Principles of Inheritance The concept of inheritance arises in a number of contexts in the Torah, most prominently in Parashat Pinchas. It is also the central topic of the eighth chapter of Massekhet Bava Batra, Yesh Nochalin. Naturally, the discussion of the laws of inheritance focuses largely on the financial matters at issue among the heirs, leading to the discussion and clarification of a number of fundamental questions regarding monetary law. For that reason, chapter Yesh Nochalin has an important place in the world of Choshen Mishpat. However, the issue of inheritance is not merely monetary. The yerusha (inheritance) is not simply money that we have to decide what to do with. Of course, it is preferable to award the estate of the deceased to his surviving relatives, and not to the state or the income tax authorities; the gemara itself notes, "Should the town collector be the heir?" (Bava Batra 110b). This, however, is not the essence of the laws of inheritance. Inheritance -- Breaching the Boundaries of the Present At the heart of the concept of inheritance lies a significant principle: that of permanence and continuity. When Avraham Avinu entered the Land, he was forced to pitch his tent in different places and live the life of a wanderer. In contrast, the idea of inheritance establishes that a person should not live a life of impermanence. Moshe expresses the desire for a state of permanence in his words to Israel at the plains of Moav: "For you are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance" (Devarim 12:9). This verse was also expounded as referring to the Temple. The idea of inheritance, in this context, creates existential permanence, which is reflected in Halakha. From the time that Jerusalem was selected, it became the permanent site of the Temple, and from that point on, offering sacrifices on bamot was forbidden due to the damage that this would cause to the idea of the Temple as the chosen inheritance. Inheritance constitutes permanence and it creates continuity because it allows the individual to breach the boundaries of the present. From the time of creation, reality dictates that "One generation passes away and another generation comes, but the earth abides forever" (Kohelet 1:4). Man's days are numbered, and sooner or later he will disappear from the world. By his very definition, he is temporary -- like the flower that fades, the shadow that passes, the dust that floats, and the dream that flies away. He is here today and in the grave tomorrow. In contrast, his inheritance remains and affords him continuity. From parent to child and from child to grandchild and great-grandchild, the chain continues and death does not sever it. To a certain extent, this allows one to overcome death and oblivion. Ownership of property and land in itself does not preventing transience or create continuity; it is the identification of inheritance with the family and its heritage in the past and the present that creates the permanence and continuity. A central concept in Jewish law is the concept of the "house," which denotes a family that constitutes a unit of common heritage -- "After their families, by the house of their fathers." We are familiar with this concept from various realms of Halakha. For example, a man whose brother died without children marries the widow through yibum, levirate marriage, in order to continue the family, and he is thereby able to perpetuate the name of the deceased, since they belong to a common "house." Because of the great importance that the Torah attributes to perpetuating the name of the deceased and continuing his legacy, it established the mechanism of levirate marriage despite the personal, familial and halakhic difficulties entailed in marriage to one's brother's wife. Indeed, the mitzva of yibum takes precedence over the mitzva of chalitza because of the mission of perpetuating the brother's name.[1] The language of the text itself creates a connection between yibum and inheritance, as the purpose of the mitzva is defined as "to perpetuate the name of the deceased on his inheritance." The principle of continuity and its importance in a person's life is further reflected in the statement of Chazal (Nedarim 64b) that includes one who does not have any children among those who are considered as if they were dead. While continuity expresses itself on the concrete level through the transmission of property, much more important, of course, is ensuring continuity on the level of values, goals, and existential aspirations, which constitute the true heritage that a person leaves behind. The prophet Yeshaya emphasized how a person's eternal heritage endures: For thus says the Lord to the eunuchs who keep My Sabbath, and choose the things that please Me, and take hold of My covenant. And to them will I give in My house and within My walls a memorial better that sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. (Yeshaya 56:4-5) Indeed, there is more than one plane on which a person achieves inheritance and continuity. Inheritance is part of the system that turns the transition between generations into something permanent and stable, allowing family identity to be transmitted across the generations. In this light, we can understand Chazal's critique of a person who leaves no inheritance. As we read in a mishna in Yesh Nochalin (Bava Batra 133b): If a person gives his estate in writing to strangers and leaves out his children, his arrangements are legally valid, but the spirit of the Sages finds no delight in him. The reference here is not to a person who did not leave an inheritance due to poverty or distress, but rather to a person who decided to give away his estate for other purposes, as positive as they may be,[2] or based on the perception that his children should fend for themselves. The idea behind this mishna is the need to leave a legacy for future generations. The principle of passing down to the next generation is of central importance. Know From Whence You Come! This perception of inheritance is rooted in a general and comprehensive idea that pervades all of Jewish life -- namely, that we do not live only in the present. Judaism rejects a horizontal perspective on man, according to which man is connected only to his current environment. Our relationship is not only with this generation. Rather, our sights are at all times directed at "the one who stands here with us this day before the Lord our God, and also with the one who is not here with us this day" (Devarim 29:14). The hope is to establish a relationship of shared destiny with the past, on both the national and the personal level. This is why we mourn to this day various historical events that happened to our ancestors. We do not say, "What happened, happened." The sense of pain and tragedy that Jewish law demands of a person indicates that it expects one to experience these things in unmediated fashion, as if they occurred to people he knows, and not only that he relate to them as events of the distant past for the purpose of learning a lesson from history. "In every generation one must see himself as if he went out from Egypt." Just as a Jew is expected to feel the pain of his Jewish brothers injured in terrorist attacks in Argentina, Turkey, Paris, or Afula, regardless of the geographical distance between them, because all of Israel are responsible for and close to one another, he is similarly expected to feel pain over events that took place a long time ago. The ability to draw from our heritage and know what happened to our ancestors is important in itself. The actions of our forefathers interest us, regardless of the spiritual insights that can be derived from them, because of the feeling of existential partnership between us and our ancestors. Avraham and Sara, Yitzchak and Rivka, Yaakov, Rachel and Leah, are not only the nation's patriarchs and matriarchs, but also our forefathers. They are not only lofty figures, but also Grandpa and Grandma -- and for this reason the Torah shared their lives with us. Just as a grandson is interested in hearing from his grandfather or his grandmother about life in Eastern Europe or North Africa a century ago, we want to know what happened in Mesopotamia during the time of Avraham and Sara. A person's life in the present is intertwined with the history of his forefathers in the past. One is intricately connected to his past; one does not grow up in a vacuum. Models of Inheritance The first mishna in Yesh Nochalin presents us with a number of possible models for those who inherit and those who transmit inheritance: Some [relatives] inherit [from] and transmit [to each other]; some inherit but do not transmit; some transmit but do not inherit; some neither inherit nor transmit. Clearly, the ideal is that a person should inherit and transmit inheritance, that he should be numbered among those who are "nochalin u-manchilin." As stated above, the inheritance is not simply property for the heir, but rather constitutes a familial plot filled with existential significance. He inherits -- deciding to connect himself to his past and to his heritage. And he is interested in transmitting inheritance -- adding his contribution to the heritage, the personal layer that he adds to the inheritance and passes down to the next generation. In contrast, there are those who inherit but do not transmit, "nochalin ve-lo manchilin" -- who draw from the past and connect to it, but are not capable of passing their heritage on. Perhaps this is because they do not consider this stage important, or perhaps they lack the capacity to give their heritage over to others and to connect to the next generation. Such a person does not know how to take from the past and interpret it for his children in the future. He is familiar with the world of the past, but he lacks the tools to apply the past and its heritage to the challenges of the present and the future. The reverse case also exists -- "yesh manchilin ve-einam nochalin," there are those who transmit but who do not inherit. They wish to pass on their personal legacy, but they are cut off from the past, or so they imagine. In their eyes, everything began in their generation. Previous generations erred or were weak; there is no need to receive their inheritance, laden with the outdated baggage of Diaspora life. This heir is not prepared to connect to the past or to recognize that he is dependent upon it. Blinded by his present achievements, he is alienated from the past and the weight of tradition. The most tragic group neither inherits nor transmits inheritance, "lo nochalin ve-lo manchilin." They are cut off from every bit of the past. They live only in the present and are utterly devoid of worry about the future -- "After me, the deluge." The concept of inheritance serves as a bridge between the past and the future. In this context, the individual is merely another link in a chain. If we consider the chain of tradition recorded by the Rambam in his introduction to the Mishneh Torah, more important than any particular Sage is the very chain of tradition itself. The value of each link lies in the fact that it allows the chain to continue. This is the connection and bridge between all the generations, from Avraham Avinu until the Mashiach. Spiritual Heritage through Physical Means As noted above, the transmission takes place through tangible means as well. It is obvious to us that it is values and ideas, Torah and mitzvot, that constitute the heritage that passes from one generation to the next. It is easy to understand the statement: "Moshe commanded us the Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov" (Devarim 33:4). It is more difficult to grasp that the Torah also attaches great importance to tangible inheritance, to the transmission of physical property. Chazal teach us that "monuments are not built for the righteous; their words are their memorials" (Bereishit Rabba 82). We do not set up statues or tombstones for the righteous, for it is their spiritual legacy that serves as their memorial. Nevertheless, the ability to touch the past by way of some object bestows additional meaning on that heritage. Touching the physical possession of a deceased relative gives a person the sense of an unmediated encounter with the past. One generation passes away and another generation comes, but an object that remains provides a connection to the earlier period. Man is a physical creature, and contact with material objects is meaningful to him as a reminder of and bridge to the past. Not only is it meaningful to transmit the life story of the deceased to future generations and to talk about his values, but it is also important to be able to connect with him on the most basic level. When a person comes across an object that belonged to his relative, it is important to him even if it lacks monetary value or is in no way unique. The tangible item turns the past into something immediate on a level that cannot be achieved by any other means. A number of years ago, a Torah scroll that belonged to the Ran and a seal that was reportedly that of the Ramban were displayed in an exhibition devoted to Spanish Jewry before the expulsion. It is difficult to describe the thrill that I felt when I understood that this seal was once held by the Ramban himself and that the Ran had once used this Torah scroll. I also remember the feeling of immediacy that I felt when someone showed me an etrog box that had once belonged to R. Akiva Eiger. We are physical beings who come from the dust, and physical things therefore speak to us. Paradoxically, it is precisely material objects, which are essentially transient, that maintain their permanence for centuries, creating a bridge between the past and the future. The need for connection through objects, which is natural and self-evident given that we are humans of flesh and blood, also underlies the Torah and the practical mitzvot. Judaism is not built exclusively on vague and abstract values. In response to the human need for concreteness, a system of practical commandments was created in order to express a system of ideas. The performance of mitzvot creates a channel for religious experience and opens the way for a connection between man and God. The experience associated with taking a lulav or eating matza reflects how much an object plays a role in the human religious experience. In a person's private life, intimate family connections are not based exclusively on profound conversations about noble values, but are rather manifest in shared day-to-day experiences, including the trivial problems that engage an ordinary family in everyday conduct, such as who will wash the dishes or fold the laundry. Similarly, this component of activity that is ongoing but not uplifting plays a role in our observance of the mitzvot. Just as a family lives closely together and creates connections even through banal activities, the mitzvot create a common religious experience with God among all those observing them. Thus, objects can provide existential meaning, but this depends upon the eye of the beholder. A person who relates to an inheritance merely as a set of objects and not as a means to continue the past will not see any unique significance in those objects. The Uniqueness of the Firstborn Thus far, we have discussed the idea of heirs and inheritance in general, the concept of personal and national heritage in the sense of "You are the children of the Lord your God" (Devarim 14:1). We have not discussed any unique status of any of the heirs. This indeed follows the model of the first half of Yesh Nochalin. At this point, we must move on to the second half of the chapter and to the concept of the birthright, the special privileges bestowed upon a firstborn. In addition to the passage dealing with inheritance in Sefer Bamidbar, a passage in Sefer Devarim assigns special status to a firstborn son. The concept of the bechora, primogeniture, is not merely factual but rather value-laden. This is reflected in the gemara's emphasis on the idea of "recognizing" the firstborn (based on the word "yakir" in the verse). The birthright expresses an interpersonal relationship unique to the parent and firstborn; it assumes a certain connection between them. Therefore, a firstborn only inherits a double portion if he was alive during his father's lifetime (Bava Batra 142b) and the father recognizes him as his firstborn son (127a).[3] For this reason, we also maintain that "the Torah calls it [the firstborn's double portion] a gift." In Halakha, a gift is not merely a certain type of acquisition, but rather an expression of intimacy. The firstborn inherits as one who receives a gift, directly from the father and not through the house or family. All of a person's strengths are reflected first and foremost in his firstborn. A father is supposed to feel a partnership with his sons, and the firstborn is the first child with whom this closeness is created. The Concept of Birthright in the Bible The birthright is referred to prominently in three contexts in the Bible: the struggle over the birthright between Yaakov and Esav; the story of Yaakov's two firstborn sons, Reuven and Yosef; and the description of Israel as "My son, My firstborn" (Shemot 4:22). These models point to the importance attached to the firstborn, as well as to the dangers that this status creates. Concerning the opportunity and the danger posed by the birthright, it is appropriate to cite two midrashim from Avot De-Rabbi Natan: Israel were called "sons," as it is stated: "You are the sons of the Lord your God" (Devarim 14:1), and the ministering angels are called "sons," as it is stated: "The sons of God came" (Iyov 1:6), and you do not know which are more loved. When it says: "Israel is My son, My firstborn," [it makes clear that] you are more precious to me than the ministering angels. (44a) The firstborn is perceived here as a clear expression of endearment and special closeness. Another midrash in Avot De-Rabbi Natan speaks in a different tone, recognizing that not every firstborn is dearly loved: Israel is precious, for in His time of anger they are called "sons." In His time of anger they are called sons, and even at a time when the verse says: "Not His is the corruption, but the blemish of His sons" (Devarim 32:5) -- sons in whom I have no trust, corrupt sons. Therefore, the Sages taught that they are called sons of God... But not every firstborn is precious and dear. There is a firstborn who is precious and dear, and there is also a firstborn who is not precious and dear. (8a) This midrash points to the problematic nature of the firstborn. It is simple to speak of the beauty and loftiness of the idea of Israel being "My son, My firstborn." But this does not necessarily reflect reality, as we find in the stories dealing with the birthright in the book of Bereishit. Yaakov vs. Esav -- Values vs. Money Esav views inheritance as a way to acquire property: "Behold, I am at the point of death, and what profit shall this birthright be to me?" (Bereishit 25:32). Ostensibly, the opposite is actually true! It is precisely at the point of death that the birthright acquires greater importance, for through it Esav could be counted as part of the line of the house of Avraham and as a link that transmits the heritage of the past to the coming generations. In this way, his memory would be preserved for generations, even after he dies. But Esav understands that he will derive no monetary gain from the inheritance, as he is about to die, and he is therefore prepared to sell his birthright for a pot of lentils. The commentators discuss the manner in which Yaakov took the birthright from Esav, and the Rishonim deal with the legal question of how Yaakov could acquire the birthright even though it was something that had not yet come into existence ("davar she-lo ba le-olam"). Many explanations have been offered, but it is possible to suggest one very simple answer. Esav did not sell the birthright to Yaakov; he lost it because his actions proved that he was not worthy of it. His very readiness to sell his birthright for a pot of lentils attested to his attitude toward the birthright and to his alienation from the world of Yitzchak. Anyone who scorns the birthright demonstrates that he does not understand its significance, and thus forfeits it. Sometimes, a child relates to his parents as an infinite source of rights. He wishes only to receive benefits and service from his parents; he is not prepared to accept the burden of transferring the legacy of previous generations. It is not for naught that the midrash (Bereishit Rabba 67:8; 75:9) describes Esav as ready to arrange for the murder of Yaakov and Yishmael in order to inherit the entire inheritance of Avraham. When the birthright is perceived not as a responsibility and sacred mission, but as an opportunity to profit at the expense of others, when the attitude toward inheritance is like that toward any monetary matter, it is not surprising to find that a violent man would be prepared to kill the other heirs and to employ a variety of schemes in order to inherit more assets. Yaakov, in contrast, views the birthright not only as a right, but as a mission. He wants to perpetuate Avraham's blessing in the world, and he sees the birthright as a destiny that will confer that mission upon him. It is not by chance that Chazal saw the pot of lentils as a dish denoting mourning over Avraham's passing, for it is around this event that the debate focuses. The test is whether to view this as an opportunity for profit -- on the tangible level, through the eating of the beans, and on the symbolic level, through benefit from the property of the deceased -- or as a call to assume responsibility and accept the authority of the firstborn. Reuven vs. Yosef -- Competition vs. Continuity Another pair of brothers who compete over the birthright presents us with a different model that is problematic for a different reason. On the one hand, "Reuven, you are my firstborn, my might and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity and the excellency of power" (Bereishit 49:3). It is upon Reuven that Yaakov pins his entire future and all of his hopes. On the other hand, "Unstable as water, you shall not excel; because you went up to your father's bed; then you did defile it: he went up to my couch" (ibid. 49:4), and in Divrei Ha-Yamim: "Now the sons of Reuven the firstborn of Israel -- for he was the firstborn, but since he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Yosef the son of Yisrael" (I Divrei Ha-Yamim 5:1). Because he defiled his father's bed, the birthright was taken away from Reuven. Esav was indifferent to the birthright and to the past; he sought in his inheritance only monetary gain. Reuven suffers from the opposite problem -- he sees himself as competing with his father and contending against him. No matter how we understand the specifics of Reuven's sin when he defiled his father's bed, the implication is the same -- it was an attempt to push his father aside and take his place during his lifetime. Reuven challenged his father's standing as head of the family. He rejected Yaakov's authority, and by doing so he impaired his own standing. The way of the world is that at some stage in a person's life, there is a reversal of roles. The strong parent, the firm rock, turns into a frail old man, at which point the sons must help the parent. Sometimes, they are even compelled to make decisions for the parent. Indeed, at the end of Yaakov's life, when he arrived in Egypt a broken and ill man, Yosef made various decisions for him. All this is possible and appropriate when the father is old and weak, when there is no other way, but not when the father is at the height of his strength and is fit to stand on his own two feet. The firstborn is meant to be the continuation of his father, but not his replacement who is in competition with him. The father bestows the birthright -- "The Torah calls it a gift." A son may not take the birthright by force. The similarity between Reuven and Yaakov could have prepared Reuven to be his father's successor. However, when that similarity is interpreted as competition, the firstborn's reward is cancelled out by his loss. Yosef was also similar to Yaakov, but he knew how to actualize that similarity at the proper time and not to replace him while he was still alive. The birthright was thus taken from Reuven, as from Esav, because he was unsuited for it. The transfer of property from an unfit son is the subject of a dispute between the Sages and R. Shimon ben Gamliel (133b), and we rule that property should not be transferred even from a wicked son to a good son. But in such a case, we are not dealing with an impairment in the firstborn's functioning as a firstborn, but rather with a general problem, and we therefore do not want to cancel the birthright. However, when the son sets himself in competition with his father, when he defiles his father's bed, the birthright is removed from him. The Actions of the Fathers are a Sign for the Sons The relationship between God and Israel should be examined in a similar manner. As stated to Moshe, Israel is "My son, My firstborn" (Shemot 22:4). What this means is that on a certain level, all the nations are God's children; the birthright does not negate the standing of the other brothers, but rather bestows a certain advantage on the firstborn while recognizing the others as sons.[4] But how are we to understand our relationship to God as His firstborn? Are we more precious to God than the ministering angels, as is stated in the first midrash cited above? Or are we perhaps like the firstborn who is not cherished and dear, as he appears in the second midrash? Will we be alienated from God? Will we be like a firstborn who is first among his brothers, but aware of his place? Or perhaps, God forbid, we will view ourselves in competition with God? Of course, the desired model is a permanent and meaningful relationship in which the individual feels the presence of the Shekhina, one in which he does not view the relationship between man and God as an interesting idea but nothing more. A child feels the presence of his parent and maintains a strong relationship with him, despite the differences in standing between them; this is also true of the relationship between Israel and their Father in Heaven. This is the challenge with which we are faced. A person who feels the responsibility of being a fitting firstborn to God justifies his birthright, but also assumes responsibility. The greater and deeper the responsibility and purpose, the greater the spiritual achievement. However, the spiritual danger is also greater. The same things that create obstacles in the relationship between a son and his parents are liable to ruin the relationship between man and his Maker. One can encounter a problem in the form of what we saw regarding Esav; a person recognizes the existence of God, but views the connection between him and his Father in Heaven as a means of satisfying his own pleasures and fulfilling his needs. In such a case, his heritage interests him only for the purpose of generating profits, and nothing more. He does not see his heritage as an obligation or mission, but rather as "a spade for digging," a source of personal gain. Alternatively, there is the situation of Reuven, which is reflected in the feeling that God is "strangling" him, leaving him with insufficient leeway due to the Shekhina's presence in the world. Just like a child rebels when he feels constrained by a parent or when he senses that the parent with his power and status overshadows him and his capabilities, a person's feelings about God may be similar. The proper situation, both with respect to the parent-child relationship and with respect to the relationship between man and God, is that man should find his place within a framework of existing laws and recognize that there are factors above him. Within these boundaries, he will be able to find his uniqueness and express his personal development. A firstborn like Reuven, who feels that he cannot exercise his strengths together with the strengths of God, is a firstborn who lacks the appropriate "recognition." Let us move from the People of Israel to the Land of Israel. The Land was also given to us as an inheritance and a heritage. Here, too, the aim is to see it as God's inheritance and to reach the realization of "You shall bring them in and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance" (Shemot 15:17), with the physical land serving as an expression of the spiritual connection and relationship between God and His people. Here, too, however, there is the danger of being caught up in the perspective of profitability and materialism, which views the Land exclusively as a place of leisure and profits. As opposed to "the mountain of Your inheritance," Datan and Aviram view the Land as "an inheritance of fields and vineyards" (Bamidbar 16:14), and nothing more. The children of Reuven and Gad preferred to receive their inheritance on the east bank of the Jordan, as that was advantageous for their animals and business. They did not ask themselves about the effect that their step would have on their inheritance as a sacred place or as the land of their forefathers. In opposition to "an inheritance of fields and vineyards" stands "the mountain of Your inheritance." Furthermore, since the inheritance is not land but rather a heritage, it exists, under certain condition, even without land. Not only is there the mountain of Your inheritance, but God is also the inheritance of the priests and Levites, substituting for the inheritance of land. We not only have God's intention "to give it to you for a heritage" (Shemot 6:8), but also "Moshe commanded us the Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov" (Devarim 33:4). Needless to say, the fitting situation for the ordinary person is the realization of the two inheritances, both of the Land and of the Torah. At times, however, it is one heritage that sustains us, while the other is missing. This was the case throughout the long years of exile, when the heritage of the Torah allowed Israel to survive in the lands of their dispersion. Similarly, in recent generations, the secular Zionist movement adopted for itself the heritage of the Land without a Torah heritage. Indeed, the core challenge facing secular Zionism and the State of Israel in this regard is viewing the country's heritage as an ancestral heritage and an expression of Jewish identity that is connected to the people of Israel throughout the generations, and not only as an inheritance of fields and vineyards. "A Ladder Set upon the Earth, and the Top of it Reached to Heaven" The chapter of Yesh Nochalin presents a sublime model of a system of inheritance that depends on the values that we have discussed. Very often, however, reality slaps us in the face. Inheritance disputes are a common and painful phenomenon. Unfortunately, these struggles are widespread and they destroy families. Values and ideals of great importance are shattered against the rocks of family disputes; instead of attaining achievements, they engage in conflict. Instead of the past serving as an inspiration and guide for the future, a person can destroy his future and fill it with conflicts from the past. Instead of the "house" inheriting the deceased and passing the family heritage down to the other members of the house, the house is split and destroyed in the storms of dispute. One should not make the mistake of thinking that such disputes are driven solely by profits. Often, the conflicts are grounded in what appears to be holiness. Struggles arise around the question of who will be a better successor, who will more faithfully represent the heritage and values of the deceased. Each side is convinced that he alone can express the family truth, while the other side will betray it. He therefore enters into battle against his brothers and sisters, without realizing that he is thereby destroying the family and defying the wishes of the deceased. These "holy fights" create the antithesis of the concept of inheritance. The challenge of inheritance and creating a heritage is indeed great, and it therefore often leads to tension. Nevertheless, Yesh Nochalin presents us with a meaningful model on the existential level, both with respect to the family and the past and with respect to our lives with God. May we merit to meet these challenges. (This sicha was delivered in summer 5767 [2007]. The original Hebrew adaptation was reviewed by Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein.) -- [1] This is true on the fundamental level, as is stated in the mishna in Bekhorot. In this context, we will not consider the dispute between Abba Shaul and the Sages. [2] Most authorities are uncomfortable even with one who donates all of his property to charity. [3] As a result, someone whose status is in doubt is excluded from the law of the birthright: "A son and not a tumtum [a person of undetermined gender]; a firstborn, and not a doubtful firstborn." This is also the basis for the law of "recognition," which according to many authorities is not based on credibility, but on the creation of a connection between father and son, credibility being the byproduct. [4] See the commentators ad loc., especially Ibn Ezra and Seforno. Rashi apparently understood differently and deliberately chose to deviate from the plain meaning of the birthright. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 13:31:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:31:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Defining Tzeis Message-ID: <20150706203135.GA12889@aishdas.org> I wrote the following to FB. If anyone can add or make corrections before the thread there dies, I would appreciate it. I think I summed up the highlights of the sugya as I understood it from previous conversations here. Tir'u baTov! -Micha [Someone asked what the sources in question were, so I replied:] Shabbos 34b-35a, 35b; Pesachim 94a. As Tosafos on Pesachim note, in Shabbos (34b) R' Yehudah is quoted as saying bein hashemashot (sunset to the stars coming out) is 3/4 mil (or 2/3 mil, depending on which amora's version of R' Yehudah you're using, but we hold 3/4), but in Pesachim he says a person can walk 4 mil after sunset before the stars emerge. Rabbeinu Tam notes a slight difference in language. It takes 4 mil "misheqi'as hachamah," in Pesachim, but 3/4 mil from "mishetishqeh hachamah." RT therefore resolves the two gemaros by saying sunset takes 3-1/4 mil. So, 4 mil from the beginning of sunset will take you to 3/4 mil after sunset, which is R' Yehudah's tzeis. The Vilna Gaon's resolution of the confliciting gemaros (OC 235 and 261) is not to split sunset into a beginning an end, but to split tzeis. The halachic tzeis is 3/4 mil after sunset. The gemara in Pesachim is using the term colloquially, not halachically, and simply refers to "all the stars" rather the standard 3. The Re'eim (R' Eliezer of Metz, Seifer Yerei'im, written in the 1170s) splits both -- the two gemaras are discussing different sunsets AND different tzeis. To him, the gemara in Shabbos is saying sheqi'ah (which we usually translate "sunset") is 3/4 mil BEFORE the sun hits the horizon, and tzeis is when the sun is at the horizon. Whereas the gemara in Pesachim then measures how much after the sun is below the horizon that the sky is fully dark. Note that both the Vilna Gaon and the Re'eim assume the gemara in Pesachim is using at least one of the idioms differently than the gemara in Shabbos, and therefore it has no bearing on halakhah. ... [Material in response to what someone else wrote, ellided.] BUT... The Vilna Gaon understands the defining feature to be the emergence of stars, not the fixed time R' Yehudah gives. And therefore inflates the 3/4 mil to adjust from Usha (R' Yehudah's home town) to Vilna. Which brings us to the third topic, on the other side of the page on Shabbos (35b). Again it's R' Yehudah, quoting Shemu'el's prescription of which stars to watch for: [If you see] 1 star, it is day; 2 -- bein hashemashos; 3 -- night. Rabbi Yosi said, "Not large stars that are visible in the day, nor small stars that are only visible at night, but medium stars..." 35b cannot describe 3/4 mil after sunset. Even in Usha or Nehardaa (Shemuel's home town, today's Anbar, central Iraq, on the Euphrates), you will not see 3 middle sized stars 18 min after sunset. R Michl Tukaczinsky and R' Dovid Spitzer did the observations in Jerusalem, and found it takes 31-43 min or 28-40 min, respectively. (Use the smaller end of the range for rabbinic fasts, like the OP, and the larger for Torah laws like Shabbos. Jerusalem is closer to the equator than either city, not that I think it's by enough to matter much.) Rav Moshe Feinstein similarly gave 50 min for Shabbos, 31 for rabbinic fasts -- but then, NY's days vary more in length, so a "never later than" will be more minutes after sunset. With a computer, we could translate all these numbers into degrees below the horizon, as that would tell us how dark it would be outside, and therefore how many stars could be seen, if we weren't bathed in artificial lighting. And even then you get into questions about which stars. The western horizon (the side with the glow of sunset) will show stars well after the east. Three stars seen at once (near each-other) or total when scanning the whole sky? Etc... Rather than decide whether we follow Shabbos 34a or 35a, even those who do not use Pesachim to shed light on 34a pad the 3/4 mil to plausibly allow for people to see three medium sized stars. Given the fact that it's this measure which actually gives the landmark on our clock its name, assuming it is less definitional than a fixed time delay is difficult. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 13:39:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:39:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dan leKaf Zekhus Message-ID: <20150706203931.GB12889@aishdas.org> When I got on the subway this morning, there was a pregnant woman already standing holding on to the poll nearest the door I just came in through. So, feeling all heroic, I asked her quite loudly and pointedly, "Do you need me to embarass someone into getting up for you?" She replied, "No, thank you. A number of people offered when I just got on, but I was more comfortable standing than on the train's benches." I blushed, and sheepishly muttered apologies to those around us. As I said: Dan lekaf zekhus. Not just the law, a good idea. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 14:45:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 17:45:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Torah and Poverty In-Reply-To: <20150706202632.A741518370D@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150706202632.A741518370D@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150706214552.GE12889@aishdas.org> On 7/3/2015 3:16 AM, RnTK wrote to Areivim: : But our mishna does describe this as the "way of the Torah." : True Torah scholars will live contentedly under conditions of : denial and poverty. The beraisa (Avos "6":4) says that darkah shel Torah is not to quit learning even if you have to live off bread, salt and water you have to ration, sleep on the ground and otherwise suffer. Not that this is their normal condition, or even one they should desire. There is still the take on the chatas of someone ending nezirus (Rabbeinu Bachya, in contrast to the Ramban) that it's for forgoing permissable pleasure while a nazir. And the Y-mi (Qiddushin 4:12, vilna 48b, the end of the mesechta) in which Rav is quoted as saying "A person will have to give a din vecheshbon on anything his eye saw but he didn't eat. R' Leizer [Elazar? Eliezer?] was chosheish for this, and would use Shabbos to enjoy one such pleasure. This is on the mishnah where R' Nera'i promises to only teach his son Torah, to the exclusion of a profession. But the Y-mi understands this to mean that keeping the Torah (not learning in particular) will provide wealth. Whereas a profession leaves you stuck in your old age, or if one otherwise become unable to work. But it's "vekhein atah motzei be'avinu Avraham *sheshimer* es haTorah" and was wealthy. However, the Bavli famously reports that this was tried experimentally and it generally doesn't work. Okay for a R' Shimon bar Yochai, but not R' Yishmael and the like. (Which could be a difference in kind or quantitative.) No one today would qualify as either a Rashbi or a R' Yishmael, so I don't think the Y-mi's promise should be counted on. And neither gemara lauds poverty. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 17:12:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 20:12:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Be among the talmidim of Aharon Message-ID: From: Lisa Liel via Avodah The sheer vitriol I've seen from Orthodox Jews over the past days since the Supreme Court decision making same-sex civil marriage the law of the land in the United States has been overwhelming. And I just don't get it. And it's part and parcel of the viciousness I've seen from so many otherwise loving frum Jews over the years when it comes to this subject. Lisa >>>> I have seen none of that "vitriol" or "viciousness," either in the past few days or in the last few years, or ever. On the contrary, all I see is an almost desperate attempt to be conciliatory, a desperate if hopeless wish not to be the *victims* of liberal, anti-religious vitriol. See for example "A Letter by Reb Ahron Feldman to a Gay Baal Teshuva" https://guardyoureyes.com/resources/ssa/item/a-letter-by-reb-ahron-feldman-to-a-gay-baal-teshuva Also see Agudath Israel's statement on the recent Supreme Court gay-marriage decision http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2015/06/28/agudath-israel-statement-o n-supreme-court-marriage-ruling/ It reads, in part, "we are deeply concerned that, as a result of today?s ruling, and as the dissenting Justices have pointed out, members and institutions of traditional communities like the Orthodox Jewish community we represent may incur moral opprobrium and risk tangible negative consequence if they refuse to transgress their beliefs, and even if they simply teach and express their religious views publicly." I might add that Lisa's post, being an emotional cri de coeur, really belongs on Areivim. However, since she has posted it to Avodah, I will add my own comments previously posted on Cross-Currents: Here, for the record, is what our ancient Torah heritage has to say about homosexual marriage: The nations are allowed to continue in existence only because they keep a minimum of three mitzvos. These are: not writing marriage documents for the union of two males, not selling human flesh in the market place, and giving honor to the Torah?which in practice means, not persecuting the people of the Torah, the Jewish people. In one of his prophetic visions, the Navi (prophet) Zechariah took thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the Temple treasury in Jerusalem (Zechariah 11:13). The Rabbis of the Talmud had varying interpretations of what this vision symbolized. According to Rabbi Ulla (Talmud Chullin 92B), the thirty pieces of silver symbolized the thirty mitzvos that the Bnei Noach accepted upon themselves. These thirty mitzvos include not worshipping idols, not consulting witchcraft and sorcery, refraining from illicit sexual relationships, and so on. (Bnei Noach are the Sons of Noah, also called Noahides? i.e., the nations of the world.) Rabbi Ulla says that the world continues to exist because the nations accepted these thirty mitzvos. However, he adds, the nations do not keep all the mitzvos they accepted. They keep only three, and one of the three is: ? They do not write a marriage contract for males.? Rashi comments that the nations do engage in forbidden homosexual relations, but they at least acknowledge that such relations are illicit by not formalizing those relations in legal documents. The other two commandments that they keep are that they do not sell human flesh in the market place, and that they give honor to the Torah (Talmud Chullin 92B). Elsewhere the Rabbis of old stated that the final decree of destruction, the Great Flood, was sealed against the generation of Noach because they wrote marriage documents for males. ?Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Yosef, ?The generation of the Flood was not wiped out until they wrote marriage documents for the union of a man to a male or to an animal ? ? (Genesis Rabbah 26:5; Leviticus Rabbah 23:9). Implicit is the assumption that if the nations do not abide by at least the aforementioned three mitzvos, they may forfeit the very right to exist. Hence, these three?not writing marriage documents for males, not selling human flesh in the marketplace, and honoring the Torah?may be considered the Three Conditions for the continued existence of mankind. So you see, the idea of gay marriage is not new, not a fresh idea that represents the ultimate development, enlightenment and evolution of mankind. No, the formal marriage of two men is a very ancient idea that represents the degradation of mankind. http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2011/07/28/4524/ I will add a further point to what I wrote in 2011: The reason the gay pride movement adopted rainbow colors as their symbol is that the rainbow is the sign of Hashem?s promise not to wipe out the entire world again in one big flood. They wave the rainbow flag in defiance of Him, as if to say, ?Ha ha, You can?t touch us!? The message of the rainbow flag is, ?We are major sinners, like the generation of the Flood.? But they are whistling in the dark if they think there won?t be consequences. May Hashem protect His people, those who are chassidei umos ha?olam as well as us, Klal Yisrael. Read more: http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2015/06/29/scotus-on-same-gender-what-it-means-what-it-doesnt/#ixzz3f9x0mazM --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 18:14:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 01:14:59 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> I noted about Kaddish Yasom > From what I've seen, it is NOT said even if a minyan says Birkas > Hamazon, R' Zev Sero asked: > Why would it? Well, I guess my original post should have had a longer introduction. I know that Kaddish Tiskabel has a very clear rule, namely that it follows every Amidah, and the only exception is that it also follows Selichos. Kaddish D'rabanan always follows group learning (though I've never figured out exactly what learning counts and what doesn't). And now I'm trying to figure out the rule for Kaddish Yasom. It SEEMS to be a sort of "congregational prayer", where "prayer" is something *other* than the Amidah, but I can't define it any more precisely than that. For a long time I thought it was connected to Tehillim, but when I noticed it after the megilos on Yom Tov, someone suggested that it's not specifically Sefer Tehillim, but *any* part of Kesuvim, not that we had any idea why Kesuvim would get this distinction over Neviim or Torah. I wrote: > but it IS said when a minyan says Kiddush Levana. RZS suggested: > Probably because people are used to saying it after Alenu. Maybe, and maybe not. I have a suspicion that Alenu was added *because of* the Kaddish, and not the other way around. Here are some data points: The Hirsch siddur has Tehillim 67 as the last paragraph of Kiddush Levana, with nothing at all after it. My Minchas Yerushalayim, and Birnbaum too, end with Tehillim 67 which is then followed by Kaddish Yasom, without Alenu. Is it possible that Alenu is a recent addition to the Kiddush Levana? I wrote: > It is NOT said when a minyan says Tehillim even as an organized > group, RZS asked: > Where have you seen it not being said then? I'm surprised that > this is your experience. In my current community, and also from my memories of yeshiva. When there was some sort of tzara that we said Tehillim for -- whether for a choleh, or some military or political problem -- we would say the Tehillim deemed appropriate by the leaders, and this would be followed by tefillos such as Acheinu and/or Mi Sheberach(s). I don't recall Kaddish ever being part of this. I have to admit that a big part of my asking this question is a pet peeve that I've been nursing, regarding Kiddush Levana in particular. It seems to me that Kiddush Levana -- the way it is done in just about every situation I've ever seen -- cannot be called a Tefilas Tzibur in any sense. It is a group of yechidim who happen to be saying the same thing, but in a totally disorganized fashion. The first one out of shul begins as soon as he finds a good location, and the last one out of shul also begins when he finds a good location. No attempt whatsoever is made to get this group to be on the same page, let alone in the same paragraph. There is no leader (like we have in Hallel and Pesukei Dzimra and everywhere else) who lets everyone know what the group is up to, so that they might end in unison. Rather, one person ends Alenu out loud, and that's when the yesomim say kaddish, regardless of whether they are only halfway though, or already finished before. So that's one of the reasons why I'm wondering why Kiddush Levana gets a kaddish. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/559b2834173228336fdfst03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 6 23:16:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 02:16:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kiddush levana In-Reply-To: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <559B6EB4.3010400@sero.name> On 07/06/2015 09:14 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: > So that's one of the reasons why I'm wondering why Kiddush Levana gets a kaddish. Well, I found what may be the source for this kaddish. The Shelah says "There is a nice minhag in the kingdom of EY and its surroundings, to say various pesukim and maamarim after kiddush levana, and then say kaddish derabanan [...] and the meaning of this kaddish is that [the Name] should be magnified and sanctified, a Great Name, a full Name, and then the moon's light will be as the sun's light". http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=45685&pgnum=287 > I have a suspicion that Alenu was added > *because of* the Kaddish, and not the other way around. Here are > some data points: The Hirsch siddur has Tehillim 67 as the last > paragraph of Kiddush Levana, with nothing at all after it. My Minchas > Yerushalayim, and Birnbaum too, end with Tehillim 67 which is then > followed by Kaddish Yasom, without Alenu. Is it possible that Alenu > is a recent addition to the Kiddush Levana? Taamei Haminhagim gives a reason for saying Alenu, because it was written by Yehoshua, whose face is compared to the moon (Bava Basra 75a). According to this reason there would seem to be no reason to say it after birkas hachama. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=216 But the footnote to Kuntres Acharon on the next page gives a different reason: Because kiddush levana looks like a pagan ritual, we say Alenu to declare that we worship only Hashem, and this is the same reason that after Hoshanos, which also seems a bit pagan, we declare "Lema'an daas kol amei ha'aretz ki Hashem hu haElokim, ein od". This reason applies equally to birkas hachama. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=217 I remember hearing that the same reason is why we say Alenu after a bris, but I can't find a source for this. Taamei Haminhagim cites Yaavetz that the reason is to include the baby among the "us" who are declaring our loyalty to Hashem. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&pgnum=404 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 03:41:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David and Esther Bannett via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 13:41:47 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Pinechas vs Pinchas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> R' Micha points out that his grandfather's name was Pinechas. He proves it first by the yud after the pei which, by the rules of dikduk, makes the following sheva a na'. In addition, the name is an Egyptian one, Pi-nechas, pi being a common prefix in Egyptian names. In case you haven't been convinced yet, there is a meteg in the pei which, by the rules, makes the chirik malei and the sheva na' There is, however, one small point that makes me wonder. R' Aharon ben Asher who, for the last thousand years, has been called the accepted decision maker on correct spelling in Tana"kh seems to disagree. In perek 11 of his book Dikdukei Hat'amim he describes the sh'vaim before the otyot g'roniot inside a word, when they are na' and when nach. Included in his list of words where they are nach are laqkhu, barchu, Pinchas, zar'u, etc. IIRC, not all manuscripts have all the words and Pinchas might be omitted in some. It is possible that copiers of the words lists added or omitted. On the Mesorah sub-list it is known that I am anti-dikduk because it opens the way to change the fine points on Torah pronunciation to match its rules. Among these "improvements" was the changing of many internal sh'vaim in words from nach to na'. What enabled this to happen was the brilliant invention by R' Yosef Kimchi of the ten vowel, five pairs of malei and chaseir. This led to the rule that after malei the sh'va is na' and after chaseir it is nach. Ben Asher, in perek 10 notes that there are seven vowels in Hebrew. All of the masoretes also state this. If there aren't pairs of malei and chaseir, we've just lost the rule about the following sh'vaim. All this is not something new. Heidenheim in his comments on the Ein Hakorei of RYHB"Y (Shemini, just before sh'lishi) states that in the times of the kadmonim many sh'vaim that are now na'im were then nachim. He quotes (from Ibn Ezra?) that kol sh'va b'ot rafah shekadam lo echad mishiv'at ham'lakhim hu nach ki halashon ha-ivrit kasha la r'difat shalosh t'nu'ot...except for double letters and some words with groniot. So how should I lein on Shabbos? Oh, no problem, I'm not the bal-koire. bivrakha, David From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 05:21:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:21:39 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kesher Message-ID: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little farfetched 1) knot 2) connection 3) conspiracy -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 06:18:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 09:18:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> In various places in dovening, kaddish etc we find the loshon - ..v'imru amen. Simply understood this is something only said by a sh'ztibur, as an announcement by the sh'ztibur that the congregation sh answer amen. In some cases, a yachid says it (ie Kiddush hachodesh, etc) probably bc we are saying something that originally was said by the sh'ztibur. What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? Who are we saying v'imru amen to? And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). Because the silent SE is not a carbon copy of the sh'ztibur version (for instance - no elokai netzor, SE of fast days are diff, etc) Mordechai Cohen mcohen at touchlogic.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:09:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 10:09:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper : connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little : farfetched : 1) knot : 2) connection : 3) conspiracy Interestingly, the noun doesn't show in chumash. As an adjective, we have hamuqsharos/im, to describe which of the tzon Yaaqov received (30:41-42). Rashi quotes the Targum, "habechiros" and cites two pesuqim in Shemuel II pereq 15. To round out the list: About Yaaqov (again) and Yoseif, "venafsho qesurah benafsho." Also the string tied on Zarach's hand, and tefillin (x2). Those are all the occurances of the shoresh. BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. Conspiracy comes up in #2, "league together, conspire". It would seem they conjecture the word comes from the collaboration, and less so what they're connecting to eachother to plan against something. They also cite "vatiqasheir kol-hachimah" in Nechemiah 3:35, where one would not readily picture "tying together" parts as a metaphor. I understand why Rashi thought the translation in Bereishis 30 is unique enough to require comment, but not how it fits altogether. (Rashi says it does, not how.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:08:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Mandel, Seth via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 14:08:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Pinechas vs Pinchas In-Reply-To: <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> References: , <559BACEB.7040007@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <1436278092269.69769@ou.org> It should be noted that how Pinechas was read according to the Masorah is not really relevant to the way it was pronounced as a name. Pinchas is a Yiddish name (to be sure, with its roots in Hebrew), and is pronounced without a het and without a sh'wa. Its pronunciation in Hebrew is no more relevant than is the proper pronunciation of the word gannav (theif) in the T'NaKh to the pronunciation of the Yiddish word ganef. Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel Rabbinic Coordinator The Orthodox Union 11 Broadway, New York, NY 10004 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 07:22:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 17:22:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> References: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper >: connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little >: farfetched >: 1) knot >: 2) connection >: 3) conspiracy ... > BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary > meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. and what is the connection to a knot (the origin of the question was a dvar torah on the knots of tsizit) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 09:03:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:03:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: References: <20150707140905.GA18839@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150707160302.GA10745@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 05:22:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Micha Berger wrote: :> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :>: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings... : ... :> BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary :> meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates. : and what is the connection to a knot : (the origin of the question was a dvar torah on the knots of tsizit) Well, tzitzis knots less so, but knots generally bind two strings or two ends of a string together, no? Tzitzis knots are somewhat more like the example from Nechemiah. If qesher includes "batiqashar kol-hachomah", perhaps it also it includes binding pesilim into a gedil. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 14:44:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 17:44:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rambam, Moreh Nevuchim (2:29), A Strange Passage about Miracles Message-ID: <559C4830.9030705@gmail.com> In Moreh Nevuchim, 2:29, the Rambam seems to disparage a talmudical position about miracles that he had endorsed in his prior works (Commentary on Avos 5:6 and Shmoneh Perakim chapter 8). This, despite the fact that in the Moreh, he refers the reader to these former works to understand his position about miracles. And to further confuse matters, in the Moreh itself, within just a few sentences, he goes on to laud the proponent of that very positionfor maintaining it! The position is that already during the Creation week, G-d instilled, in objects and forces of nature, the potential for the aberrant behaviors that He would unleash when appropriate. (I.e. the aberrant behaviors were not changes G-d first decided upon, created and imposed upon things at the time the miracles were witnessed.) The Moreh Nevuchim introduces the concept with the words: "Our Sages said things zarrim m'od as regards miracles." "zarrim m'od" is Ibn Tibbon's Hebrew translation. Narboni and Schwartz use the similar "muzarrim, and likewise, Friedlander and Pines, in their English translations, translate, "very strange." KPCH translates, "temuhim" (astonishing). They all seem to indicate that the Rambam shunned the idea. Yet, as I noted, just a few sentences later, the Rambam lauds the Tanna who expressed the thought: [T]his text...demonstrates the [high] level of the speaker, and its being very difficult in his eyes that Nature could change after Creation, or that G-d's Will would change after it had been established. He therefore reasons, for example, that G-d instilled, in the nature of Water, the [property of] sticking together and always flowing in a downward direction, except for that time in which the Egyptians would drown in them; those specific waters would split. I have already enlightened you as to the main idea of the [talmudic] statement [KPCH in a footnote sees this as a reference to the Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah and Shemoneh Perakim], and that it is all meant to flee from [the idea that, after Creation, G-d would bring about] the new creation of anything. It says there: R. Yonathan said, G-d placed stipulations on the sea, that it should divide before the Israelites. Thus it says, "And the sea returned, when the morning appeared, l'ay-sa-no [to its strength, or to its stipulated nature]"(Sh'mos 14:27). R. Yiremiyah ben Elazar said: Not only with the sea did the Holy One, blessed be He, place stipulations, but with all that has been created in the six days of Creation. "My hands stretched out the heavens, and all their hosts I commanded" (Yishayahu 45:12): I commanded the sea that it will divide, the fire that it should not harm Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, and the lions that they should not harm Daniel, and the fish that it should spit out Jonah." The same is to be applied to all the other miracles. The surprising solution to this problem is really quite simple. I noticed that in Moreh 1:70 (p. 106 in the classic version, line 2), Pines translates a certain phrase as "strange but true."But both Ibn Tibbon and Schwartz translate it, "ha-inyanim ha-mufla-os ha-n'chonos, ("matters wondrous but true/correct"). Hmmm. One Arabic scholar translates a word as "strange," while others translate it as "wondrous." I began to sense how the same word could be used both ways, and I suspected it might also be the same word as in our passage in 2:29. Without mentioning my problem about the Rambam's self-contradiction (to keep the issue unbiased), I asked R. Yakov Wincelberg, translator of Avraham ben HaRambam's Sefer HaMaspik from Arabic to English, what the actual Arabic word there is, and if it's the same word in our passage in 2:29. Here is his reply: In both cases, the word griva is used. It doesn't mean specifically "weird," but something that stands out. It could be: extraordinary, wondrous, amazing, rare, peculiar, uncommon, obscure, etc. It even is used for emigrating from one's country, as one is separating from the people. In other words, the word means "outstanding." So, true, one tends to understand the translation "zar" or "strange" to be meant in the sense of "weird," or "foreign," indicating that in the Moreh the Rambam considered the "front-loaded" miracle an idea to be shunned--contra the Gemora, his Avos commentary, and his Shemoneh Perakim. But the simpler truth is that the Rambam consistently endorsed this view, and considered it to be an outstanding one. One need only realize that Ibn Tibbon titles his dictionary of unfamiliar philosophical terms,appended to his Moreh Nevuchim translation, "Payrush Me'Hamillot Zarot," The word Zar indicates something unfamiliar, but not necessarily "strange" in the sense of "weird." And it can also mean something that is wondrous and true. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 7 17:01:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 20:01:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher Message-ID: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little farfetched 1) knot 2) connection 3) conspiracy -- Eli Turkel >>>> The deeper connection is -- connection! All the words formed from this shoresh are words that have "connecting" as their basic meaning. In Edward Horowitz's fascinating and entertaining book, "How the Hebrew Language Grew," he has a chapter on how sounds made in the same part of the mouth sometimes interchange to form words with similar or closely related meanings. One example he gives is the word kesher, and the related word gesher -- a bridge, which connects two places, two sides of a river, two sides of a road and so on. Keshes, a rainbow, is something like a bridge connecting two parts of the sky. Another example of these interconnected words (this one I've also seen in the Hirsch commentary on Chumash) is the word "tsachak" to laugh, to which a number of other words are related in a phonetic way: Change the ches to an ayin and you get "tsa'ak." Both tsachak and tsa'ak involve emitting loud sounds -- sounds of mirth or of alarm or distress. (Ches and ayin are both formed in the back of the throat.) Change the tsadi to a sin and instead of "tsachak" to laugh you get "sachak" to be happy, to rejoice. (Tsadi and sin are both sibilants.) Going back to the word tsa'ak, if you now change the tsadi to a zayin you again get a closely related word, "za'ak." And if you take the word "tsa'ir" (young) and change the tsadi to a zayin you get "za'ir" small. Change the sin of saraf to a tsadi and instead of burning (saraf) you get refining (tsaraf) gold or silver -- which is done through heat. Change the zayin of "zahav" to a tsadi and instead of gold you get "tzahov," the color yellow. Horowitz points out that these kinds of phonetic relationships can also be found in English, Latin and other languages, but nevertheless I find it especially fascinating to trace these connections in Lashon Hakodesh. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 02:42:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 09:42:27 GMT Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen Message-ID: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. > Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? > Who are we saying v'imru amen to? > > And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the > same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end of Birkas Hamazon. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett???s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren???t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/559cf0b42988970b45addst03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 02:09:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 02:09:57 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:18 AM, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: > In various places in dovening, kaddish etc we find the loshon - ..v'imru > amen. .. > What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. > Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? > Who are we saying v'imru amen to? I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish. SE took on the whole paragraph "Oseh Shalom ... ve'imru amen" from the end of Kaddish, and Kaddish took on the three steps backwards from the end of SE (which makes sense for the STz's Kaddish Titkabbal at the end of the repetition, but not so much in all other kaddishim) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 06:30:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 09:30:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150708.054227.29568.1@webmail07.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <559D2610.8060803@sero.name> On 07/08/2015 05:42 AM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Mordechai Cohen asked: > >> What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai. >> Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? >> Who are we saying v'imru amen to? >> >> And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the >> same as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal). > > The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end of Birkas Hamazon. Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even when there's a zimun. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 08:04:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:04:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] kesher In-Reply-To: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> References: <5d184.cc666cb.42cdc254@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150708150424.GA8908@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 08:01:24PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : In Edward Horowitz's fascinating and entertaining book, "How the Hebrew : Language Grew," he has a chapter on how sounds made in the same part of the : mouth sometimes interchange to form words with similar or closely related : meanings... Also in RSRH's fascinating and entertaining commentary on the Pentateuch and a couple of places in CW and elsewhere. : Another example of these interconnected words (this one I've also seen in : the Hirsch commentary on Chumash)... See https://books.google.com/books?id=eVAAfn6Itb4C (The real one; the google preview skips all of your examples.) Etymological Dictionary of Biblcal Hebrew: Based on the Commentaries of Samson Raphael Hirsch by Matityahu Clark This is a central part of RSRH's exegesis. I once went through much of Bereishis and Shemos documenting which letters RSRH considers related enough to qualify as likely to be part of the same phonetic meta-root. I ended up with the following chart (readable only in fixed-width-font, eg Courier): geroniot velar dental dento-lingual labial h,ch q | s,sh tes | alef k | tz tav | b ayin g | z d | p n ------------- m r --------------------------------- l y ------------------------------------- v Letters in the same column are phonetically related (eg hei and aleg) Vertical lines separate into pairs (eg zayin and dalet, but not dalet and pei nor tzadi and dalet [paired coumns, different rows]). The pairs are lingual/velar (use tongue) vs not. Horizontal lines connect the nasals (mem and nun), the approximants (lamd and reish) and the semivowels (yud and vav). The unvoiced letters are all in the top two rows. Notice how hei-ches and shin/sin-samech fall into parallel positions, and bege"d kefe"t into the same two rows. I stopped my analysis when I had gone dozens of peraqim without needing to change the chart any. Lost interest. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik, micha at aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 08:12:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 11:12:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> Message-ID: <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:09:57AM -0700, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: : I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, : but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence : between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish... You might have seen it on-list in Apr or Dec 2006, offered by RPMinden. RSBA offered a different explanation: > Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, Likutei Maharich, RS Schwab, Boruch She'omar all > say that we are whispering to the Malochim - that accompany a person all > the time. [Maybe 'oseh sholom BIMEROMOV' indicates this?] The earliest > source seems to be Mateh Moshe - which some cite. > The OH also brings a nusach - IIRC - Machzor [or Siddur] Roma - that > indeed does not include the 'Ve'imru Omein' at the end of SE. RPM believes it was a post-facto explanation, giving meaning to a pratice that really originated in error. See the subject line at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=T#TO%20WHOM%20ARE%20WE%20WHISPERING%20 and the 3 starting with http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=V#VIMRU%20AMEN in the archive index. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes micha at aishdas.org "I am thought about, therefore I am - http://www.aishdas.org my existence depends upon the thought of a Fax: (270) 514-1507 Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 8 11:33:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 14:33:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: In Avodah V33n96, RAM referred repeatedly to "Kaddish Yasom" -- I think at least some of his questions might be answered once we understand that (a) what he called "Kaddish Yasom" is actually the Qaddish (Shaleim, but without the "tisqaba[i]l" phrase) said by the SHaTZ at the end of davening, at some point in our history given over to children (eventually/or to *y'somim*) who could not be SHaTZ (see http://www.beureihatefila.com/files/Introduction_to_Mourners_Kaddish.pdf); and that (b) Qaddish is said after the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim or other K'suvim. As for Kiddush L'vana (KL), indeed Minhag Ashk'naz did not include "Aleinu" -- as was noted, the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim at the end of KL (similar to doing so after Shacharis and after [Mincha/]Ma'ariv, and similar to when a *seifer* from K'suvim was read) was followed by Qaddish (in the Roedelheim, those chapters are 121, 150, and 67, not just 67) -- and KL not being a *t'filas tzibbur* does not impact upon the saying of Qaddish (although obviously, a *minyan* is required for any *davar shebiq'dusha*). HTH :). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 02:40:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 02:40:50 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> References: <07f601d0b8b7$7bbd8bd0$7338a370$@com> <20150708151235.GB8908@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 02:09:57AM -0700, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote: > : I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in the old Birnbaum siddur, > : but anyway there's an explanation that there was a mutual influence > : between the end of SE and the end of Kaddish... > > You might have seen it on-list in Apr or Dec 2006, offered by RPMinden. > My memory was correct as to the attribution, though I garbled the content a bit. It's on page 48 of the Birnbaum siddur, in the notes to the Kaddish deRabbanan after Korbanot: "/Oseh Shalom/, which repeats in Hebrew the thought expressed in the preceding Aramaic paragraph, seems to have been added from the meditation recited at the end of the /Shemoneh Esreh/. The same sentence is also added at the end of the grace recited after meals. The three steps backwards, which formed the respectful manner of retiring from a superior, were likewise transferred from the concluding sentence of the /Shemoneh Esreh/. On the other hand, the phrase "and say Amen", added at the end of the silent meditation after the /Shemoneh Esreh/, must have been borrowed from the Kaddish which is always recited in the hearing of no fewer than ten men." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 08:53:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:53:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reciting a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time Message-ID: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> http://tinyurl.com/o6rxcdf according to those that say you do NOT recite a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time (ie bar mitzvah), why is it different than all the places where we DO recite a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah not done in a long time? (ie lulav, shofar, megila, etc) Thanks, mc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 13:27:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 20:27:55 GMT Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen Message-ID: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> I wrote: > The same question applies to the V'imru Amen which is near the end > of Birkas Hamazon. R' Zev Sero responded: > Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, > with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively > recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even > when there's a zimun. But we've *always* benched as individuals when there *isn't* a zimun. But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that originally, Oseh Shalom was part of benching only when a zimun was present, and then for some reason came to be said even by individuals. If that is indeed what happened, I can't help but speculate that there was an even earlier time, when benching with a zimun would include Oseh Shalom at that point, but benching with a *minyan* would include Kaddish at that point! Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55a02add2581a2add0f3dst01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 10 16:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 19:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ..v'imru amen In-Reply-To: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150710.162755.27897.0@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <55A05668.1080404@sero.name> On 07/10/2015 04:27 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: >> >Not really, because it's supposed to be said aloud by one person, >> >with the others only answering amen. It's only relatively >> >recently that we've started each benching for ourselves, even >> >when there's a zimun. > But we've*always* benched as individuals when there*isn't* a zimun. Benching is designed for a zimun. It's normal to eat in a group. But even when there were only two eating, or when a family ate together, I think the usual thing was for one person to bench and the other person (or the wife and children) to listen and say amen. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 08:42:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 11:42:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kiddush L'vana (was "Kaddish Yasom") Message-ID: In Avodah v33n97, I wrote: > As for Kiddush L'vana (KL), indeed Minhag Ashk'naz did not include "Aleinu" -- as was noted, the learning/reading of chapters of T'hilim at the end of KL...was followed by Qaddish...-- and KL not being a *t'filas tzibbur* does not impact upon the saying of Qaddish.... < Just wanted to add that (a) For the record, I don't recall Qaddish being said at the end of KL at KAJ/"Breuer's" (and the MMA Siddur Tefilas Yeshurun instructs not to say either "Aleinu" or Qaddish at the end of Bircas haL'vana), even when there was evidently more than a quorum of men (gathered to be *m'qabeil p'nei haShchina b'rov-am*) on the front steps or sidewalk of the Shul -- whether or not Qaddish should be said (and what the precise parameters are) in that circumstance (not a *t'filas tzibbur*; not in a *maqom t'fila*) was not central to the overall points I was trying to make; and (b) for consistency, it's QL, not KL :). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 11:30:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:30:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pinchas Message-ID: > > > BTW, my grandfather a"h was named Pinechas after this week's sedra, > his bar mitzvah parashah. When it was time to name my oldest, I checked > with my uncle how his name appeared on their kesuvah, as their mesader > qiddushin was a key rav in my grandfather's life. (R/Dr Mirsky zt"l met > two teenage boys coming off the boat and took them under his wing. My > grandfather and great-uncle then earned enough to bribe the rest of the > family's way out of Litta before the Nazis came to power.) > > Anyway, it seems R/Dr Mirsky held my grandfather's name was Pinechas, > pei-yud-nun-ches-samekh, as it is spelled in the chumash (ignoring the > size of the yud as usually written in the beginning of the parashah). > And thus the sheva is na, Pinechas - not Pinchas. > > If you want to make a derashah out of a Mitzri name, it's Pi Nachas, > not Pen Chas. > > Reason for this tangent... I would have expected "Gushies" to get the > sheva in the parashah name right. After all, they have the patach under > the reish in Parashat. > > Way behind in reading. However, Aharon Ben Asher, in Dikduke Hate'amim, specifically lists the sheva in Pinchas (with a yud) as being a sheva nach, so the "Gushies" have on whom to rely.. Meir Shinnar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 12 11:39:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:39:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: > On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 05:20:08PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote: > : On 7/3/2015 5:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> Let me take a step toward de-chokifying arayos. > > : Why? I mean, you can always find reasons to turn something into a > : moral issue. But why do you want to impose that on the halakha? Is > : the purpose to make things even worse? > > As I quoted from RAK, because they classically were not considered > chuqim. Until our contemporaries took the issue from sexual morality > to sexual ethics, these truths were considered self-evident. It's the > choqification of dinei arayos that's inauthentic. > > In any case, since one doesn't pasqen from taamei hamitzvos, the din > is the same either way. Nothhing in such exploration can "make things > even worse". > > In Shmona prakim, the rambam seems to take the opposite view - trying to reconcile the view that having a desire to sin is a sign of moral failing, and that the overcoming of desire is a sign o f greatness - he argues that to desire to sin is problematic in hamefursamot - but NOT in those forbidden only for religious reasons - and he specifically applies that to arayot - and needs to apply it to arayot, because the sugyot that deal with kol hagadol mechavero yitzro gadol mimenu - specifically apply to arayot. One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT self evident or even mefursamot Meir Shinnar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 11:10:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 20:10:02 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out Message-ID: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> In SA OH 272:1 the Mechabeir writes that one shouldn't use wine left out for kiddush (or any type of mitzvah adds the Aruch HaShulchan). The problem isn't gi'loi'im but the pasuk in Malachi 1:8 which teaches us not to use Grade B products for mitzvot. The assumption is that wine left out goes bad (or gets worse) and therefore it can't be used for qiddush. My question is what does one do if you thinking allowing wine to breath for hours improves the taste? That's been my experience for years. If I open a bottle Friday evening, the wine definitely tastes better Saturday morning. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 12:14:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 15:14:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> On 07/13/2015 02:10 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > In SA OH 272:1 the Mechabeir writes that one shouldn't use wine left out for kiddush (or any type of mitzvah adds the Aruch HaShulchan). The problem isn't gi'loi'im but the pasuk in Malachi 1:8 which teaches us not to use Grade B products for mitzvot. The assumption is that wine left out goes bad (or gets worse) and therefore it can't be used for qiddush. > > My question is what does one do if you thinking allowing wine to breath for hours improves the taste? That's been my experience for years. If I open a bottle Friday evening, the wine definitely tastes better Saturday morning. It depends what kind of wine. Some wines definitely improve with a few hours' breathing. The criterion is "hakriveihu no lefechasecho"; *would* you serve this to an honoured guest who is used to drinking quality wine? If it's a wine that needs the time to aerate then you certainly would, and in fact you wouldn't think of serving it to him *without* that time. OTOH this would preclude making kiddush at all on Manishewitz, no matter how "fresh" it is. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 20:18:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 05:18:41 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> Message-ID: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? Did they not know that allowing wine to breath improves the taste, at least for a decent red wine (which is the type of wine they think we should be drinking)? Ben On 7/13/2015 9:14 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > It depends what kind of wine. Some wines definitely improve with a > few hours' breathing. The criterion is "hakriveihu no lefechasecho"; > *would* you serve this to an honoured guest who is used to drinking > quality wine? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 19:34:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 22:34:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20150714023419.GA18963@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 05:18:41AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and : others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? Because Shapiro's wine is "So thick you could cut it with a knife" as that billboard we'd pass driving to Boro Park used to advertise. Whereas you're talkng about a finer wine as vitners and frenchmen measure. Different products with totally different definitions of what is "good". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 13 21:48:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:48:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Wine left out In-Reply-To: <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> References: <55A3FEFA.1060908@zahav.net.il> <55A40DFF.7090506@sero.name> <55A47F91.7050308@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55A4949B.8090308@sero.name> On 07/13/2015 11:18 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > My question to this is why is it that the Shulchan Aruch, MB and > others take it as a given that leaving wine out worsens the taste? > Did they not know that allowing wine to breath improves the taste, at > least for a decent red wine (which is the type of wine they think we > should be drinking)? First of all, most good wines shouldn't breathe for very long. Second, their wine was generally pretty awful by our standards; bad enough that it needed watering to make it palatable. They used wild yeast, they had no pasteurization, and it was all they could do to stop it all turning into vinegar. I wonder how much damage could exposure possibly do to wine that bad, but I seriously doubt it could improve it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 14 14:11:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 17:11:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Timely Notes for the Summer Message-ID: <20150714211025.9203118356A@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from an article by Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer, ZT"L, that appeared in the Mitteilungen, Vol. 2, June 1941 Timely Notes for the Summer Can the heat of summer be termed ?oppressive?? That is surely something that is individual. If we think of the terribly oppressive times a large number of our brethren are going through, we will gladly tolerate the discomforts of summer and rather bless our good fortune to be spared such pain. Many of our newly immigrated brothers and sisters are struggling with heavy economic burdens, and only the few can afford the much desired relaxing rest. We are pleased for those who can afford a vacation and expect that they will carefully select, as far as the trustworthiness of its kashrus, the place where they plan to spend their vacation. Obviously, they will not want to take a vacation from the ?yoke of the Law.? They want to return home, hale and hearty, and not with a feeling of unease for having risked their moral values in exchange for physical wellbeing. The heat of summer calls for changes in clothing and appearance. The conscientious Jew will carefully keep to certain limits, which he will not overstep. Our Divine Law cautions us to have a sense of shame, and that applies to summer as well. The Jewish custom ?according to the Talmud ?requires men and boys to cover their heads outdoors. God gave the first garment to man when he forfeited his special standing by disregarding the Will of God.Modest covering of his body is to be a steady reminder of the higher calling of man. Jewish men were given the adornment of tzitzis to admonish them to wear their clothes as proper Jews. Even in the summer heat, our requirements for covering can easily be heeded with lighter clothing. Comfort will not cause us to shirk our duty. A soldier?s helmet is uncomfortably heavy, but he wears it because it is required; God?s requirement should not be heeded? As for the Jewish woman, Jewish law requires her to cover her hair. The true Jewish woman will proudly do so, for it is a sign of her willingness to adhere to God?s Will as the guide in her life. A woman unworthy of this sign will have it removed forcibly by the priest (Bemidbar 5:18). Covering one?s hair is merely a sign if a woman does not conduct herself otherwise in the properly Jewish manner. Similarly, there are Jewish men who bear the Milah-sign on their bodies but sully their bodies in other ways. Not covering one?s hair is probably ? we are sorry to say ? a matter of ignorance, and perhaps such a Jewish woman was not brought up to understand the importance of covering her hair. Many women may carefully observe their Jewish duties in other areas, and we would so much like to adorn them with this special crown also. For the fact remains: covering of the hair for the Jewish woman is a must. The proud Jewish woman will conduct herself Jewishly in her clothing and in covering her hair. The word Tznius is a Jewish concept that is hard to translate exactly. It does not only denote a ?quietly humble way of living? (Michah 6:8), but everything else that our people has so valued and esteemed in their Jewish women at all times. ?quietly humble way of living? (Michah 6:8), but everything else that our people has so valued and esteemed in their Jewish women at all times. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 02:01:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 05:01:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Star-K on the Heter Mechira Message-ID: <20150715090047.2F7EB1824C9@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-shmitta-5775.htm Who Owns The Land? There is a difference of opinion among the poskim as to whether produce grown on land owned by a non-Jew living in the Land of Israel is considered produce of sheviis. The custom in Yerushalayim is not to consider it produce of sheviis, while the custom in Bnei Brak is to consider it produce of sheviis. Selling The Land: The Heter Mechira was formulated and instituted by many very prominent rabbanim (including the Gadol Hador, Harav Yitzchok Elchanan Spector) in the year 1887. There was a great deal of controversy among other prominent rabbanim surrounding the heter, the foremost of whom was the Netziv (Harav Naftoli Zvi Yehuda Berlin) of Volozin. Most of the controversy centered around the problem regarding the Torah prohibition of selling any part of the Land of Israel to non-Jews. Those who proposed the heter claimed that the situation in the Land of Israel was so precarious that not working the land for an entire year would put the entire Jewish settlement in danger, thus warranting this drastic measure. Others claimed that the prohibition of selling the land was worse than the prohibition of working the land. Since then, every Shmitta there have been rabbanim who have sold the land. Harav Avraham Yitzchok Kook institutionalized the sale (although he, too, agreed it was to be done only under grave duress). Since it's inception, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel has sold the land every Shmitta. However, there are presently many rabbanim who question whether the current situation in Israel warrants this type of sale. Furthermore, there is another more serious problem the consumer faces. The produce that is sold in the regular stores during the year of Shmitta predominantly comes from non-religious kibbutzim and moshavim, who would never agree to sell their land. This is compounded by the fact that the non-religious kibbutzim do not observe those prohibitions which Harav Kook instituted, and Harav Kook never permitted their current practices. Certainly, a tourist who is not knowledgeable concerning the dinim of Shmitta should buy produce only from stores that do not rely upon the heter mechira. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 03:18:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 06:18:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. Whether MZ is well known or not aside, even "kemaaseh Eretz Mitzrayim" (at least the male half of it) is described in the gemara as pretty well known -- it's on Ulla's list of 3 dinim of the 30 mitzvos Benei Noach (which rishonim map to subcategories of the usual 7) that Benei Noach generally observe -- "she'in kosevin kesuvah lezekharim". In any case, I will leave the Rambam as a tzarikh iyun that only affects the lives of those who agree with him that understanding theology and/or metaphysics is the perfection we strive for in life, above perfection of virtue. (Moreh, conclusion, worthy of its own thread.) For that matter, most of us also diagree with the Rambam on whether a person is judged by the level reached or by the distance covered. Without agreeing on either of those two points, it's likely one wouldn't agree with the Rambam's pesaq here. His view of the role of of bringing one's desire in line with a mitzvah will necessarily come from a different place. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 03:32:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 06:32:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Herzl In-Reply-To: <17e71f.7a1031b7.42d6e65d@aol.com> References: <17e71f.7a1031b7.42d6e65d@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150715103208.GD4654@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 06:25:33PM -0400, RnTK wrote on Areivim: : My comment was facetious -- a little dig at those MO who apparently do : believe that Herzl, Golda Meir and Ben Gurion were gedolim. R' AE Kaplan wrote very highly of Theodore Herzl. RAEK predeceased the accompilshments of the other two. To quote RYGB's translation (from BeIqvos haYir'ah pg 85): He [Herzl] did not teach us Torah... because he was never taught Torah... He taught us, rather, to say two words [four words in English] on occasions that until he came we had neither dared nor been able to utter: "I am a Jew [Ivri]!" We were always able to recite these words in the Beis Medrash next to our shtenders, we were even capable of reading and writing them... We could declare ourselves a nation in any place we wanted, except in that one place where the nations of the world were... to be found - in the international political arena. There we were seen as wandering sheep, like one Telzer (Yehuda Leib Gordon [22]) once put it: "Not a nation, not a congregation, rather a flock." Not like sheep that are petted and fed, but like those that are shorn or slaughtered. When a European ruler asked a Jew: "Who are you?" Would he respond simply: "I am a Jew" - without any qualifications or explanations? He would answer: I am a Jew - but also German, also French, also English, etc. Along came Herzl, the first from among us to reach that international political arena that serves as a world court, and responded, openly, freely, effortlessly and guilelessly: "I am a Jew." Moreover: "I was stolen from the land of the Jews [Eretz HaIvrim], and here I have done nothing, for they placed me in the pit" [Bereishis 40:15]. The Jewish nation is a nation unto itself, like all other nations, indeed, it is special, and it possesses a unique life force that sustains it... Do you not sense the hidden workings of divine providence? I know that just as the rejuvenation of Jewish national spirit had to come, so will finally come, in the unseen future, the rejuvenation of our Torah spirit... We do not see the paths, we do not see the footsteps, but I know... that I must strive toward this. And G-d who returns to Tziyon [Zion] will return us also to Torah MiTziyon... [23] [22] The most prominent Hebrew poet of the nineteenth century and a notorious Maskil, Gordon was generally known by his acronym, YaLaG, that, in a play on words, would be pronounced by Orthodox Jews as "yil'ag," the Hebrew word for "scoffer." [23] Besides his essays on Hashkafa, Reb Avraham Elya also left many "Reshimos," short notes on topics in Mussar, Machashava, and Avodas Hashem, some of which are beautiful vignettes of life lived in a Torah true and Mussar suffused way. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 02:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 05:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Secular Studies: Are They for Everyone? Message-ID: <20150715092755.A05BB1824E7@nexus.stevens.edu> From the article by Rabbi Mordechai Willig at http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/%2FTU1_Willig.pdf Are secular studies permissible for everyone when they are necessary to provide for a livelihood? The answer is: for almost everyone. To summarize, then, for purpose of parnasah, secular studies are allowed for almost everyone. If it is not for parnasah, it is permissible, and sometimes even a mitzvah to learn various disciplines, providing that such study is considered of secondary importance, both in terms of time and value for, above all, Torah must always be the Ekir. Please see the above URL for the entire article. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 07:56:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:56:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Confronting sexual abuse in the Jewish community Message-ID: <> Can you give a place in shas or SA where the punishment of a crime accounts for the pain to the family If someone deserves the death penalty (there is no jail in halacha) as far as I know the bet din does not take into account that the family who are innocent will also be punished. If someone is sent to "ir miklat" the yeshiva goes with him, we don't remove the punishment because it affects the whole community -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:33:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian Message-ID: During a recent discussion with a friend the following two questions came up and I am curious what the fellows of Avodah think. 1) Can one count someone who denies the historicity of *matan torah* and *yetzias mitzrayim* but is other completely *shomer torah u-mitzvos* for a *minyan*? There is an halakhic category of *mumar l?hachis* who cannot count for a *minyan* according to many *poskim*. But that is on the assumption that they are violating *halakhah*. If they are not violating halakhah, can they be counted in a *minyan*? 2) Does one fulfill their shofer blowing from hearing the shofar be blown by someone denies the historicity of *matan torah* and *yetzias mitzrayim*? We assume that *mitzvos tzerichos kavvanah*. So this individual intends to fulfill the mitzvah of blowing the shofar on Rosh ha-Shanah. However, his conception of the nature of *mitzvos* and commandedness is extremely untraditional. Personally, I am inclined to include this individual in a minyan and assume that one fulfills the mitzvah of shofar with his blowing. But my conception of halakha flows from R. Dr. Walter Wurzburger?s *zy?a* belief that halakhah is a floor and not a ceiling. In other words, we do not make the bar for basic fulfillment of halakhah obligations higher if one could avoid it. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:32:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:32:08 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> References: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 6:18 AM Micha Berger wrote: > Lo zakhisi lehavin: > It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss > aren't mefursamot. > > Whether MZ is well known or not aside, even "kemaaseh Eretz Mitzrayim"... > In any case, I will leave the Rambam as a tzarikh iyun that only affects > the lives of those who agree with him that understanding theology and/or > metaphysics is the perfection we strive for in life, above perfection > of virtue. (Moreh, conclusion, worthy of its own thread.) ... You are assuming the shmona prakim see relevant only to those who fully accept Rambam's philosophy -- and that is a very unique position. I think shmona prakim is studied by those who would never open the moreh Rambam argues that a lust to steal or murder is a character flaw -- the should be overcome -- but a lust for hazir or arayot is not a character flaw -- although it too should be overcome. Why that is dependent on his notions of the ultimate good, effort versus achievement, or mitzvot bne noach I don't see -- nor do I think most others me that connection.... From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 08:55:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:55:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: <20150715101829.GB4654@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150715155517.GC31352@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 03:32:08PM +0000, Meir Shinnar wrote: : You are assuming the shmona prakim see relevant only to those who fully : accept Rambam's philosophy -- and that is a very unique position... Nah, I'm just surmising that the two may be linked. If your notion of redemption revolves around ideas and the thirst for knowledge, then developing something like like-vs-dislike is a different topic than if your notion of personal redemption is "sheyehei adir cheftzeinu leheitiv im zulaseinu... bedemus haBorei, keveyakhol." (Bonus points for the first person to identify the reference. ) So not that 8 Peraqim are only relevent to followers of the Rambam's point, just that this particular point, and perhaps a couple to a few others, may be of limited utility to the rest of us. (8 Peraqim, BTW, is one of my more heavily used resources when teaching for The Mussar Institute.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 12:49:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:49:50 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55A6B95E.6090302@starways.net> On 7/15/2015 10:33 AM, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: > 1)Can one count someone who denies the historicity of /matan > torah/ and /yetzias mitzrayim/ but is other completely /shomer > torah u-mitzvos/ for a /minyan/? I think there's a difference between someone who denies Matan Torah and someone who expresses doubts. The former, I'd treat no differently than someone who denies God, because for the purposes of Judaism, they're not separable. We asked our mesader kiddushin (years ago) what we should do about those family members who didn't believe in God. He said that if they'd openly denied God's existence, we could not give them sheva brachot, because we couldn't be yotzei on a bracha by someone who doesn't believe in God. He didn't say anything at all about observance. A lot of people focus on Rambam's ikkarim, and whether or not we're bound by them, but the concept of being kofer ba-ikkar predates Rambam by centuries. The existence of God and the historical fact of Matan Torah are, by any reasonable assessment, the most basic ikkarim of Judaism. Absent either of these, what's left isn't Judaism. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 15 19:47:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:47:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150716024705.GE13610@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:33:13AM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : 1) Can one count someone who denies the historicity of *matan torah* : and *yetzias mitzrayim* but is other completely *shomer torah u-mitzvos* : for a *minyan*? : : There is an halakhic category of *mumar l'hachis* who cannot count for a : *minyan* according to many *poskim*. But that is on the assumption that : they are violating *halakhah*. If they are not violating halakhah, can they : be counted in a *minyan*? I don't know if we hold like the Rambam, but Hil' Teshuvah ch. 3 is the only discussion of the categories of heresy I know of. A min is an atheist or polytheist, a trinitarian, etc... (3:7) An apiqoreis, the category in the title, is defined with a list of theological errors. It's someone who, like Epicurus, denies that Hashem runs the world. A Deist, someone who denies prophecy, or that He doesn't know man's actions. (3:8) Leshitaso, someone who doesn't believe in the historicity of Torah miSinai would be a kofer baTorah. (ibid) A mumar is a consistent sinner (ledavar achas, lekhol haTorah kulah), not a heretic. {3.9) Then the machti'ei rabbim (10), poreish midarkei hatzibur (11), moserim (12), and one who terrorizes the community -- not lehsim shamayim (13). That list -- 3 kinds of heretic and 5 kinds of sinners -- lose their olam haba, if they die without teshuvah (3:14). And then he says there are also smaller ones that still carry a similar price. Anyway, R' Aharon Soloveitchik held that "nebich an apiqoreis" (not using the term in the Rambam's technical sense) can be counted for a minyan. As long as his beliefs include those ideas that make tefillah meaningful. So a min couldn't, nor an apiqoreis who believes G-d doesn't know every little thing going on down here. (This was a common idea among Artistotilian, although obviosuly not among ours. Since facts change with time, and the Creator does not, how could the Creator know such facts? Would that mean His knowledge changes?) But a tinoq shenishba (by which RAL intentionally includes Jews not raised O) who doesn't believe in Sinai, but does believe that there is One G-d Who Listens to prayer and is Mashgiach, should be countable. Not because their heresy makes them heretics and thus michutz lamachaneh. But because they are incapable of prayer. RAS didn't discuss the person who isn't a tinoq shenishba, but also not a rebal. Someone who grew up in a Torah setting, but in his studies reached the wrong conclusion. The Tashbetz and the Radbaz (eearly 16th cent CE, not the Ridbaz who wrote on the Y-mi) famously hold that such people are not heetics even if they believe heresy. (As least on the list list it's famous, anyeay.) I just can't assume RAS agrees without proof. RAL also doesn't discuss a Deist who believes G-d Hears prayers, but won't act any differently. Can he make a brikhas hoda'ah, but not a baqashah? Since prayer is not al menas leqabel peras, do we even make baqashos for the sake of gettin a "yes", or just to have a moment with Him talking about what is bothering you? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The thought of happiness that comes from outside micha at aishdas.org the person, brings him sadness. But realizing http://www.aishdas.org the value of one's will and the freedom brought Fax: (270) 514-1507 by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 16 07:01:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:01:37 GMT Subject: [Avodah] Confronting sexual abuse in the Jewish community Message-ID: <20150716.100137.31633.0@webmail13.vgs.untd.com> I wrote on Areivim: > Of course it is important to protect future victims, but that is > not the only consideration here. What about the fallout to the > family of the victim, to the family of the perpetrator, and to > the community as a whole? (For those who have not been following on Areivim: Personally, I am all in favor of protecting the victims, but I know that my opinions might be heavily influenced by the society in which I live. My suggestion is that our chachamim are the only ones qualified to decide on any particular case, whether it might be better to whitewash an incident, so that the family and/or community are not hurt by the publicity.) R' Eli Turkel responded here on Avodah: > Can you give a place in shas or SA where the punishment of a > crime accounts for the pain to the family > If someone deserves the death penalty (there is no jail in > halacha) as far as I know the bet din does not take into > account that the family who are innocent will also be > punished. > If someone is sent to "ir miklat" the yeshiva goes with him, > we don't remove the punishment because it affects the whole > community These are excellent points. But then I must ask: Haven't there been times and situations when legitimate gedolim have paskened to hush things up because of other considerations? Would someone say that all such cases come from gedolim whose outlook is NOT Torah-based? I wish I could cite specific examples for discussion. Unfortunately, my knowledge of such things is far too limited. But surely this attitude must have come from somewhere, and did not materialize from nothingness. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett???s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren???t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55a7b984d1f883984538est04vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 18 13:49:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 22:49:55 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on Exercise Message-ID: <55AABBF3.2070100@zahav.net.il> Rav Kook's opinion about exercise and sport had been brought up here before. I quoted him as saying that physical activity helps the tzaddikim in their avodah. In the class I go to on Orot, we discussed the following piece by R Kook, which goes way further than that. Keep in mind that this was written before there was an IDF, so he isn't talking about any sort of physical protection. Orot, Orot Hatechiya, 34: Exercise, (which young Israel is getting involved in, in Eretz Yisrael, to strengthen their bodies in order to be vigorous for the nation), improves the spiritual strength of the greatest tzaddikim, those who involve themselves in "the unification of God's names" (my translation of a phrase which I admit I don't get), and increases the transmission of God's light in the world, because there is no revelation at all of light without all components being present. Turns out that (according to Rav Kook) not only does Talmud Torah increase the merits to the army/state/people, but just having people trying to be healthy, active, in shape, improves Talmud Torah, as long as both sides are doing this for the nation. Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Jul 18 17:09:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 03:09:13 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Tefach Thick Soft Spongy Matza Message-ID: Many mistakenly think that we now have an accepted Halachic tradition, recorded in the Shulchan Aruch [460:5] to no longer bake Tefach thick Matza [10 - 12 cm] as in Talmudic times. This is untrue. The ShAruch records that Tefach thick Matza must not be Pesach. There is no problem whatsoever to produce such Matza Pesach and eat them during Pesach. The reason for this is quite simple; if one makes Chamets during Pesach, no matter that it was unintentional, one has transgressed the very serious violation of having Chamets - Bal YeRaEh and Bal YeMaTzeh. When making Tefach thick Matza the risk of inadvertently making Chamets because some dough in the Matza will remain unbaked, is [became] intolerable. However, baking the same thickness Matza before Pesach poses no concern. If it is Chamets, as can be discerned by tearing the Matza and checking for doughy stringy threads, then either eat it before Pesach or get rid of it. Whatever is fully baked however, is fine for Pesach. Compare the Mechabers expression, Seif 4 and 5, not to make images on the Matza; and not to make thick Matza - it is not done - ??? ?????; to his expression Seif 6, not to make dough filled with meat and veg - one ought not be lenient - ??? ????. One ought not be lenient - ??? ???? sounds more strict, as is supported by the MBerurah [18] suggesting that it is prohibited even after the fact, - whereas it is not done - ??? ????? implies it should not be done but after the fact, if it not Chamets it is Kosher and may be eaten during Pesach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 17 07:19:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 10:19:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Guten Chodesh (Though sad, still hope...) Message-ID: <0F8B8D71-82A7-4DB7-AFF4-740FDDA46D37@cox.net> The gematria for ?Rosh Chodesh" is 813. (reish:200, aleph:1, shin:300; ches:8, dalet:4, shin:300 ? Total=813) In the whole of tanach there is only one verse with the gematria of 813 which occurs in B?reishis, Chapter 1, verse 3: ?Vayomer Elohim ohr; vay?hi ohr? ?And God said: Let there be light and there was light.? May our mourning be turned into dancing (Ps.30:12) and may we live to see the light. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 00:55:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 10:55:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: heter mechira In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <> There are many inaccuracies in their statement and much is outdated. "The produce that is sold in the regular stores during the year of Shmitta predominantly comes from non-religious kibbutzim and moshavim, who would never agree to sell their land. " I have no idea what this statement means. They in fact do sell their land. The current situation in Israel is that the chief rabbinate sends people to each of these kibbutzim etc to explain to them what the heter mechira means and what are the other options. No one is forced to participate. "However, there are presently many rabbanim who question whether the current situation in Israel warrants this type of sale" The figures I have heard is that 85% of Israeli produce is exported (mainly to Europe). Without the heter mechira one would have to close down almost the entire agricultural development in Israel. In addition one is forbidden to sell produce with kedushat sheviit to nonJews. That would mean having guards at supermarkets checking that only Jews buy the produce "This is compounded by the fact that the non-religious kibbutzim do not observe those prohibitions which Harav Kook instituted, and Harav Kook never permitted their current practices." The current chief rabbinate tries to enforce whatever Rav Kook instituted. In fact most agricultural workers in Israel regardless of shemita are Arabs. -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 18:33:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:33:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish with mixed seating In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720013343.GC4548@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 03:08:58PM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : Interestingly enough the Gemara in Succos brings a "proof" for separation : of men and women from a non-"Davar She'bekedushah" the funeral in : Zecharyah. The other example is Simchas Beis haSho'eivah. Notice that one is extreme joy, and the other extreme sadness. Neither was tefillah betzibbur. Should the fact that chazal thought it was natural to apply these precedents to tefillah be taken to mean that -- "thanks to my knees for bowing at modim" aside -- Chazal found such extremes of emotion common during davening? -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 19 18:57:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:57:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150706.211459.2153.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150720015718.GD4548@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 01:14:59AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : Well, I guess my original post should have had a longer introduction. I : know that Kaddish Tiskabel has a very clear rule, namely that it : follows every Amidah, and the only exception is that it also follows : Selichos. Kaddish D'rabanan always follows group learning (though I've : never figured out exactly what learning counts and what doesn't). Qaddish Tisqabel is said after zelosehon (the Amidah) uVa'us-hon (tachanun or selichos. That the request that they be accepted. : And now I'm trying to figure out the rule for Kaddish Yasom. It SEEMS : to be a sort of "congregational prayer", where "prayer" is something : *other* than the Amidah, but I can't define it any more precisely than : that. For a long time I thought it was connected to Tehillim, but when : I noticed it after the megilos on Yom Tov, someone suggested that it's : not specifically Sefer Tehillim, but *any* part of Kesuvim, not that we : had any idea why Kesuvim would get this distinction over Neviim or Torah. Accordng to R' de Sola Pool's monograph "Kaddish", Qaddish originated as being post-derashah -- the role Qaddish deRabbanan still serves. So perhaps non-concidentally, the format for sermons through the geonic era was to start with a pasuq from one of the sidrei EMa"S (Iyov, Mishlei, Tefillim) and wrap up by applying the resulting an idea to a pasuq from he sedra. ... : I have to admit that a big part of my asking this question is a pet : peeve that I've been nursing, regarding Kiddush Levana in particular. It : seems to me that Kiddush Levana -- the way it is done in just about : every situation I've ever seen -- cannot be called a Tefilas Tzibur in : any sense. It is a group of yechidim who happen to be saying the same : thing, but in a totally disorganized fashion... Perhaps that's it exactly. Like "Shalom Aleikhem", we make a cpoint of socially unifying those yechidim as part of qiddush levanah. Perhaps not in the sense of tefillah betzibbur or tefillas hatzibur, but then, neither is a shiur. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 09:45:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:45:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] reciting a shehechiyanu when performing a mitzvah for the first time In-Reply-To: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> References: <0f3e01d0bb28$93a08180$bae18480$@com> Message-ID: <20150720164528.GA10632@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:53:34AM -0400, M Cohen via Avodah wrote: : http://tinyurl.com/o6rxcdf : according to those that say you do NOT recite a shehechiyanu when performing : a mitzvah for the first time (ie bar mitzvah), Who are they? All I know of is the Chasam Sofer (OC 55) -- well I guess I also know of the Peri To'ar, his maqor -- who says that the berakhah when putting on tefillin on one's bar mitzvah is supposed to be made with all the rest of the mitzvos in mind. The Radvaz says a ger says shehechiyanu when they emerge from the miqvah. I am less clear when a girl becoming a bas mitzvah would make her shechiyanu. The Ben Ish Chai says the girl should have in mind ol mitzvos when making shehechiyanu on her celebratory dress. Paralleling what we do by eating a new fruit on the 2nd evening of RH. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 09:51:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:51:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Tefach Thick Soft Spongy Matza In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720165119.GB10632@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 03:09:13AM +0300, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote: : Many mistakenly think that we now have an accepted Halachic tradition, : recorded in the Shulchan Aruch [460:5] to no longer bake Tefach thick Matza : [10 - 12 cm] as in Talmudic times. This is untrue... Unless we are holding like the "veyeish la'asos" in the Rama se'if 4. Neither the se'if nor the explanation "ki ein hareqiqin memaharin lehachmitz" make a distinction about when the matzah was made. -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:19:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Rav Kook on Exercise In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150720211930.2A235182421@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:53 PM 7/20/2015, R. Ben Waxman wrote: >Orot, Orot Hatechiya, 34: > >Exercise, (which young Israel is getting involved in, in Eretz Yisrael, >to strengthen their bodies in order to be vigorous for the nation), >improves the spiritual strength of the greatest tzaddikim, those who >involve themselves in "the unification of God's names" (my translation >of a phrase which I admit I don't get), and increases the transmission >of God's light in the world, because there is no revelation at all of >light without all components being present. > >Turns out that (according to Rav Kook) not only does Talmud Torah >increase the merits to the army/state/people, but just having people >trying to be healthy, active, in shape, improves Talmud Torah, as long >as both sides are doing this for the nation. See "Exercise, Torah Learning and the Chofetz Chaim" http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/exercise_torah_cc_v2.pdf Reb Yaakov Kamenetsky was an avid swimmer all of his life. I recall when he came to Monroe to spend a Shabbos with his son Avraham. He was in his 80s I believe. Well, he put on his bathing suit, a robe and went to the pool. He then proceeded to jump into the pool and swim laps. This spread like wildfire in the 3 colonies in Monroe. People could not stop talking about it. It eventually got back to Reb Yaakov who quipped, "I wish they are as excited about my learning as they are about my swimming!" YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 15:03:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Joel Schnur via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> Re: Micha's questioning kadish yasom(KY) after kidush levana, the Vilna Gaon has a shortened version(doesn't he always?) that starts with the bracha and ends with siman tov. There is no Aleinu, hence no KY. He also holds that "sh'ain l'harbos b'k'dashim shelo l'tzorech, hence,there is only once KY per tefila. After the Yom by shachris and after Aleinu by mincha & maariv. Minhag Ashkenaz is not to say kadish d'rabonan during/after tefila but only after limud agada. The chasidim adopted the custom of saying it from the Seforadim and that's how it entered their ritual. I remember davening once at the Boro Park nusach HaGra k'vosikin minyan way back and was struck by the number of KYs that were said. The gabbai's answer was that it was too difficult to stop the "kadish zogers" from having their way. B"H, at our Flatbush Nusach HaGra k'vosikin minyan (Young Israel of Ave K, East 29th and K) under Rav Aryeh Ralbag guidance, we are have not had to compromise the Nusach HaGra way of davening. Shachris is 45 minutes before HaNetz every shabos and YT. -- ___________________________ Joel Schnur, Senior VP Government Affairs/Public Relations Schnur Associates, Inc. 25 West 45th Street, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10036 Tel. 212-489-0600 x204 Fax. 212-489-0203 joel at schnurassociates.com www.schnurassociates.com http://www.schnurassociates.com/joels-corner/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 15:46:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:46:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> References: <55AD7042.8080009@schnurassociates.com> Message-ID: <20150720224608.GB21161@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 06:03:46PM -0400, Joel Schnur via Avodah wrote: : I remember davening once at the Boro Park nusach HaGra k'vosikin : minyan way back and was struck by the number of KYs that were said. : The gabbai's answer was that it was too difficult to stop the : "kadish zogers" from having their way... REMT said something that makes me wonder... He suggested that our (non-Yekke) current practice of every avel saying qaddish is to make it condusive for aveilim to feel they're discharging their duty. Many men first started attending minyan regularly during aveileus and kept on doing so for the rest of their lives. Do you really want to discourage that with "Ah, why bother, I probably wouldn't get a turn this time anyway!"? A similar argument would change the priorities the Gra assumes about making extraneous opportunities for Qaddish. The AhS OC 55:4 gives this explanation for the creation of a 2nd opportunity for Qaddish Yasom at the end of Shacharis. He also writes that the Qadmonim only said 7 qaddeisim a day: Shacharis, after each of Yishtabach, Tachanun and UVa leTzion Minchah, after Ashrei and Tachanuun, and Arvis -- before and after Shemoneh Esrei. He quotes the Roqeiach invoking the pasuq "sheva bayom haleltikha" to explain that 7 was an intentional, significant, number. The AhS continues that three more were added when Aleinu was appended to the end of each tefillah. For the sake of yesomim who didn't get the amud. And significance was found for that, by reading Tzadi"q as an acronym, and each letter a gematria. Each day a tzadiq would say 90 times amein, (tzadi) 4 qedushos, (dalet) 10 qadeihim, and (yud) 100 berakhos (quf). (Citing the NMA.) Then he discusses leining adding one. "Veyoseir ein maqom laqadeishim", and still we added after Shir shel Yom because there were more yesomim, but more than that -- the AhS does not permit. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot RMB responded: Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. ============= My two cents: Adultery (eishis ish) is technically taking from another man that which belongs exclusively to him. So that itself puts it within the category of issurim that are mefursamos. The Rambam (MN 2:49) describes all sexuality as something that even when natural, should be limited. Homosexuality and bestiality, however, he describes as obvious deviations from the natural order that should be abhorred. I think that would place these two activities, as well, in the mefursamos category. The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely forbidden. Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: MN 3:49 As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure alone be eschewed. All illicit unions with females have one thing in common: namely, that in the majority of cases these females are constantly in the company of the male in his house, and that they are easy of access for him, and can be easily controlled by him - there being no difficulty in making them come into his presence; and no judge could blame the male I for their being with him. Consequently if the status of the women with whom union is illicit were that of any unmarried woman, I mean to say that if it were possible to marry them and that the prohibition with regard to them were only due to their not being the man's wives, most people would have constantly succumbed and fornicated with them. However, as it is absolutely forbidden to have intercourse with them, the strongest deterrents making us avoid this - I mean by this a sentence of death by order of a court of law and the threat of being cut off--so that there is no way to have intercourse with these women, men are safe from seeking to approach them and their thoughts are turned away from them. Zvi Lampel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 14:34:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:34:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:39:36PM -0400, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: : One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all dine : arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not sure : on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are NOT : self evident or even mefursamot RMB responded: > Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest within the immediate > family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot. My two cents: Adultery (eishis ish) should be categorized under issurim mefursomos simply on the basis that it involves taking lves taking liberties with another man's wife, an intimacy that belongs to the husband. A form of theft! So that itself puts it within the category of issurim that are mefursamos. The Rambam (MN 2:49) describes all sexuality as something that even when natural, should be limited. Homosexuality and bestiality, however, he describes as obvious deviations from the natural order that should be abhorred. I think that would place these two activities, as well, in the mefursamos category. The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely forbidden. Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: MN 3:49 As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure alone be eschewed. All illicit unions with females have one thing in common: namely, that in the majority of cases these females are constantly in the company of the male in his house, and that they are easy of access for him, and can be easily controlled by him - there being no difficulty in making them come into his presence; and no judge could blame the male I for their being with him. Consequently if the status of the women with whom union is illicit were that of any unmarried woman, I mean to say that if it were possible to marry them and that the prohibition with regard to them were only due to their not being the man's wives, most people would have constantly succumbed and fornicated with them. However, as it is absolutely forbidden to have intercourse with them, the strongest deterrents making us avoid this - I mean by this a sentence of death by order of a court of law and the threat of being cut off--so that there is no way to have intercourse with these women, men are safe from seeking to approach them and their thoughts are turned away from them. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 16:02:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:02:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: (Sorry for approving both versions of that post! It was a quick typo in what was until-then going so smoothly! -micha) On 2015-07-20 5:34 pm, RZ Lampel wrote: > RMB responded: "Lo zakhisi lehavin: It's hard to see how incest > within > the immediate family or eishes iss aren't mefursamot." > Adultery (eishis ish) is technically taking from another man that > which > belongs exclusively to him. So that itself puts it within the > category of > issurim that are mefursamos. > The Rambam (MN 2:49) ... Yes. But our problem is with Shemoneh Peraqim, where the Rambam distinguishes between mitzvos mefusamot, for which a person should develop a desire that is in line with the mitzvah (or a distaste in line with the issur), and other mitzvos where one should simply refrain out of submission to ol mitzvos. And among his mitzvos which are NOT mefursamos are arayos. R/Dr Meir Shinnar writes: > he specifically applies that > to > arayot - and needs to apply it to arayot, because the sugyot that > deal with > kol hagadol mechavero yitzro gadol mimenu - specifically apply to > arayot. > One could argue whether the arayot the rambam means refers to all > dine > arayot, or only to a subset (excluding mishkav zachar), although not > sure > on what basis - but clearly the rambam here insists that arayot are > NOT > self evident or even mefursamot So regardless of how he categorizes them in the Moreh, the chiluq the Rambam makes in 8P requires our considering these issurim to not be self-evident. (Which I still don't get.) -micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 20:09:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 23:09:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom Message-ID: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> From: Micha Berger via Avodah REMT said something that makes me wonder... He suggested that our (non-Yekke) current practice of every avel saying qaddish is to make it condusive for aveilim to feel they're discharging their duty. Micha Berger >>>> You are mainly talking about adults saying kaddish, but I remember one tragic year when there were seven yesomim under bar mitzva age saying kaddish, from three different families. Two families had lost their mothers, one family their father. Who was going to tell these children, who came to shul faithfully every day, sometimes getting to school late or skipping outings with their friends, "You can't say kaddish for your Ima or your Abba today, someone else has kadima"? Correct me if I am mistaken but my impression is that kaddish yasom is really mainly for genuine yesomim, i.e., those who lose their parents while they are still children. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 23:56:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:56:00 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Dr Shapiro's book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I found the most disturbing part of Dr Shapiro's book the last chapter. This is a halachid discussion of lying. My conclusion from this is that lying is perfectly permissible if there is a good reason. Basically the ends justifies the means. We are not talking about white lies as praising the bride for her beauty. In particular it is permissible to quote a psak from a gadol even though he never said it as long as you are sure that it is correct and he probably would have said it. There is no problem with making up stories about a gadol as long as the intention is to either glorify the gadol or else show why some idea is important. He claims that there are groups that actively make up stories about CI. The Chatam Sofer says that in order to prevent sins one can make the problem appear to be more serious than it really is such as turning a rabbinic prohibition into a biblical one. The problem with false attribution (besides the seemingly moral one) is that the result one cannot believe anything that is not written by the gadol himself. One never knows if the citation of the gadol was deliberately changed, However as seen in the rest of the book even the written words of the author are not always authoritative as in many cases they are tampered with to protect some "higher interest". Even the SA has been tampered with for this purpose. One can lie in order to avoid embarrassment to oneself. R Papa seems to have issued an incorrect halacha to avoid shame. A poor man can make believe he is blind or crippled in order to get more charity. One can claim that the monet is going for a poor bride when in fact it will be used for some other charity. Finally there is the heter of mental reservation or reinterpreting ones words made famous by the story of Yaakov "lying" To Isaac that he is Esav. Shapiro gives the example of Clinton making all sorts of "false" statements about Lewinsky and later justified it by saying that his words had another meaning than what people thought. Note this is sometimes permitted even in monetary cases. As stated about one can lie for educational purposes "Noble Lie" of Plato. Rav Dessler defines "truth" as the value that gives a positive result and is independent of observation and evidence. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 19:10:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 21:10:11 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: > Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: > MN 3:49 > As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are > directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling > disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. The > reason for the prohibition against homosexuality and against > intercourse with beasts is very clear. For if the thing that is > natural should be abhorred except for necessity, all the more > should deviations from the natural way and the quest for pleasure > alone be eschewed. So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 20 21:55:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Isaac Balbin via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:55:23 +1000 Subject: [Avodah] The Halakhic Status of an Epicurian In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9105E0A4-E59B-4E23-ADAA-7FCACD74F424@gmail.com> This is tangentially related only, but may be of interest in the context. I asked Rav Hershel Schachter, Shlita, what to do if someone who acts as a functionary at a Shira Chadasha (partnership) style service wants to do likewise in a mainstream Orthodox Congregation. His answer was, that such a person can be counted towards a Minyan, but no Kibbudim should be afforded to them. We have one here in Melbourne, which isn't like the one in Israel, but the strong word is that one of Rabbi Avi Weiss's Maharatos (Rabba/Rabbis) will be hired to lead that congregation. She was recently interviewed and claimed she was non denominational because she wanted to break down boundaries. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 03:08:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:08:19 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] thick matza Message-ID: For those interested a thorough discussion on thick matazot see the article of Ari Zivotofsky in Hakirah www.hakirah.org/Vol17Zivotofsky.pdf -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 06:54:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 06:54:49 -- 0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> Message-ID: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> On 7/20/2015 7:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > ... our problem is with Shemoneh Peraqim, where the Rambam distinguishes > between mitzvos mefusamot, for which a person should develop a desire > that is in line with the mitzvah (or a distaste in line with the issur), > and other mitzvos where one should simply refrain out of submission to > ol mitzvos. > And among his mitzvos which are NOT mefursamos are arayos....the chiluq > the Rambam makes in 8P requires our considering these issurim to not > be self-evident. And that's precisely what I addressed in my 3rd paragraph. After citing the Moreh Nevuchim's description of homosexuality and bestiality as obviously deviant practices (i.e. mefursamos), I cited its description of arayos (outside of eishis ish) as being not mefursomos, but issurim Hashem instituted as a preventative, a gedder, against unrestrained licentiousness in a situation (viz. family) where the temptation for it would otherwise be too hard to control. To repeat what I wrote: >> The Rambam (ibid.) continues to write that G-d prohibited incest and >> commanded that it, too, be considered abhorrent, [but only] because >> allowing males to engage in any sexuality with females (other than >> his wives) who are constantly surrounding him in his house would >> lead to excessive sexuality. So the Rambam does not consider incest >> intrinsically unnatural or evil. Theoretically, if it would be limited, >> it would not be so bad. But male human nature being as it is, it is bound >> to lead to excess, and so, it is as a preventative that it is absolutely >> forbidden." Perhaps the mention of "commanded that it, too, be considered >> abhorrent" causes confusion. This would seem to put incest back into >> the category of mefursomos, along with murder and stealing, etc., about >> which a normal person is expected to harbor revulsion. So Rambam would be >> self-contradicting. But the elephant in the room is that the Torah itself >> commands us to treat eating non-kosher creatures with disgust. So how >> can Chazal tell us the right attitude is "efshi"? Evidently, Chazal and, >> naturally, Rambam, do not consider "efshi" to be at odds with "shekketz >> yih'yu lachem/teshak'tsu."My surmise is that they understand the Torah's >> command to treat with disgust the eating of non-kosher creatures and >> other acts that are not intrinsically objectionable (such as, per Rambam, >> incest, vs. murder, stealing, homosexuality and bestiality), as an imposed >> artificial behavior/attitude for these non-mefusamos issurim. Regarding >> your definition of issurim mefursamim, the Shemoneh Perakim does not >> say a tsaddik should /develop/ a revulsion, but that such revulsion is >> natural in born in all people. The tsaddik retains these feelings and >> does not allow them to be tainted. [Email #2.] On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: >> MN 3:49 >> As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are >> directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling >> disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom... On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and > should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of > Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what > possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 07:36:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (David Riceman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:36:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Dr Shapiro's book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AE5907.7010503@optimum.net> RET: << A poor man can make believe he is blind or crippled in order to get more charity. >> How does this fit with Peah 8:9? Which book are we talking about? David Riceman From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 21 17:48:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 20:48:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> Message-ID: <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> I think one has to be careful, as I find it difficult to reconcile the position of the MN and that of the SP, and think they represent two distinct aspects (?stages) in the rambam Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions I) in hazal -- that continued desire for some forbidden actions is compatible with a high spiritual state -- issue is control of the desire -- NOT its presence II) Aristotelian ethics -- a high spiritual state does not desire for forbidden -- the desire is a sign of a flaw. SP resolves by differentiating between mefursamot -- whose desire is problematic and a flaw -- and religious law -- where desire is not a flaw -- and applies this specifically to arayot -- as examples in Talmud of Rabbanit with desire are of arayot, It is difficult for me to reconcile this position with the MN -- if our proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is " to instil disgust" -- how can desire still remaining not be a flaw???? In the MN, there is a conceptual framework to distinguish homosexuality and bestiality from regular sexuality -- but they are ALL viewed as things that should repulse us -- just some more than others. It is by no means clear that this framework and distinction can be read into the SP, and would think that One would need good evidence .hat it does not include ALL arayot... Meir Shinnar > It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah > attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress > during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan > Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a > marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. > Zvi Lampel > On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and >> should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of >> Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what >> possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? >> On 7/20/2015 4:34 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: >>> Here is Pines' translation of the pertinent passage: >>> MN 3:49 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 08:06:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:06:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Message-ID: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why ? What changed in the afternoon? (especially since some pple fast both the 9th and 10th( Mordechai cohen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 06:18:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:18:26 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150722.091826.10442.1@webmail10.vgs.untd.com> The Moreh Nevuchim was quoted: > As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are > directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling > disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. R"n Lisa Liel wrote what I had wanted to write: > So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty > and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something > out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, > but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? R' Zvi Lampel answered: > It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah > attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt > duress during the marital process (you can find this in the > Kitzur Shulchan Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the > Rambam when it comes to a marital setting. I was taught we hold > like the Ramban. My guess is that you're referring to R' Eliezer from Nedarim 20b, referenced at the end of Kitzur 150:1. But from what I have seen, not for nothing is it called "Kitzur Shulchan Aruch", because this seems to be the attitude of all the standard poskim. The Kitzur is not a standalone machmir here; from what I can tell, he's merely quoting the Mechaber in Orach Chayim 240:8. Mishneh Brurah 240:35 (who refers us to Magen Avraham 240:21), Aruch Hashulchan 240:14, and Kaf Hachaim 240:59 all seem to advocate a strong reluctance towards intercourse, which is not quite as extreme as the Rambam's "disgust", but that might merely reflect their choice of words. For purposes of Talmud Torah, where is this Ramban who "strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting"? And for purposes of Halacha, which Acharonim hold like the Ramban, over the Mechaber, KSA, MB, and KH? (I recall hearing that the Siddur HaYaavetz might be the answer here, but there seem to be several different versions. If anyone can post a link to a specific version on SeforimOnline or HebrewBooks.org, and a page citation, I'd appreciate that very much.) Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Buffett?s Warning for YOU 4 in 5 Americans aren?t taking his shocking advice. Click here now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55af9846b9a261846362est02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 07:13:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:13:17 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R"n Lisa Liel asked: "The idea that sex is something dirty and should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude?" See the Gemara in Nedarim (20a) about kafuhu shed. Also see RAL's article OF MARRIAGE: RELATIONSHIP AND RELATIONS ( http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf ) where he discusses this question and brings many of the sources. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:25:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:25:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 06:54:49AM +0000, H Lampel via Avodah wrote: : On 7/20/2015 10:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: :> So isn't that problematic? The idea that sex is something dirty and :> should be avoided except when necessary sounds like something out of :> Christianity. I understand that MN isn't a code of law, but what :> possible source can the Rambam have for this attitude? : It's an Aristotelian attitude which the Rambam held is the Torah : attitude. One source would be the account of the Amorah who felt duress : during the marital process (you can find this in the Kitzur Shulchan : Aruch). The Ramban strongly disagreed with the Rambam when it comes to : a marital setting. I was taught we hold like the Ramban. But the most famous Ramban does speak of perushim tihyu and how perishus is the key to holiness. (R' Shimon Shkop explains the Ramban as saying it is a primary means to hoiness, because "qedoshim tihyu qi Qadosh Ani" would be absurd if referring to Hashem practicing perishus. What temptations would He need to avoid?) And his first example is yema'eit bemishgal, like (Berakhos 22) "that TC not be found by their wives like roosters" and that tashmish should be limited to "kefi hatzeikh beqiyum hamitzvah mimenu". I presume, in an unXian sense, the Rambam refers to onah, not "only" piryah verivyah. Perishus and neqi'us come up a lot in lower-case-m mussar literature, even among anti-Maimonidians like Rabbeinu Yonah. To quote Mesilas Yesharim ch 13 (tr. from http://www.shechem.org/torah/mesyesh/13.htm I think it's the old Feldheim ed, by R' Shraga Simmons): There is no question as to the permissibility of cohabitation with one's wife, but still, ablutions were instituted for those who had had seminal emissions, so that Scholars should not be steadily with their wives, like roosters. Even though the act itself is permissible it implants in a person a lust for it which might draw him on to what is forbidden; as our Sages of blessed memory have said (Sukkah 526), "There is a small organ in a man which, when it is satiated, hungers and which, when it is made to hunger, is sated." And they said about R. Eleazar (Nedarim 20b) that even in the proper hour and the correct time he would expose a handbreadth and conceal two hand-breadths and imagine that a demon was compelling him, in order to cancel out the feeling of pleasure. And ch. 14: THERE ARE THREE principal divisions of Separation, involving pleasures, laws, and conduct respectively. Separation in relation to pleasures, which we spoke of in the previous chapter, consists in one's taking from the world only what is essential to him. This type of Separation encompasses anything which provides pleasure to any one of the senses, whether the pleasure be gained through food, cohabitation, clothing, strolls, conversation or similar means, exceptions obtaining only at such times when deriving pleasure through these means is a mitzvah. Separation in relation to laws ... Separation in relation to conduct ... Which also limits marital intimacy to what is necessary to fulfill piryah verivyah and onah. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:36:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 13:36:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> References: <55AD6948.6070803@gmail.com> <55ADAA03.5070709@starways.net> <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <20150722172544.GA7586@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55AFD49B.4070904@gmail.com> On 7/21/2015 8:48 PM, Meir Shinnar wrote: > Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions > I) in hazal - that continued desire for some forbidden actions is > compatible with a high spiritual state - issue is control of the > desire - NOT its presence > I) Aristotelian ethics - a high spiritual state does not desire for > forbidden - the desire is a sign of a flaw. > SP resolves by differentiating between mefursamot - whose desire is > problematic and a flaw - and religious law - where desire is not a > flaw - and applies this specifically to arayot - as examples in Talmud > of Rabbanit with desire are of arayot, > It is difficult for me to reconcile this position with the MN - if our > proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is " to instil > disgust" - how can desire still remaining not be a flaw???? > In the MN, there is a conceptual framework to distinguish > homosexuality and bestiality from regular sexuality - but they are ALL > viewed as things that should repulse us - just some more than others. > It is by no means clear that this framework and distinction can be > read into the SP, and would think that One would need good evidence > that it does not include ALL arayot... The Moreh Nevuchim III:35 explicitly states that his view about this matter is the same as his view in Shemoneh Perakim: The fourteenth class comprises the commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain sexual unions. They are those that we have enumerated in the Book of Women [/Sepher Nashim/] and in Laws concerning Prohibited Sexual Relations [/Hilkhoth Issurei Bi'ah/. The interbreeding of beasts belongs to this class. The purpose of this ... is to bring about a decrease of sexual intercourse and to diminish the desire for mating as far as possible, so that it should not be taken as an end, as is done by the ignorant, *according to what we have explained in the Commentary on the Tractate Aboth.* (All commentators agree this is a reference to the introduction to the commentary, the Shemoneh Perakim, just as the Moreh stated regarding the thirteenth class.) Your kushya is good: if [as per MN] our proper relationship to even permitted sexualityis "to instill disgust" - how can desire still remaining not be a flaw [as per ShP]???? But I think the solution I offered is reasonable. To wit: What do you do with the elephant in the room I mentioned? The Torah commands /t'shaktsu/ concerning the eating of non-kosher creatures (which is certainly as much in the category of non-mefursomos as bassar b'chalav and arayos); yet Chazal (and naturally, then, Rambam) say that when it comes to basar b'chalav, etc., one should have the attitude of "I have the desire to do it, but Hashem prohibited me.'' I offered one answer to both questions: When Rambam says that Hashem wants to instill in us disgust for the act, and the Torah (as per Chazal) says "t'shakstu,'' they mean that despite the fact that we should not deny or seek to eradicate the physical inclination for such pleasures, we must maintain an aversion to succumbing to it except for limited situations. (And the purpose of that is to keep us from doing it in excess, which is the real flaw.) *So although as per MN,] our proper relationship to even permitted sexuality is to instill a reluctance except for limited occasions (such as in a marriage setting), the desire still remaining is not a flaw [as per ShP] to be eradicated.* "I have the desire to do it [even outside of marriage, and I will not eradicate the sexual desire from myself,] but [live with it and constrain it outside of marriage,] because Hashem commanded me so [and this will bring me to perfection]. So, a word about the Moreh's wording. Pines translates: "As for the prohibitions against illicit unions, all of them are directed to making sexual intercourse rarer and to instilling disgust for it, so that it should be sought only very seldom. ... the thing that is natural should be abhorred except for necessity." Friedlander translates: " we ought to limit sexual intercourse altogether, hold it in *contempt,* and only desire it very rarely." Ibn Tibbon translates "ha-arayos, ha-inyan b'kulam shahv l'ma-eit ha-mishgal *v'lim'os* bo, v'shello yirtseh mimennu ki im m'aht mi-za-ir...sheh-inyan ha-tiv'i *nim-ahs* l'hay-a-sos rak l'tsorech." I suspect from the context (lim'os/disgust/contempt, *except for limited occasions*) that the Rambam's original Arabic, not to mention his intention, is closer on the scale to the idea of avoidance for the sake of gaining perfection, than to disgust and contempt. Basically, it translates to what I believe is in fact our common attitude regarding these things. To put things in perspective, note that immediately before this section, the Rambam, following the same attitude of engaging in unrestrained physical pleasures being an obstacle to personal perfection, writes similarly about the activity of eating, again equating what he writes in the Moreh to what he wrote in Shemoneh Perakim: The thirteenth class comprises the commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain foods and what is connected therewith. These are the commandments that we have enumerated in the Laws concerning Forbidden Foods [/Hilkhoth Ma-akholoth Asuroth/]. The [commandments concerning] vows and the state of the Nazarites belong to this class. The purpose of all this is, *as we have explained in the Commentary on the Mishnah in the introduction to Aboth,* to put an end to the lusts and licentiousness manifested in seeking what is most pleasurable and to taking the desire for food and drink as an end. [Email #2. -micha] On 7/22/2015 1:25 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > But the most famous Ramban does speak of perushim tihyu and how perishus > is the key to holiness. ...And his first example is yema'eit > bemishgal... > I presume, in an unXian sense, the Rambam refers to onah, not "only" > piryah verivyah. > Perishus and neqi'us come up a lot in lower-case-m mussar literature, even > among anti-Maimonidians like Rabbeinu Yonah. To quote Mesilas Yesharim ch 13 > ..." And they said about > R. Eleazar (Nedarim 20b) that even in the proper hour and the correct > time he would expose a handbreadth and conceal two hand-breadths and > imagine that a demon was compelling him, in order to cancel out the > feeling of pleasure. > And ch. 14: ... > Separation in relation to pleasures, which we spoke of in the > previous chapter, consists in one's taking from the world only what > is essential to him. > Which also limits marital intimacy to what is necessary to fulfill piryah > verivyah and onah. Which, as I was contemplating to write, shows that the Ramban and Rambam (and as you have pointed out, mainstream Jewish thought) all share the same basic nuanced attitude--despite the Ramban's opposition to the Rambam's presentation. Thanks for the sources. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 10:00:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:00:43 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> References: <00d801d0c48f$f9cd1980$ed674c80$@com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:06 AM, M Cohen via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after > chatzos on Tbav > > Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc > > Why ? > > What changed in the afternoon? (especially since some pple fast both the 9 > th and 10th( > There are two answers in the Birkhei Yosef quoting Sefer Hakavvanot of R. Haim Vital (OH 559 s"k 7) for why we say verses of consolation at minha, both based on Midrash Eicha Rabba, and perhaps the reason is the same. Firstly, that this was when the BHMK began to burn, and it was davka a time of consolation because the people realized that HKBH was pouring his anger on stone and wood, not on flesh and blood. Secondly, that this is the time when the Messiah whose name is Menahem is born. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 22 22:23:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 01:23:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55B07A69.5020203@gmail.com> On 7/22/2015 1:26 PM, H Lampel wrote: > When Rambam says that Hashem wants to instill in us disgust for the > act, and the Torah (as per Chazal) says ''t'shakstu,'' they mean that > despite the fact that we should not deny or seek to eradicate the > physical inclination for such pleasures, we must maintain an aversion > to succumbing to it except for limited situations. (And the purpose of > that is to keep us from doing it in excess, which is the real flaw.) I should also note that the Rambam teaches that hand-in-hand with the flaw of excessive involvement in physical pleasures, and the ultimate problem with that, is the attitude behind it, of making physical pleasure an end in itself, rather than a side benefit of a means. The Rambam applies this objection to both sexual pleasure for its own sake and eating pleasure for its own sake: The prohibition of certain foods and what is connected therewith.... The purpose of all this is, as we have explained in the Commentary on the Mishnah in the introduction to Aboth, to put an end to the lusts and licentiousness manifested in seeking what is most pleasurable and to taking the desire for food and drink /as an end/. ...The commandments concerned with the prohibition of certain sexual unions... The purpose of this ... is to bring about a decrease of sexual intercourse and to diminish the desire for mating as far as possible, so that it should not be taken /as an end/, as is done by the ignorant, according to what we have explained in the Commentary on the Tractate Aboth. Zvi Lampel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 01:16:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:16:41 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R' Aharon Lichtenstein was bothered by the difference in opinion regarding marital intimacy between Chazal who seem to have a very positive attitude and the Rishonim (especially the Rambam) who have a very negative attitude and the attitude of contemporary authorities who seem to have swung back to the positive side: "We, for our part, are confronted by a quandary of our own; and it is dual. At one plane, we ask ourselves, within the context of our learn- ing?it is Torah, and we must learn?a simple and straightforward ques- tion. In light of the predominant evidence we have noted from Hazal and, particularly, its halakhic component, how and why did Rambam, Ramban, and some other rishonim, deviate so markedly from their prevalent attitude? With reference to yetser (the inclination)?generic in connotation but defined by Rashi as shel tashmish (sexual desire)?Hazal identify it as one of a triad which, optimally, one should ?let the left hand deflect and the right hand bring close? (Sota 47a). One sometimes gets the impression that the proportion was subsequently inverted. ... To the extent that we do succeed in harmonizing the positions of Hazal and of rishonim, we ameliorate the pressure of one issue but exacerbate that of another. For we are brought, in turn, to a second quandary: our own. While I have conducted no empirical survey, I believe there is little question regarding the sensibility of the contempo- rary Torah world, irrespective of camp and orientation. We stand, fun- damentally, with R. Bar-Shaul. We assert the value of romantic love, its physical manifestation included, without flinching from the prospect of concomitant sensual pleasure; and we do so without harboring guilt or reservations. " Source: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 06:35:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:35:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shimon haTzaddik and Alexander the Macedonian Message-ID: <20150723133509.GA14333@aishdas.org> The story of Shim'on haTzaddiq, in the office of kohein gadol, meeting Alexander the Great, as told in Yuma 69a, is pretty well known. Josephus told the story earlier, in Antiquities 11:8. The Daily Mail recently covered what appears to be another retelling : Mosaic of Alexander the Great meeting a Jewish priest is the first ever non-biblical scene to be discovered inside a synagogue - Artwork was uncovered in a fifth-century synagogue in Huqoq, Israel - May depict Alexander the Great, based on the presence of elephants - Scene is the first non-biblical story to be found in an ancient synagogue - Depictions of Biblical hero Samson are also part of the decorative floor By Sarah Griffiths for MailOnline Published: 03:43 EST, 15 July 2015 | Updated: 07:21 EST, 15 July 2015 ... The artwork was uncovered in the east aisle of a fifth-century synagogue in the ancient Jewish village of Huqoq. ... The largest top strip contains the scene showing a meeting between two men, who perhaps represent the legendary warrior and a Jewish high priest. In the scene, a bearded soldier wearing battle dress and a purple cloak leads a bull by the horns, followed by other soldiers and elephants with shields tied to their sides. He is meeting with a grey-haired, bearded elderly man wearing a ceremonial white tunic and mantle, accompanied by young men with sheathed swords, also in ceremonial clothes. Southern Galil, 5th cent CE. Within a generation of the compilation of Mes Yuma. -Micha -- Micha Berger Zion will be redeemed through justice, micha at aishdas.org and her returnees, through righteousness. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 06:14:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (H Lampel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:14:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B0E8A7.7050202@gmail.com> I agree with all those who reacted to my remark about Ramban vs Rambam, and I am especially grateful to Marty Bluke for the link to Rav Lichtenstein ztl's comprehensive article that provides the sources and notes the challenges they present. (I think that link was recently posted on R. Gil Student's blog.) As R. Akiva Miller has pointed out, it was Rebbi Eliezer of Nedarim 20b, referenced at the end of Kitzur 150:1 (and, as RAM pointed out, the Mechaber OC 240:8) who is understood to have expressed duress during the marital process. (And who is a Tanna, not an Amora, as I incorrectly stated.) Also, RAM asked, > For purposes of Talmud Torah, where is this Ramban who "strongly disagreed > with the Rambam when it comes to a marital setting"? And again, I stand corrected. The Rav who gave me my "chassan shmuess" was probably referring to the /Iggeress ha-Kodesh,/ which, as Rav Lichtenstein pointed out in his article, is often erroneously attributed to Ramban. But apparently, had Rav Lichtenstein been giving me the "chassan shmuez," I would have come away with the same halacha l'ma'aseh regarding attitude. He writes: We cannot, as the author of the /Iggeret ha-Kodesh/ could not, abandon the conviction that so central a component of human nature is not part of the /tov me'od/ of primordial creation. Consequently, impelled by our spiritual instincts and animated by the faith instilled in us by our Torah mentors, we opt for consecration rather than abstinence. Zvi Lampel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 07:12:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:12:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> References: <55AE24F9.6060402@gmail.com> <57EA200C-FF57-49B2-BEB1-EB9BC7BC79B9@gmail.com> <55AFD260.1000207@gmail.com> Message-ID: <26C8383E-E3E8-4443-8BAD-62AB922C5681@gmail.com> Again, one has to be very careful. There are four different sources here. 1)Shmona Prakim -- chapter 4 -- where reason for laws on arayot is to limit Sexuality -- in the sense of a golden mean. 2)Shmona Prakim -- chapter 6 -- where desire for things forbidden only by halakhah is endorsed as not a spiritual flaw 3) MN 3:35, where he describes category 14 of mitzvot -- relating to arayot -- in terms similar to source 1, as the rambam notes and meforshim point out. 4) MN 3:49 -- where purpose of hilchot arayot is to instill disgust -- not merely control and limit Therefore, RZL is correct that MN 3:35 refers to Spm but chapter 4. One can reconcile sources 1,2 and 3, or 1,3 and 4 -- but difficult to recocile all 4. I would ad that source 2 is problematic, in that it's view of halakhah as an almost arbitrary set of limitations, seems quite different than the rambam's normal presentation of the purpose of Halacha. Meir Shinnar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 10:15:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:15:16 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150723.131516.32484.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> Many posters - and their quoted sources - have compared the desire for intercourse with the desire for food. What I have not seen is any comparison between the *enjoyment* of intercourse and the enjoyment of food. Halacha restricts our eating in many ways, and we are taught that this is to curb our desires. But there are seem to be many exceptions to this, and I don't see parallels to intercourse. We have mitzvos where eating is merely a physical act used as a means to some other end. Achilas Matza might be the best example of this. We need to internalize the matzah and its lessons, but any enjoyment that we might get from this eating is utterly irrelevant. This seems quite comparable to the intercourse, where it is merely a means towards having children. The enjoyment that one gets from the intercourse (like from the matza) is irrelevant - or perhaps even lower, to be eschewed. One might cite Rama Even Haezer 25:2, which lists various permitted forms of intercourse, but to me, that is like saying "You can eat your meat broiled or cooked or fried, as long as you don't put milk in it, and don't eat it too often either." This is NOT what we are told about meat. Rather we are told that eating meat is the only way to enjoy Yom Tov. We are taught that eating is proper and good. When a simcha arises, we must make a meal so as to properly celebrate it. And if there are overlapping simchas, we should add an extra course so that each simcha gets its due. Red wine is more appropriate than white, but if you personally enjoy white, then go for it. Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. - Is the difference really that subtle? To me, it is as subtle as a brick. R' Marty Bluke posted: > Also see RAL's article OF MARRIAGE: RELATIONSHIP AND RELATIONS > ( http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/lichtenstein.pdf ) where > he discusses this question and brings many of the sources. Indeed he does bring many sources. And I was particularly intrigued by his conclusion, that the general thrust of recent authorities seems to be very different from before that: > To the extent that we do succeed in harmonizing the positions of > Hazal and of rishonim, we ameliorate the pressure of one issue but > exacerbate that of another. For we are brought, in turn, to a > second quandary: our own. While I have conducted no empirical > survey, I believe there is little question regarding the > sensibility of the contemporary Torah world, irrespective of camp > and orientation. ... We assert the value of romantic love, its > physical manifestation included, without flinching from the > prospect of concomitant sensual pleasure; and we do so without > harboring guilt or reservations. We insist, of course, upon its > sanctification?this, within the context of suffusive kedusha of > carnal experience, generally. and yet, a page later, > Assuming these facts to be correct ? as regards my own spiritual > environs, I can attest directly ? we ask ourselves: How and why > do we depart from positions articulated by some of our greatest > ? "from whose mouths we live and from whose waters we drink" - > and, is this departure legitimate? Are we victims of the Zeitgeist, > swept along by general socio-historical currents? Do we tailor our > attitude on this issue to conform to appetitive convenience and > erotic desire? Have we, in this case, adopted a self-satisfying > posture of facile world-acceptance clothed in culturally correct > garb? I did not find his answers to these questions very satisfying. But I do find his *asking* them to be extremely comforting. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 23 11:43:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:43:01 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Relative Priorities Message-ID: <1440012f20ae4d989f0b2c5fdc8b1c1e@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> A yahrtzeit shiur is "being sponsored" at the same time as your regular learning seder. Evaluate the various score cards in shamayim (yours, the niftar's, your chavrutah's) depending on whether you attended the shiur or seder (all other things being equal). She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu, 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Jul 24 07:09:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 17:09:05 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: artificial meat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Technological advances are bringing us to ask a pressing question: Does Judaism consider meat created in a laboratory to be kosher? Does Jewish law even consider it to be meat?The question takes on particular significance now, during the nine days, the traditional period of mourning that precedes Tisha B'Av when observant Jews abstain from meat. (Well, theoretical significance, at least ? the world's first lab-grown hamburger, created in 2013, cost a cool $325,000 and it's not exactly available at your neighborhood grocery store yet.)Some kashrut experts are ready to rule the burger kosher, and not only that, parve, reported Ynet reporter Koby Nachshoni ? meaning observant Jews, who won't eat milk and meat together, can eat their test-tube burger topped with cheese. Furthermore, the halachic authorities with whom Nachshon consulted even said this would apply to test-tube pork ? so make that a bacon cheeseburger.But, no surprise here, not everyone agrees about that.Chabad addressed the issue , too, noting that there are precedents for test-tube meat in the ancient Jewish sources. see http://www.haaretz.com/life/food-wine/1.667580 -- Eli Turkel -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:30:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:30:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh Message-ID: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> Last night in the shul that I davened B'Leil Zeh was said with great fervor. However, I am wondering if it should have been said at all. B'Leil Zeh is referring to the night of the 9th of Av and the many things that occurred then. Last night was, of course, the night of the 10th of Av. Does it really make sense to have said B'Leil Zeh on the 10th of Av? YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:50:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:50:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh In-Reply-To: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 10:30:37AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : B'Leil Zeh is referring to the night of the 9th of Av and the many : things that occurred then. Last night was, of course, the night of : the 10th of Av. Does it really make sense to have said B'Leil Zeh : on the 10th of Av? Now that you made me think about the question, I would ask the reverse one. Bayis sheini was set aflame shortly before sheqi'ah on the 9th and burned through the 10th. So wouldn't beleil zeh only fit a postponed ta'anis? As for bayis rishon... I'm still sorting my way through understandings of Yechezqeil and the Yerushalmi. RMT, kedarko (see ) touches on a nice subset of sources at http://download.yutorah.org/2012/1053/Tisha_Bav_To-Go_-_5771_Rabbi_Torczyner.pdf Tir'u baTov! -Micha Cc: R' Mordechai Torczyner -- Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water, micha at aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 07:58:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:58:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] B'Leil Zeh In-Reply-To: <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> References: <20150726143046.618F91831AD@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150726145048.GA11497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150726145900.0654D1831F2@nexus.stevens.edu> At 10:50 AM 7/26/2015, Micha Berger wrote: >Now that you made me think about the question, I would ask the reverse >one. Bayis sheini was set aflame shortly before sheqi'ah on the 9th and >burned through the 10th. > >So wouldn't beleil zeh only fit a postponed ta'anis? > >As for bayis rishon... I'm still sorting my way through understandings >of Yechezqeil and the Yerushalmi. Perhaps two separate tefillos are needed, one for the night of the 9th of Av and one for the night of the 10th of Av. However, given the vast amount of kinos and other tefillos for Tisha B'Av, I am loath to suggest adding any more. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 16:32:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 19:32:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Message-ID: From: M Cohen via Avodah There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why? What changed in the afternoon? Mordechai Cohen >>>> The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 22:02:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:02:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus Message-ID: Thew gemara in Gittin tells the story of the rich lady miryam bat batus who sent her sevant to buy food in the market, before the churban, each time the food is already sold and she finally dies from dung on her foot. OTOH the gemara in ketuvot says that miryam bat batus paid King Yanai a lot of money to appoint her son yehoshua ben gamla as high priest First the two stories are about 150 years apart. In addition Alexander Jannai was himself high priest and unlikely to sell that position -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Jul 26 20:18:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:18:25 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150726.231825.30515.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> R' Zvi Lampel wrote: > But apparently, had Rav Lichtenstein been giving me the > "chassan shmuez," I would have come away with the same halacha > l'ma'aseh regarding attitude. He writes: > > We cannot, as the author of the /Iggeret ha-Kodesh/ could > not, abandon the conviction that so central a component of > human nature is not part of the /tov me'od/ of primordial > creation. Consequently, impelled by our spiritual instincts > and animated by the faith instilled in us by our Torah > mentors, we opt for consecration rather than abstinence. I am very bothered by this attitude. I will explain why. We have discussed the idea that a posek may sometimes choose a psak based on what "seems right" to him, and then he will find sources to support that conclusion. But if I remember correctly, this is usually done in the case of *new* questions, where there is little precedent to draw upon. But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed. And it changed so recently that Rav Lichtenstein couldn't name any seforim that might have explained it to him. Namely, that for some reason, various people (such as RZL's teacher) started paskening - "halacha l'ma'aseh" in RZL's words - that the halacha follows the Iggeret ha-Kodesh (whose author we aren't sure of) rather than the Shulchan Aruch and Rav Yosef Karo. Why aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? Can we really overturn the Shulchan Aruch simply because "We cannot ... abandon the conviction" that sex is "tov me'od"? When we justify a psak and say we were "impelled by our spiritual instincts", how are we different from Conservative and Reform? I would not speak this way if the topic was a machlokes rishonim. Can someone please point to another major Rishon besides the Iggeret ha-Kodesh who holds that way? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Want to place your ad here? Advertise on United Online http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b5a34e339ce234e4610st01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 01:31:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:31:17 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> There are several halachos that the minhag is to be more lenient after chatzos on Tbav Business, sitting on regular chairs, talis and tephillin etc Why? What changed in the afternoon? Mordechai Cohen >>>> The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= R'YBS explained that once the mikdash started burning (PM of TB) we knew hkb"h was taking out his wrath on stones and wood, not us. 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 00:49:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:49:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> On 07/27/2015 01:02 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Thew gemara in Gittin tells the story of the rich lady miryam bat > batus Martha bat Baytus. > who sent her sevant to buy food in the market, before the > churban, each time the food is already sold and she finally dies from > dung on her foot. > > OTOH the gemara in ketuvot Yoma. 18a. And Yavamos 61a. I could not find any reference to this in Kesubos. > says that miryam bat batus Martha bat Baytus. > paid King Yanai a lot of money to appoint her son Husband > yehoshua ben gamla as high priest. First the two stories are about > 150 years apart. No, they're not. Yehoshua ben Gamla was the Cohen Gadol at the time of the revolt against Rome, and was murdered by the Biryonim. > In addition Alexander Jannai was himself high priest > and unlikely to sell that position Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos in both places points out, for precisely that reason. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 03:22:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:22:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] why are we more lenient after chatzos on Tbav In-Reply-To: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> References: <38e1653faf2a4532adac287dfaf81d3d@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150727102247.GA8241@aishdas.org> RnTK wrote: : The mood of despair lightens in the afternoon because we are expecting : the imminent arrival of Moshiach. I have read somewhere that some people : (Sefardim maybe?) have a custom to sweep the floor and tidy up the house : on Tisha B'Av afternoon in anticipation of Moshiach's arrival. R' Yirmiyohu Kaganoff provided sources at : In some places there is a custom to wash the floors and clean the house on the afternoon of Tisha B'Av. This custom is based on a mesorah that Moshiach will be born on Tisha B'Av afternoon and that it is therefore appropriate to commemorate the redemption and strengthen people's hopes and prayers (based on Beis Yosef 554 and Kolbo). Although this seems like unnecessary work on Tisha B'Av that should be postponed, the poskim rule that one should not discourage those who follow this custom (Birkei Yosef 559:7). On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:31am +0000, R Joel Rich replied: : R'YBS explained that once the mikdash started burning (PM of TB) : we knew [HKB"H] was taking out his wrath on stones and wood, not us. I bet RYBS cited the Gra (OC 555:1). Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: Actually, Google gets most of the credit for filling in vague memories with mar'eh meqomos. -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 05:00:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:00:41 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150727.080041.13995.0@webmail02.vgs.untd.com> I asked: > I would not speak this way if the topic was a machlokes > rishonim. Can someone please point to another major Rishon > besides the Iggeret ha-Kodesh who holds that way? Alternatively, can anyone cite other halachos, where for centuries the acharonim followed the Shulchan Aruch, and then in recent decades, the poskim decided to follow a minority rishon? My first instinct is to say that the shitos of the Gra are in this category, but there were those who followed the Gra ever since his day, and the only real change is that his views became more and more widespread. Was there ever a community that was known for following the Iggeret ha-Kodesh in this inyan until recently? Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b61d8f130a61d8b4299st01vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 07:10:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:10:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 11:15:51AM -1000, R/ Dr Noam Stadlan wrote on Areivim: : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded : as ignorance... To do that woud be to disagree with her husband. See "Thinking Aloud", pg 113: DH: What is the heter for a married woman in her house not to cover her hair when there are outsiders present? RYBS: She has to cover her hair. Another exchange: DH: Someone was asking about a woman wearing a kisui rosh in the house. RYBS: We pasken you should. DH: Someone showed me a gemara in Kesubos that b'toch chatzeira it should be mutar, since otherwise there is no way any woman could remain tachas ba'alah (72b). Offhand it occurred to me that if it was lo shechichei inshei - just for going around the house when no one's around, and someone just may drop in - then it would be mutar. But if you have people coming over b'kevius, then why would it be any different than going aroung in the street? Is there a special din in the bayis that there's no din of covering your head anymore? DH: Is this kisui ervah like most kisui ervah? RYBS: Of course. DH: What should I do for myself, for my wife? RYBS: You will find out. There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow micha at aishdas.org than you were today, http://www.aishdas.org then what need do you have for tomorrow? Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 08:15:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:15:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & the Tosafists. http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ Our *Torah shebe?al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the *Torah shebe?al peh* would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe?al peh* today. I just heard a piece yesterday by Rabbi Weill, from a few years back on Kinnot and the destruction of Ashkenaz and burning of the gemorahs in Paris. It was very devastating for the area. Jews lived in other areas as well, thank God. So the Mesora continued with them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 11:42:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:42:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? Message-ID: From: Micha Berger via Avodah : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded : as ignorance...[--Dr. Noam Stadlan] To do that would be to disagree with her husband. ....There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. -- Micha Berger >>>> A similar quote (third hand): Someone told me he once asked RYBS if a married woman is obligated to cover her hair, and RYBS replied in a somewhat sideways fashion, "You are not obligated to divorce her if she does not do so." You have to understand that it was an era in which most American Jews were throwing away the Torah with both hands. It was hard enough to find a wife who was frum; demanding that she cover her hair was almost impossible in many cases. RYBS was not the only Torah scholar whose wife failed to cover her hair. I have to assume that this was simply one nisayon that was too difficult, given those times. After the post-war influx of chassidim arrived in America, kisui rosh, like so many other neglected mitzvos, became much more acceptable and common. R' Michael Brody in his article on the subject says that the Chofetz Chaim railed against the practice of women in Vilna, even those married to big talmidei chachamim, to go about with their hair uncovered. Although the CC is completely, vehemently, opposed to this practice, R' Brody deduces (I am paraphrasing) that "This proves that many talmidei chachamim did not demand that their wives cover their hair, from which we may deduce that they held kisui rosh was not required, and we may rely on them." This line of reasoning is reminiscent of the joke, "How do we know that Yakov wore a yarmulka? Answer: It says 'Vayetzei Yakov' -- would Yakov have gone out without a yarmulka?!" But at any rate it does indicate that this was a largely neglected mitzva even in Vilna, in the early 20th century -- though neglect of a mitzva does not make the obligation go away. I for one do not hold it against RYBS. What he would have preferred and what was actually obtainable, in that time and place, were not the same. For that time and place, for a woman to be Torah observant was already a madreiga. To have been the wife of such a man -- his rebetzen must have had extraordinary zechuyos. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 11:43:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:43:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> The below (and, btw, R Nachum Lamm makes an interesting point in the comments there) leads me to a different, but related, question: We trace Rashi's mesorah pretty easily back to Rabbeinu Gershom -- but where did _he_ get _his_ mesorah from? How did it get from Bavel and the Gaonim to northern Europe? > RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & the Tosafists. > http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ [1] > Our *Torah shebe?al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the *Torah shebe?al peh* would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe?al peh* today. Links: ------ [1] http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 12:41:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 15:41:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: From: Kenneth Miller via Avodah >> We have discussed the idea that a posek may sometimes choose a psak based on what "seems right" to him, and then he will find sources to support that conclusion. But if I remember correctly, this is usually done in the case of *new* questions, where there is little precedent to draw upon. But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? --Akiva Miller >>>> It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan Aruch. What frequency is optimum? Surely that is at least partly subjective, and any of the various sources that apparently disagree with each other can be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up what your gut tells you is right. I can easily see a modern day rav or Torah mentor varying his answers depending on the circumstances of the wife and husband who are asking him for advice, as well as accepted societal norms. Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least some obligation to fulfill. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 14:59:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Gil Student via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 17:59:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume 2 of his Collected Essays. Gil Student From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Jul 27 19:55:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Meir Shinnar via Avodah) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 22:55:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Re:Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> References: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:10:59 -0400 From: Micha Berger via Avodah > : ... I would hope that the practice of these women, including the > : wife of R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik would be respected, and not regarded > : as ignorance... > > To do that woud be to disagree with her husband. > > See "Thinking Aloud", pg 113: ... > There are other such quotes that make it clear that RYBS disagreed with > his wife's practice, but either didn't fight the issue or didn't win. WADR, Micha misunderstands the issue. The issue is not whether RYBS agreed with his wife's practice -- there are sources (albeit most of them from long after her passing) which would suggest that he may ave disagreed, and paskened otherwise) -- but that is a different issue of whether he viewed it as ignorance -- and for sure not out of the pale of halacha. That is the crux of the issue -- not whether we wish to pasken that this is muttar for ourselves (or for those who listen to us..) -- but how we view those who follow a different shitta -- and anyone who suggests that RYBS viewed his wife as nonobservant or not fully halachically committed is motsi la'az and needs to go to her kever( you can ask R Seth Mandel his opinion how the rav would have viewed such a person) Several related stories: 1) The rav was the posek for a community, who knew that his wife did not cover her hair. The vast majority of that community, even those close to the rav, who followed his every word, did not think that he viewed this as being problematic -- and he had plenty of opportunity to let it be known.... 2) I knew a talmid who was close to the rav in the 70s (shiur many years, rav was measured kiddushin -- unfortunately niftar early. when getting married, he told me that he asked the rav all his shailos -- except about head covering for his wife (she did) -- he said that it was thought problematic to ask him because of the rav's wife 3) Another talmid was once invited, late 70s, to Rav Schwab's shabbes table. Topic got around to data's torah, and rav schwab said that many have it wrong -- there is not one da'as torah -- but da'as torah is the opinion of someone who is wholly torah -- rav kotler is da'as torah, rav feinstein is da'as torah,the satmar is da'as torah. My friend jumped in and asked what about RYBS? Rav Schwab was no fan of RYBS, and he hemmed and hawed and then said that as his wife did not cover her hair, he was not da'as torah. At that point Mrs. Schwab interjected, but you know that none of the litvische rebbitzens covered their hair. At which point R Schwab agreed to that, and then agreed that RYBS was da'as torah..... That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. Meir Shinnar From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 06:52:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:52:45 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> Message-ID: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> On 7/27/2015 2:49 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > > Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos > in both places points out, for precisely that reason. > Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any permutation thereof. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 07:31:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:31:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> Message-ID: <55B79226.4030906@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 09:52 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 7/27/2015 2:49 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> Therefore this Yannai Malka was not that Alexander Yannai. As Tosfos >> in both places points out, for precisely that reason. > Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of > there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any > permutation thereof. Except this memra of Rav Assi, which is quoted twice in the gemara with the same language, so it's unlikely to be a mistranscription. Either Rav Assi was mistaken about the king's name, or there was a short-reigned later king of that name whom Josephus didn't bother mentioning, or one of the later kings had Yannai as one of his names, and Josephus didn't bother mentioning it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 07:21:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:21:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> References: <20150727141059.GA6738@aishdas.org> <104832EA-D45A-4861-8430-088D3D2E9D80@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55B78FCC.2020104@sero.name> On 07/27/2015 10:55 PM, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote: > At that point Mrs. Schwab interjected, but you know > that none of the litvische rebbitzens covered their hair. At which point > R Schwab agreed to that, and then agreed that RYBS was da'as torah..... > > That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it > was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, > it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. No, it was *not* a shita in Litte, it was a makas medinah. It was an aveira that was prevalent among women, and the best the rabbonim could do was not talk about it to the women, in the hope that they were shogegin. Even in an earlier generation, no less a person than R Akiva Eger had no control over his wife and daughters' mode of dress: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31632&pgnum=300 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 08:57:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:57:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 08:52:45AM -0500, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: : Which is odd, because we don't have a single source, anywhere, of : there having been a second king named Yannai or Yonatan or any : permutation thereof. Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and Hebrew? 400 years prior, having two names was common and the civil names we know of (Mordechai, Esther, Shadrach, Meshach, Aved-Nego, etc...) bore no relation to their Jewish names. Alternatively: Chazal could have thrown in the timing problem to flag to the historian that they were not speaking historically. After all, we know from the other narratives quoted that they knew the dates for Alexander Yannai wouldn't work. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:21:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 12:21:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kaddish Yasom In-Reply-To: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> References: <611b7.50deef52.42df1206@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150728162126.GC24227@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 11:09pm EDT, RnTK wrote: : with their friends, "You can't say kaddish for your Ima or your Abba : today, someone else has kadima"? Correct me if I am mistaken but my impression : is that kaddish yasom is really mainly for genuine yesomim, i.e., those who : lose their parents while they are still children. Rather than correct you, let me provide a mar'eh maqom: Rama YD 376:4, quoting the Mahariq. Both of us probably remembering R Michael Poppers posting this. The Rama says that Qadish Yasom was established for Qetanim, because they cannot be Chazan. BUT... the Rama is clear that this ended before the custom of multiple people saying Qaddish at once began. When writing the above, I started wondering about areas like Vilna, where a daughter would say Qaddish for parents who had no sons. Did this minhag begin back when only one person said Qaddish at a time? If so, she would get the same priority for Qaddish Yasom as a qatan, no? But cold you picture such a scene in early 19th cent Litta, a woman saying Qaddish by herself on one side of the mechitzah or by the doorway, and all the men of the minyan answering? So my instinct is that this minhag post-dates group Qaddish. But my instinct might be based on revisionist history, for all I know. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes micha at aishdas.org exactly the right measure of himself, and http://www.aishdas.org holds a just balance between what he can Fax: (270) 514-1507 acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:38:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:38:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:153am EDT, R Saul Guberman wrote: : RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & : the Tosafists. : http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ : Our *Torah shebe'al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish : history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a : great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, : but the *Torah shebe'al peh* would have survived without him. However, : without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, : any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe'al peh* today. Which is a different statement than the subject line. I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue understanding the gemara. But one thing RGS loses is RYBS's context. RYBS was saying this in shiur, in a room where talmidim bring a compact edition of the Rambam with them for reference. It's a different thing to make this statement while sitting in Brisk, when you may intentionally state a perspective re-setting idea more strongly than in other settings. On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 2:43pm EDT, R Sholom Simon wrote: : We trace Rashi's mesorah pretty easily back to Rabbeinu Gershom -- but : where did _he_ get _his_ mesorah from? How did it get from Bavel and the : Gaonim to northern Europe? In a teshuvah, Rabbeinu Gershom says he was taught most of his Torah by "R' Leon". He means Rabbi Yehudah (Leontin) ben Rabbi Meir haKohein. R' Leontin was from Iraly, but he was in France before reaching Mainz. In France he picked up talmidim who then followed him to Ashkenaz, including Rabbinu Gershom and R' Yosef Tuv Elem (Tuv Elem = Bonfils, you will see him the the Mordechai alot, Tosafos, and [if you ever have occasion to look] Machzor Vitri). Rabbeinu Gershom took over the yeshiva upon RYBRM's petirah, which is probably why he is "Rabbeinu" rather than "Rav". The thing is, the tradition in Provence is that they came from EY. For example, in Luneil it was (is?) believed that the city was founded by refugees from Yericho, who commemorated their city of origin by using a translation of the same name: yareiach = luna. Which brings me to RGS's reply to R Sholom, written yesterday, Jul 27, 2015, at 5:59pm EDT: : Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German : mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger : disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. : However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments : against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from : Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume : 2 of his Collected Essays. If there is any truth to the Israeli Provencial tradition, we have a link in terms of rabbinic leadership to EY. However, not only do nusach hatefillah, piyut, and a number of pesaqim (which RRW educated me on repeatedly on these "pages" in the past) point toward an EY origin of Ashkenaz, so does something I didn't see R/Dr Soloveitchik address -- genetics. A map of the Jewish genetic tree http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072 shows the closes affinity for the Ashkenazi gene pool were the Italian, Greek, Turkish and Syrian communities. Notably all under the Roman Empire. Whereas the Jews of the geonic lands -- from Bavel through Qairouan, Tunisia -- form a second grouping. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:45:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:45:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728174552.GE24227@aishdas.org> I just posted: : However, the loss of a codifier who : stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of : mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But : Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue : understanding the gemara. I meant to add a different (and to my mind very important) way of looking at this idea: In terms of mesorah, a flow of TSBP as a "dialog down the ages" (to use RYBS's terminlogy), the parshan keeps the chain connected down the ages in a way that a Yad, designed to be stand-alone, does not. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:24:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:24:20 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah < avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote: > Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go > by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and > Hebrew? > I don't follow: the Hasmonean and post-Hasmonean kings did all have both Hebrew and Greek or Latin names, but Yannai is a *Hebrew* name, from the same root as Yona. I know someone who Hebraized his surname from Taubmann to Yannai ("Taub" is German for "dove"). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:50:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:50:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 09:24:20AM -0700, Simon Montagu wrote: : > Need a Hasmonean who calls himself "Jannus" in Latin necessarily go : > by the same name or even a phonetically related name in Aramaic and : > Hebrew? : I don't follow: the Hasmonean and post-Hasmonean kings did all have both : Hebrew and Greek or Latin names, but Yannai is a *Hebrew* name, from the : same root as Yona. I know someone who Hebraized his surname from Taubmann : to Yannai ("Taub" is German for "dove"). I believe this is a folk etymology. Where would the alef (yud, nun, alef, yud) have come from? But more tellingly, Alexander Janneus's Hebrew name was Yehonasan, like his uncle. See the Latin and Hebrew on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Jannaeus#/media/File:JanaeusCoinPhoto.jpg If he could be "Alexander Yannai" in one language and "Yonasan" in another, who knows it there weren't another king whose Latin name "Janneus" was simply not preserved? Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:17:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:17:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: There are those who argued that Tosfos (in particular Rabbeinu Tam) essentially created Ashkenazi mesorah by radically changing how we study and relate to Gemara and how we relate to popular practice. One might suggest without exaggeration that Tosfos created our Mesora. In which case Rashi's mesora is less relevant. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> There certainly is a lot of evidence that Ashkenzi minhagim com more from E"Y than Bavel. But do we know of any chochomim that went from anywhere in the Middle East to Germany? I.e., ok, even if we accept that either there was a third school, or it came from E"Y -- do we yet know *how* it got to Northern Europe? (Or perhaps the answers are in articles that Haym Soloveitchik or David Berger wrote? (And, if so, does anyone have any citations?) -- Sholom On 2015-07-27 17:59, Gil Student wrote: > Prof. Haym Soloveitchik has a theory of the origin of the German mesorah. He calls it the third yeshiva of Bavel. Prof. David Berger disagrees with the entire thesis, with arguments I find convincing. > > However, that said, Prof. Soloveitchik makes extremely good arguments against the conventional wisdom that Germany's tradition comes from Palestine. His essay and response to Prof. Berger can be found in volume 2 of his Collected Essays. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 10:18:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Sholom Simon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:18:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?utf-8?q?Sources_for_Not_Covering_Hair=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > 2) I knew a talmid who was close to the rav in the 70s ... when getting married, he told me that he asked the rav all his shailos -- except about head covering for his wife (she did) -- he said that it was thought problematic to ask him because of the rav's wife I have a related story. A talmid who was also close to him. When getting married he _did_ ask about a head covering for his wife (after apologizing for asking it). If I remember the story correctly, the Rav smiled and said that he wasn't the right person to ask. -- Sholom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 09:41:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:41:08 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Molad Message-ID: Calendars in my home town print the latest times of saying Kiddush Levana, which equate to exactly fifteen days after the announced Molad time. This might be an entire night, or an exact time, e.g. Sunday night 22.45. But since the astronomical Molad can be some distance from the calculated Molad times, by sometimes as much as twelve hours, does this not mean that these sof zeman kiddush levana times can be faulty by that same margin? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:00:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:00:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <67364EFC-6635-4F44-B803-77258D42603F@gmail.com> <5c5783bbda85b7a1f2958e60425000db@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728180043.GG24227@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 01:28:42PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote: : There certainly is a lot of evidence that Ashkenzi minhagim com more : from E"Y than Bavel. Although experts, O Rabbi-PhDs, debate the issue. So what seems obvious to you or me apparently isn't. : But do we know of any chochomim that went from anywhere in the Middle : East to Germany? I already posted the mesorah from EY to Provence to Rabbeinu Gershom. Jews really started reaching the Rhineland area at the invitation of Charlemagne in the 9th cent CE, when he started the Holy Roman Empire. They came from Provence (again) and Italy. Recall that most of the captives from EY ended up in Rome, and you can understand how an Israeli presence in Italy would have already been established. Far more so than the Jews of the geonate -- who, as I mentioned, were living outside the Roman Empire. In mythic form, we have a story of a King Charles invited R' Moshe ben Klonimus from Lucca to Mainz. In documentation form, Louis "the Pious", C's son, left charters showing that he too invited Jewish merchants to provide an economic backbone to his country, and mentions that he was continuing his father's invitation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person must be very patient micha at aishdas.org even with himself. http://www.aishdas.org - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:10:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Saul Guberman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:10:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: AIUI the MN "was all that you needed to study". Are you/RGS saying that this is only as a codifier? RAMBAM did not feel that he was passing on the mesorah? In the end, it does not matter what he wrote, RASHI vs RAMBAM, you must have RASHI, RAMBAM is nice but without RASHI you come to a dead end? On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > > I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah > through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who > stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of > mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But > Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue > understanding the gemara. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:32:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:32:24 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are forgotten after 12 months (memory of the bet hamikdash is different) I have a personal problem with this statement. To my sorry I know of several people who have lost children especially in the age of 18-25. One thing I have learned from these people is that one never forgets a child, It is part of their lives every day. The secretary of my department lost a son in a flash flood in the negev. She changed her last name to incorporate the name of that son. Every time she signs her name she remembers her son, Others who have lost sons in military actions say kaddish every day for the son many years later. I would just imagine that Yaakov having lost his "favorite" son would not forget him after 12 months but indeed would mourn for him forever -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:09:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:09:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 12:41 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > Calendars in my home town print the latest times of saying Kiddush > Levana, which equate to exactly fifteen days after the announced > Molad time. This might be an entire night, or an exact time, e.g. > Sunday night 22.45. That should be halfway between moldos, i.e. 14d 18h 22m after the molad, not a full 15 days. It should also be adjusted for the time difference between your standard time and Y'm's real time, which for NY is 7h 20m in the winter and 6h 20m in the summer. Using a full 15 days is only bediavad. > But since the astronomical Molad can be some distance from the > calculated Molad times, by sometimes as much as twelve hours, does > this not mean that these sof zeman kiddush levana times can be faulty > by that same margin? Yes, but since we have no easy way (other than consulting readily- available secular resources, of course) of determining when the real full moon occurs, we use the calculated moldos, *unless* there is a lunar eclipse, since that by definition happens at the true full moon. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 11:28:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:28:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> References: <55B5E29E.70903@sero.name> <55B7892D.5030703@starways.net> <20150728155723.GB24227@aishdas.org> <20150728175026.GF24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B7C9D0.5030709@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 01:50 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > If he could be "Alexander Yannai" in one language and "Yonasan" in > another, who knows it there weren't another king whose Latin name > "Janneus" was simply not preserved? Here's a thought: AFAIK there is no mention in the gemara of a second, bad, King Agrippas. The only Agrippas mentioned is the first one, the good one. Also, as far as I know, there is no record of the second Agrippas's Hebrew name. What if the first Agrippas gave his oldest son Yannai as his Jewish name, after the first Yannai, and that is how he was known among Jews, and therefore by the Amoraim, while Josephus called him by his Roman name, Herod Agrippa? -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:23:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:23:37 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus Message-ID: <> Any Jewish king would have been over 100 before the churban besides there is the known problem with Yehoshua ben Gamla having his position bought for him OTOH he seems to have done good deeds Interestingly wikipedia writes "*Yehoshua ben Gamla* (or Joshua son of Gamla) was a Jewish high priest who officiated in about 64 CE. He married the rich widow Martha of the high-priestly family Boethos (Yeb. vi. 4), and she by bribing Jannai secured for him the office of high priest (Yeb. 61a; Yoma 18a; comp. "Ant." xx. 9, ? 4). Although Yehoshua himself was not a scholar, he was solicitous for the instruction of the young, and provided schools in every town for children over five years of age, earning thereby the praises of posterity (B. B. 21a). The two lots used on the Day of Atonement , hitherto of boxwood, he made of gold (Yoma iii. 9). Yehoshua did not remain long in office, being forced, after a year, to give way to Matthias ben Theophil ("Ant." xx. 9, ? 7)." i.e. Martha bribed someone named Jannai in 64CE. Not clear who this Jannai is but definitely not a king -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 12:44:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:44:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] miryam bat batus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B7DB8C.8030404@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 03:23 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > Interestingly wikipedia writes I.e. somebody, perhaps with no more information than you or me, wrote > i.e. Martha bribed someone named Jannai in 64CE. Not clear who this > Jannai is but definitely not a king Says who? Why do you say that, especially when not only does the gemara say he was a king, but we know that at the time the kehuna gedola was in the gift of king? -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 13:37:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:37:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? Message-ID: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> From: Meir Shinnar via Avodah >> That is the crux of the issue -- not whether we wish to pasken that this is muttar for ourselves (or for those who listen to us..) -- but how we view those who follow a different shitta -- and anyone who suggests that RYBS viewed his wife as nonobservant or not fully halachically committed is motsi la'az and needs to go to her kever [snip] That issue about the rav's wife not being unique is important -- it was a shitta in lita -- even if one the rav may have disagreed with, it was not one that was hutz lamachane. That is the crux of the issue. << Meir Shinnar >>>> [1] No one has ever suggested that RYBS viewed his wife as "nonobservant" so nobody has to go to her kever, although anyone who wants to may do so. I assume her children and grandchildren go on her yahrzeit. The line between observant and nonobservant is pretty clear, even though all of us sometimes sin. I have yet to hear of anyone saying that if a woman keeps Shabbos, kashrus and taharas hamishpacha, but does not cover her hair, she is "nonobservant." However if you know of a person who does say that, please cite the source, thank you. Maybe he is the same person who says that if you talk loshon hara you are nonobservant -- and therefore there are only about 500 observant Jews in the whole world, if that. [2] There is no "different shita." There was no "shitta in Lita" allowing married women to go out with their hair uncovered. What there was in Lita was the winds of Haskala, Reform and sliding, sliding, sliding away from Torah, more marked among the women even than among the men. Sarah Schnirer noted that there were chassidishe homes in Poland where, after the Friday night Shabbos meal, the teenage girls and even the mother would go out to see a play at the local theater. If there was slippage in Poland, where chassidus was strong, you can just imagine what was going on in Lita, where there was nothing to capture the hearts and minds of people who were not themselves talmidei chachamim -- viz, the unlearned masses, and the women. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 14:30:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:30:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sources for Not Covering Hair? In-Reply-To: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> References: <9e21d.3c412752.42e941f1@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150728213052.GA12259@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:37pm EDT, RnTK wrote: : [2] There is no "different shita." There was no "shitta in Lita" : allowing married women to go out with their hair uncovered... The AhS, whose theory of pesaq gives a lot of weight to seeing which ruling was accepted as general practice, famously permits saying Shema while seeing a married woman with her hair uncovered. But this is what he says in OC 75:7 , where that heter is given: And now, we will cry about the breached of our generation in its many since, for many years Benos Yisrael violate this sin and go with a revealed head. And whateve we yell about this, it doesn't help and it doesn't have an effect. And now this mispachas [oe of the nega'im] has spread, that married [women] go with their hyair like the besulos do. Woe to us that this arose in our generation! Still, al kol panim, according to the din is appears permitted to us to daven and make berakhos opposite their revealed heads, since now that most of them go this way... memeilah there won't be hirhur. So, RYME is pretty clear: It was common, it was viewed has a sin -- not "a different shittah", and the rabbinate did complain but no one listened. And again, that's the AhS, not the textual theoretician "what ought the ideal halakhah be from a clean slate" approach of the MB. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger I always give much away, micha at aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure. http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 14:46:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:46:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: <49db0bac5a529527d9e1c47b006701cc@aishdas.org> <20150728173817.GD24227@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150728214605.GB12259@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 02:10:52PM -0400, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote: : AIUI the [MT] "was all that you needed to study". Are you/RGS saying that : this is only as a codifier? RAMBAM did not feel that he was passing on the : mesorah? In the end, it does not matter what he wrote, RASHI vs RAMBAM, you : must have RASHI, RAMBAM is nice but without RASHI you come to a dead end? As the Rambam says in the haqdamah (par 40 ), the goal was to put the "TSBP kulah sedurah befi hakol" -- his primary audience was the masses. And we know how much he thought of the masses. Similarly he continues (41) by telling you he his work "Mishneh Torah" because it fulfills the shelish bemishnah -- the studying of halakhah pesuqah. (He calls it sheliesh BTSBP, but as you just saw in the haqdamah, the Rambam both identifies the two and also says they're contained in his MT.) However, in Hil' Talmud Torah 1:12 tells you that that's only "betechilas tazlmudo shel adam, aval kesheyagdil bechokhmah" he should set time for TSBK and divrei hashemu'ah so as not to forget, "veyifneh kol yamav ligemara". So it is not impossible that even the Rambam himself might agree that those who explain how to do the shaqlara vetarya like gemara, or lomdus, or "veyotzi davar midavar veyidmeh dava ledavar" etc... are more central to the mesorah than his own Mishneh Torah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 13:54:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:54:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: <9ea4b.71e33b03.42e9460c@aol.com> From: Eli Turkel via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) >>The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are forgotten after 12 months (memory of the bet hamikdash is different) I have a personal problem with this statement. To my sorry I know of several people who have lost children especially in the age of 18-25. One thing I have learned from these people is that one never forgets a child << --Eli Turkel >>>>> My grandmother had a baby daughter who died at the age of five months, and fifty years or more after that, I once asked her about the baby she had lost. She started to cry as if it had just happened, and described the baby in detail -- what she looked like, what she could do at five months and so on. So I learned the lesson that a parent never forgets a lost child. However, she only cried for a little while and then returned to her cheerful self. I'm sure that in the year after her baby died, she was not cheerful. I don't think "gezeira al hameis" means the person is literally forgotten, but that the degree of mourning becomes less intense. Initially the bereaved person, especially a bereaved parent, simply cannot believe the child is gone, and constantly thinks and even dreams about the child. With the passage of months and years, the knowledge that the child is truly gone is assimilated and the parent goes on with life, even if a heaviness always remains somewhere in the background. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 15:38:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 18:38:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150728223810.GD12259@aishdas.org> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 10:12am EDT, R/Dr Meir Shinnar wrote: : Remember, the SP tries to reconcile two positions : I) in hazal - that continued desire for some forbidden actions : is compatible with a high spiritual state - issue is control of : the desire - NOT its presence : II) Aristotelian ethics - a high spiritual state does not desire : for forbidden - the desire is a sign of a flaw. But chazal too talk in terms of virtue ethics, not just in terms of kibush hayeitzer (overcoming the desire) but also tiqun hayeitzer (adjusting those desires). Most famously, "mah Hu Chanun, af atah chanun". Or, as the Rambam paraphrased, "mah hu *niqra* 'Chanun'..." It doesn't speak of giving to others without cause despite desire, it asks us to develop the middos of chanun, rachum, etc... Now, on to a totally different topic... On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 05:15:16PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote: : Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. Sex : is proper as long as you minimize it. - Is the difference really that : subtle? To me, it is as subtle as a brick. I think the difference is just about that, but because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: 1- It involves a second party. There is no threat of objectifying good. 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... Therefore, the attitude toward perishus for each comes from opposite directions. For food, which is necessary for survival, we talk about how much is too much. For sex, we talk about the right balance between keeping the other happy (chiyuv onah) and turning them into a tool for your own happiness. The bottom line is still the same: perishus from challenges I cannot handle while be maqdish olam hazeh the rest of the time. The details differ due to the differences above. On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:18am GMT, Kenneth Miller wrote: : .... This is a case where the Shulchan : Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went : uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed... On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:41pm EDT, Rn Toby Katz replied: : It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too loosely. If : it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim and acharonim, agree : that marital intercourse is always mutar (assuming the usual, the wife is not : a nidah, it's not forced, it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really : talking about here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan : Aruch. What frequency is optimum? Surely that is at least partly subjective, ... While what I said before about "minimize it" not meaning all that different from "don't overdue" addresses this question of RAM's as well, I think RnTK's response is really the essence of the answer. But to quibble with the language... I'm not sure it's "hashkafah" as much as Hilkhos Dei'os / Chovos haLvavos. After all "Qedoshim tihyu" is a chiyuv, not a nicety, and that's a source for "perushim tihyu". What a mitzvah to be or to become something (such as "qadosh") is in practice, though, is inherently situational and subjective. If we were talking about something reducible to black-letter halakhah and objective rules, it would have been. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 15:58:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 22:58:41 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <20150728.185841.2133.0@webmail10.vgs.untd.com> R"n Toby Katz wrote: > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar > (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, > it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might also be RTK's point). But if that is how we are to understand the vocabulary, then we have a whole new way of reading the Shulchan Aruch. Here are some examples: It's not assur to shmooze between Geulah and Tefillah of Maariv. (236:2) It's not assur to say Shehecheyanu on the Lulav on the second day. (662:2) Surely that is at least > partly subjective, and any of the various sources that apparently disagree with each other can be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up what your gut tells you is right. I can easily see a modern day rav or Torah mentor varying his answers depending on the circumstances of the wife and husband who are asking him for advice, as well as accepted societal norms. Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least some obligation to fulfill. ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b8096a62fe9695575st03vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 20:51:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:51:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 02:09:11PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : That should be halfway between moldos, i.e. 14d 18h 22m after the : molad, not a full 15 days. It should also be adjusted for the time : difference between your standard time and Y'm's real time, which : for NY is 7h 20m in the winter and 6h 20m in the summer. Using : a full 15 days is only bediavad. Y-m time to EST is 7h 21m, not 20. But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we call it. It's hard to know exactly where the molad is being announced for, since the average lunation has changed over time and the accumulated difference between estimation and reality over millenia has grown large. Right now, the average molad matches the average moment of new moon for Qandahar, Afghanistan. If we go back in time to when the molad was closest to one lunar month, we get to 4th cent CE, the days of Hillel Nesi;ah. The av beis din to whom R Hai Gaon attributes our current calendar. If we assume the molad then was most accurate in start time as well when it was most accurate in durection, then the molad is being announeced for something like Ur Kasdim, which is also around the middle of Jewish settlement at the time, between the Nile and the Euphrates. In which case, the molad is being announced for a place 44 min after IST (not 21m). Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe micha at aishdas.org you can be certain of improving, http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Jul 28 23:45:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 02:45:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> On 07/28/2015 11:51 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > Y-m time to EST is 7h 21m, not 20. True. I was approximating, much as the Rambam did with Y'm latitude. > But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we > call it. http://mechon-mamre.org/i/3811.htm#17 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:33:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:33:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 02:45:03AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> But I am not sure the molad is announced for Y-m time, despite what we :> call it. : http://mechon-mamre.org/i/3811.htm#17 The Rambam there (Qiddush haChodesh 11:17) discusses the calculation of the calendar. The rules are set up based on RC in Y-m. Announcing the molad doesn't reflect the calculated calendar, but the whole Qiddush haChodesh is set up to invoke Sanhedrin being meqadesh al pi re'iyah. So perhaps they chose a clock for announcing the molad that wasn't the one they used to translate to the meridian used for translating mollad into rosh chodesh. Why would we do so? Isn't the meridian of Y-m the obvious time to use even if it weren't the one used to compute the calendar? As I quickly mentioned (I gave more details more than once in the past), I am suggesting a different meridian because if Hillel Nesi'ah ubeis dino had assumed a molad that was 23 min earlier than the one we announce, the molad would be more accurate. 23 min later than Yerushalayim does correspond to a meaningful place at the time, a point exactly midway between the Jews of EY and those of Bavel. Aside from including Ur Kasdim. Not the most obvious choice (Yerushalayim) but still not a random meridian either. So why not assume they picked the meridian for announcing the molad on that basis, and credit the Sanhedrin with knowing the molad to greater accuracy? The question is what that does to molad zaqein, and how we would explain the clean result of before noon vs posponing RH if the molad is after noon. The idea behind molad zaqein is that the furthest east Jewish community would still be able to see (weather permitting) the new moon before the end of RC. This is obviously only a loose idea, since we're talking about timing based on the molad, an approximate average. (So that on average Jews in the east would see the new moon...?) RYGB and/or RAZZ theorize http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n038.shtml#08 that the Calendar Controversy was over the issue of how far east do we worry about. R' Aharon ben Meir wanted to move the cutoff for molad zaqein by 64 chalaqim. (More than 23 min, ie 414 chalaqim.) He doesn't say why. Their article suggests that RABM was setting the rule for molad zaqein based on the furthest known Jewish settlement at that time. Which would be Kaifun, and the numbers work. Whereas RSG objected saying that the location is theoretical, not experimental. The Kuzari (following RSG -- since it's his version of the calendar that we all use) uses this to argue that the international date line is 90 deg east of Y-m ih"q. And thus any Jewish settlement that would be further east would be on the other side of the date line WRT Rosh Chodesh, and there is no problem of the molad being on their day 2. If so, changing the molad by 23 min would change the calendar, halakhah would prove my claim wrong. But few if any of us hold that the date line is 90 deg east of Y-m, east down 125.2 deg E, down Dongeng St in Changchun, China. To quote R Dovid Heber at : Families on the eastern strip of Dongfeng Street would recite kiddush while families a block to the west would recite havdala. It may be possible for those who want two days of Shabbos to walk one block eastbound, down Dongfeng Street, after Seuda Shlishis and start Shabbos again. Those who want to skip almost all of Shabbos could take a short stroll westbound, and go from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. (This post needed something light to leaven it.) >From where I sit, between those who say 180deg and the CI's adjudgment of including the entire land mass if part of it is west of 90deg, the dominant shitah is inconsistent with the Kuzari's explanation. If the date line is not involved, it would mean the machloqes would be about what we mean by the far enough end of Jewish settlement who would still experience the molad before the end of RC. RSG is saying that 90 deg is the Sanhderin mandated estimate, and RABM holds it's the actual furthest settlement. And that stands whether or not RYGB and RAZZ are correct about RAML's sevara, as we're only looking at RSG lehalakhah. I just took the Kuzari's lomdus and asked what it would mean to those who don't agree with his date line. If that line of reasoning is correct, then saying the approximate eastmost community is to be measured from the center of the core Jewish settlement -- between Bavel and EY -- ends up more intuitive than saying it's measured from Y-m. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 05:11:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:11:28 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Ooops! Yesterday I accidentally pressed "send" when I meant to "save draft". The result was a post that was far from finished. Here is what I had intended to publish: R"n Toby Katz wrote: > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar > (assuming the usual, the wife is not a nidah, it's not forced, > it's not Yom Kippur, etc). What we are really talking about > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might also be RTK's point). But IF that is how we are to understand the vocabulary, then we have a whole new way of reading the Shulchan Aruch. Here are some examples of this new way of understanding: It's not assur to shmooze between Geulah and Tefillah of Maariv (236:2) or to say Shehecheyanu on the Lulav on the second day (662:2) or to say Hallel on RH and YK (584:1) or to get a haircut before Mincha (232:2). It's not assur to daven only in your heart, but it's better if you pronounce the words with your lips. (101:2) I will concede that these examples are indeed less severe than cases where the Shulchan Aruch DOES use the word "assur". But nevertheless, we do not take these halachos as mere suggestions. Despite the lack of the word "asur", we DO accept it as normative psak halacha, and not as "hashkafa", to use RTK's word. So why should Siman 240 be different? Why would we suddenly take the words of Siman 240 to be hashkafa, and wave off the Shulchan Aruch, saying that his derech is different than our derech? Shouldn't we accept it as normative halacha? Even if I feel these halachos to be strange or difficult, shouldn't I at least accept them as a goal to strive for? And if I *don't* strive for them, doesn't that require teshuva? > Surely that is at least partly subjective, and any of the > various sources that apparently disagree with each other can > be drawn upon when you're looking for something to back up > what your gut tells you is right. Maybe, but one had better be VERY sure that those sources actually exist, and that they have ample support in the poskim. Otherwise - as I asked a couple of posts ago - how is this any different than what the conservative and reform do? "It's a big machlokes - there's gotta be someone who paskens the way I want, so that's what I'm gonna do." I shudder when I hear otherwise-observant people saying such things. There are indeed some cases where there is such a *lack* of consensus among the poskim that one can do as he wants (one of my teachers paskened this way and for this reason regarding brachos on dessert), but I do not see Siman 240 in this category. We seem to be abandoning the consensus of the Shulchan Aruch and Nosei Keilim, and running to minority rishonim. > Also it seems to me that with all the talk about minimizing > this-worldly pleasure -- which in general is a Torah-dik thing > to do -- we are also losing sight of the husband's obligation > of onah. For a wife, physical closeness is tied to emotional > closeness and it is often not, strictly speaking, a this-worldly > pleasure but a real emotional need, which a husband has at least > some obligation to fulfill. Are we really sure that (for the wife) physical closeness is tied to emotional closeness from the Torah's perspective? Or perhaps that is only an invention of minds which have been clouded by the outside culture? Could it be that Onah requires physical closeness, but not emotional closeness? I get mixed messages on this. On the one hand, an awful lot of Siman 240 is devoted to husband and wife both being of the proper frame of mind, and this is extremely strong evidence to the real importance of emotional closeness. But when I see halachos about keeping conversation to a minimum, and keeping the time involved to a minimum, then I wonder how much closeness can be achieved. I had posted: : Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. : Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. R' Micha Berger responded: > ... because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: > ... 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... Really? Can we really survive without it? You and me, I suppose, but that's because we are male. RTK referenced mitzvas onah. In the Torah's view, sex is as essential as food and shelter are. But only for women. Regardless of whether we're talking about physical closeness or emotional closeness, it seems that the Torah is concerned about closeness only for the woman, and not for the man. For women, closeness is a need which must be met; for men, closeness is a taavah which must be controlled. Let's not allow ourselves to get confused between needs and taavos. A person may desire something so much that he thinks it to be a need, but he is deluding himself. Nowhere do I see any responsibilities of the wife which are comparable to Mitzvas Onah. Yes, she'll be a "moredet" if she refuses, but (as I understand it) that is due to the social contract implicit in the concept of marriage, which is a very cry from a Chiyuv D'Oraisa. ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55b8c3465e5f543465c9est02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:01:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:01:07 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla Message-ID: according to the Hebrew wikipedia Matyha bat Baytus bought the high priesthood for her husband Yehoshua ben Gamla towards the end of the second Temple. As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai and they guess that it was from Agripas II. Furthermore Yehoshua Ben Gamla was killed during the revolt against Rome. (Where the high priest Yishmael ben Elisha fits in we have discussed in the past) -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:07:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:07:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150729160759.GF12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 06:01:07PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> according to the Hebrew wikipedia Matyha bat Baytus bought the high :> priesthood for her husband Yehoshua ben Gamla towards the end of the second :> Temple. As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai and they guess :> that it was from Agripas II. : Furthermore Yehoshua Ben Gamla was killed during the revolt against Rome. : (Where the high priest Yishmael ben Elisha fits in we have discussed in the : past) The gemara is Yuma 18a and Yevamos 61a. The mishnah in Yevemos says that Yehoshua ben Gamla married Marta bas Baisus, an almana, but before consummating the marriage "umanahu melekh" to be kohein gadol, The point of the mishnah is that they can stay married, as actually happened in this event. The gemara comments on the language of "manahu" rather than the expected "nisnamneh" to denote that the appointment wasn't the usual approval of a candidate selected by the kohanim and vetted by Sanhedrin. Then the gemara says she spent two qavin ("tarqav" = trei + qav) of dinarim to buy it. The gemara in Yuma makes this last point as well. Josephus (Antiquities XX 9:4 ) wrote that he became KG during the reign of Herod Agrippa II. Nothing about how. The translation reads weird, calls him "Jesus the son of Gamaliel". I went to the Soncino, since I don't know who else would comment on a gemara - Josephus interaction. Fn 16 on Yuma, 20 on Yevamos make the identity. They first opine that "Jannai is often employed in the Talmud as a general patronymic for Hasmonean and Herodian rulers." Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:30:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:30:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] =?iso-8859-1?q?HILCHOS_KIBUD_AV_V=92EIM?= Message-ID: <20150729153144.1CF3218089B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://halachafortodaycom.blogspot.com/2013/02/archives-hilchos-kibud-av-veim.html Some selections from this site. The Aseres HaDibros, the Ten Commandments given to us by Hashem on Har Sinai are divided into two parts, the first five are commandments between man and Hashem (Bein Adam L?Makom) and the last five are commandments between man and fellow man (Bein Adam L?Chaveiro) Kibud Av V?Eim ,the fifth of the Aseres HaDibros, is listed amongst the commandments that are between man and Hashem even though it is seemingly a commandment that is only between man and man. The reason for this is that honoring one?s parents is akin to honoring Hashem. There are 3 partners in every human being, the father, the mother and Hashem. If one honors any of the three it is as if all three have been honored, and if one dishonors any of the three it?s as if all three have been dishonored. 1)It is prohibited to contradict a parent. (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah Siman 240:2) If a parent has a verbal disagreement with another person, and the child tells the other person ?I concur with your view?, it is considered contradicting the parent and is prohibited. (Shach Yoreh Deah 240:2) 2) According to some Poskim this prohibition is only in the presence of the parent. Other Poskim, however, maintain that even not in the presence of the parent it is prohibited. 1)It is forbidden to call a parent or refer to them by their name; rather they need to be referred to as ?My father [my teacher]? or ?My mother?. 1) What constitutes ?Kibud, respecting? parents? One must speak to their parents softly, with respect the way one would speak to a king. 1) Children are obligated to stand up for their parents when they enter a room. 1) If a parent does something that is against the Torah and a child sees, the child should not say ?You transgressed a Torah prohibition?, as bluntly saying so will cause the parent embarrassment. Rather, the child should say something to the effect of: ?Father Does it say in the Torah that one should not .?? in a way that sounds like a question and not like a chastisement or rebuke, and the parent will realize on their own that they have committed the sin. 1) If one?s father asks for a glass of water or any other task, and at the same time his/her mother asked for a glass of water or another task, tending to the father?s needs takes precedence, as the son/daughter and the mother are both obligated to respect the father/husband. 2) If a parent is sleeping it is forbidden to wake them up. See the above URL for more. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:51:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:51:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Molad In-Reply-To: <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> References: <55B7C547.4050300@sero.name> <20150729035108.GA11181@aishdas.org> <55B8766F.2060306@sero.name> <20150729153313.GE12259@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55B8F66D.2000701@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 11:33 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > > But few if any of us hold that the date line is 90 deg east of Y-m, > east down 125.2 deg E, down Dongeng St in Changchun, China. To quote > R Dovid Heber at: > Families on the eastern strip of Dongfeng Street would recite > kiddush while families a block to the west would recite havdala. > It may be possible for those who want two days of Shabbos to walk > one block eastbound, down Dongfeng Street, after Seuda Shlishis and > start Shabbos again. Those who want to skip almost all of Shabbos > could take a short stroll westbound, and go from sunset Friday to > sunset Saturday. > (This post needed something light to leaven it.) Shu"T Bnai Tziyon points to a gemara about two villages within techum shabbos, where it was Yom Kippur in one and not the other, because that was the last place the messenger had made it before sunset. (I can't figure out how that actually worked, but that is what the gemara says.) He avoids the awkwardness of the situation posited in this clip by positing that the line is not one-dimensional but is several miles wide, and that the area inside the line has an official din of sofek, like bein hashmoshos. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:21:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 19:21:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: saw some trivia questions: 1) Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters of the alph-bet (I only know one) 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 09:51:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:51:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150729165138.GH12259@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 07:21:20PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : 1) Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters : of the alph-bet (I only know one) Soferim use Tzefania 3:8 to show their penmanship, because it not only includes all 22 letters, it also includes all the sofios. Is that a way to denote total ultimate justice (the meaning of the words ) or what? This question is easier than that, just asking for 22 letters, not whether sofis or not. I already heard this one so I will leave the other 6 for others. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 08:58:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:58:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] yehoshua ben gamla In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B8F834.5060103@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 11:01 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > according to the Hebrew wikipedia Which is no more authoritative than English WP, and in fact seems to have looser rules regarding sourcing. > Matyha bat Baytus Martha. > As we discussed it couldn't be from Alexander Jannai As Tosfos already points out, in both places where the gemara quotes this memra. > they guess that it was from Agripas II. That seems like a good guess, that the Yannai in the memra refers to the king Josephus calls Herod Agrippa II, but it is only a guess. On 07/29/2015 12:07 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I went to the Soncino, since I don't know who else would comment on a > gemara - Josephus interaction. Fn 16 on Yuma, 20 on Yevamos make the > identity. They first opine that "Jannai is often employed in the Talmud > as a general patronymic for Hasmonean and Herodian rulers." Which, for all we know, it may have been. -- Zev Sero zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 10:13:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:13:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55B909C7.7070906@sero.name> On 07/29/2015 12:21 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach 1. The definition of an "edah" from "this wicked edah". 2. Hezek re'iyah from Bil'am. 3. Standing for a davar shebikdusha, from Eglon. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 14:57:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:57:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150729.081128.29527.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150729215724.GA3540@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:11:28PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : R"n Toby Katz wrote: : > It seems to me we are using the words "psak" and "poskim" too : > loosely. If it's psak you want, I think all sources, rishonim : > and acharonim, agree that marital intercourse is always mutar.... : > What we are really talking about : > here is hashkafa, not psak -- even if it is in the Shulchan : > Aruch. What frequency is optimum? ... ... : : Maybe, and maybe not. Let's look at the words. : : I'm focusing on Orach Chaim 240. The word "asur" appears a fair amount : of the time, but there are other categorizations used as well, such as : "lo y'hay" (don't be that sort of person), or "lo [insert verb here]" : (don't do that). I was once told that the word "asur" is to be taken : literally, but the other terms are not as strong, and simply means that : these actions are ideally to be avoided, actually mutar (which might : also be RTK's point). Which is why I quibbled with RnTK's language. Becauser I think it's assur -- really and actually assur -- not to try for perishus where possible. It's a bitul asei of "qedoshim tihyu". However, a mitzvah of hilkhos dei'os is to stretch, to move the nequdas habechirah and is therefore not only "at least partly subjective" but necessarily subjective. And if the criteria for behavior could be spelled out non-subjectively, they would be spelled out in chovos ha'eivarim. : I had posted: :: Zeh haklal: Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. :: Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. : R' Micha Berger responded: :> ... because of the biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: :> ... 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... : Really? Can we really survive without it? You and me, I suppose, : but that's because we are male. Under normal circumstances, one can't go 3 days without food and water. Not just "one would be miserable if", but actual death. I am not sure how you could compare the need for intimacy to that kind of mechanistic do-or-die. : RTK referenced mitzvas onah. In the Torah's view, sex is as essential : as food and shelter are. But only for women. I disagree. And BTW, my #1 which you ellided /was/ mitzvas onah. : Regardless of whether we're talking about physical closeness : or emotional closeness, it seems that the Torah is concerned about : closeness only for the woman, and not for the man. For women, closeness : is a need which must be met; for men, closeness is a taavah which must : be controlled. Or, the Torah presumes that opportunity is in the hands of men. Not a difference in desire. Or -- a 3rd possibility -- lehefech, men are presumed more likely to get distracted by their own taavos and objectify their spouse and therefore the chiyuv of onah to focus on someone else's psychological needs. In any case, the requirement to avoid misery would motivate a chiyuv, one needn't define it as a need. Esperically since biologically, it's not necessary for survival the way food, drink or air are. But getting back to what you're saying here... Let me repeat point #1 in different phrasing: Because onah is indeed a chiyuv, saying that it should be minimized outside the realm of mitzvah isn't that much of a minimization. And yet, the threat of erotic desire becoming an end in itself is both more damaging, since there will be other victims beyond the self-destructive aspect and more likely. (In most people's psychology -- it's not like there is an internet food "porn" industry.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Jul 29 15:37:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 22:37:27 GMT Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months Message-ID: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> R' Eli Turkel asked: > The gemara says that Yoseph was certainly alive because Yaakov > mourned him the whole time while we know that the dead are > forgotten after 12 months ... > > I have a personal problem with this statement. ... one never > forgets a child R"n Toby Katz answered: > I don't think "gezeira al hameis" means the person is literally > forgotten, but that the degree of mourning becomes less intense. > ... the parent goes on with life, even if a heaviness always > remains somewhere in the background. I have had the same question as RET, and I thank RTK for this answer. I have written on several occasions, about my belief that Chazal often exaggerate, and this misleads those who are not used to their style of speaking. I think we have here another example of the same thing. There's a tendency to take Chazal at literal face value. We need to be more careful when reading the poetry. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 08:02:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:02:31 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Parallels in Kiruv Message-ID: <56c357c0b3404dbcbfc7bce2d25a6162@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Here's a quote from "Their Rock is Not Like Our Rock" - Daniel Strange In a recent article addressed to evangelical pastors I outlined a three-point "to do" list that might begin to move us into this stance: * Develop and deploy a biblically rich and nuanced theology of religions * Discern and denounce the arrogance and intolerance of pluralism * Demonstrate and display, in both word and deed, the unique power of the gospel to change lives and communities My impression is the first two are not generally done by kiruv folks but I was wondering if you replace gospel with orthodoxy and evangelical pastors with kiruv professionals, what fits? Should it be considered as an approach? Kol Tuv, 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 09:30:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:30:47 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: 'oh hanisa elokim' is one; the other is in parshat haman , i forget which one. will leave the dvar tora connecting the two , to others , other than to say the import of 'zeh gilui shechina' and lechem mishamayim as fundaments of faith,,,, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 10:38:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 13:38:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: From: Eli Turkel via Avodah " 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach -- Eli Turkel >>>>> Don't know if this is what you had in mind but I can think of these: [1] A woman cannot be married without her consent -- learn from Lavan -- "Nish'alah es pi hana'arah" before sending Rivka off with Eliezer to marry Yitzchak. [2] A younger sister cannot marry before the older sister (unless she gets permission from her) -- from Lavan again, excusing himself for giving Leah to Yakov instead of Rachel. [3] Celebrating seven days of sheva brachos -- from two places. One is Lavan again -- give Leah a week to celebrate and then Yakov can marry Rachel. And from the Pelishti "friends" of Shimshon who celebrated his wedding for a week. [4] We also learn from Izevel (Jezebel) that it's a big mitzva to dance at a wedding, to be mesameach chassan vekallah, but strictly speaking this is not in Tanach, it's a midrash. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 11:41:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:41:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: In Avodah V33n109, RET posted > Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters of the alph-bet (I only know one) < In the Torah, a *pasuq* in P'Va'eschanan (4 :34) is usually noted, but it (containing letter *sin* but no *shin*) works only when the *shin* and the *sin* are considered the same letter (they are, so long as we're considering the written form). The other *pasuq* in the Torah of which I'm aware is Shmos 16 :16 (in it, the *shin* is extant but there's no *sin*). All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 15:30:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 18:30:53 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] avelut after 12 months In-Reply-To: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150729.183727.16223.0@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150730223053.GA17753@aishdas.org> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 10:37:27PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : I have written on several occasions, about my belief that Chazal often : exaggerate, and this misleads those who are not used to their style of : speaking. I think we have here another example of the same thing. There's : a tendency to take Chazal at literal face value. We need to be more : careful when reading the poetry. Tanakh sometimes does something else with a similar effect, and it may be what Chazal are doing here. Lei'ah, rather than being described as "less loved" is "senu'ah". It's not necessarily exageration as much as a language norm to express a relative statement uing the same terms as absolutes. Here too chazal are making a comparison. Was the reader expected to know it's guzma, or was the norm in mishnaic Hebrew as well to use the term for the end of the spectrum to mean "less mourned than"? My problem with this is the parent of the MIA who can't let go for years or decades, and then it's found out that the chayal r"l was killed upon capture (or their body was taken after petirah for a bargaining chip). We have no experimental evidence of parents having that mystical knowledge of their children's state, and quite a bit of evidence otherwise. Perhaps Yaaqov avinu, or even someone with "just" ruach haqodesh is that aware of what's going on on the plane of souls without learning about them through normal olam hazeh means. But I do not see it being true of the majority of humanity. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The trick is learning to be passionate in one's micha at aishdas.org ideals, but compassionate to one's peers. http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Jul 30 20:39:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 03:39:12 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> I tried to make the point that although many try to show similarites between food and sex, if we look at the Torah's view, there are far more differences. I suggested a rule of thumb: > Eating is proper as long as you don't overdo it. > Sex is proper as long as you minimize it. Chazal see food as an entirely proper way of enjoying olam hazeh, to the point that it is actively encouraged as a form of all sorts of celebrations. (And not only happy celebrations, but eating is also involved in various mourning practices.) Under normal circumstances, one can and should eat as much as he needs, subject to the limitations of kashrus and brachos. One is never allowed to eat in a quantity or manner that he becomes a menuval, but that is not a major concern. Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah. And even there, the restrictions are many. Food has tremendous room for creativity even within the restrictions of hilchos kashrus and brachos. Sex could be similar, even within the bounds of hilchos nidda and arayos, but the restrictions set out in OC 240 go much farther than merely to insure that one does not become a menuval. R' Micha Berger responded: > I think the difference is just about that, but because of the > biological differences. Sex differs in two ways: > 1- It involves a second party. There is no threat of > objectifying [food]. > 2- You can survive without it. A few days without food though... > Therefore, the attitude toward perishus for each comes from > opposite directions. For food, which is necessary for survival, > we talk about how much is too much. For sex, we talk about the > right balance between keeping the other happy (chiyuv onah) > and turning them into a tool for your own happiness. I think that he is agreeing with me that food and sex are very different, but I disagree with his explanation of *why* they are so different. In his first point, intended to be "food"), he seems to feel that the restrictions on sex are to prevent people from taking advantage of each other: If I have even a small desire for a snack, the Torah has no problem at all if I go to the kitchen and take an apple (provided that I say the bracha to acknowledge Hashem's involvement) because the apple is nothing more than an apple. But while casual eating is fine, casual sex is not. Casual sex involves people, and they must not be taken advantage of. My problem with this is on several levels. First, Chazal are pretty explicit that the purpose of Hilchos Nida is to restore a honeymoon-style atmosphere on a regular basis, and that alone might suffice to insure that spouses aren't objectified. Also, we have the many parts of OC 240 which insure that husband and wife are in the same "place" emotionally: no one is drunk, words of "ritzui", and so on. But isn't that sufficient protection against objectifying? What is gained from the additional restrictions (such as various positions, or finishing quickly) which have no parallel in food? In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach the Torah uses for Onah. While men and women are pretty much identical in the halachos of food, Onah places the husband and wife in opposite situations. Any discussion of Onah that uses the word "spouse" will be flawed, because Onah treats the husband and wife so differently. For example, whenever the wife desires relations, then the husband has a clear and present chiyuv d'Oraisa. But if the husband desires, she has no corresponding obligation; in fact (if I'm not mistaken) she's not even labeled as a "moredet" until after prolonged and repeated refusals. It seems to me that Onah may have the effect of objectifying males. Those parts of Orach Chaim 240 which forbid unwilling relations ought to suffice to insure that the women are not objectified. But Onah seems to push the pendulum too far. In response to RTK, RMB wrote: > I'm not sure it's "hashkafah" as much as Hilkhos Dei'os / Chovos > haLvavos. After all "Qedoshim tihyu" is a chiyuv, not a nicety, > and that's a source for "perushim tihyu". > What a mitzvah to be or to become something (such as "qadosh") > is in practice, though, is inherently situational and subjective. > If we were talking about something reducible to black-letter > halakhah and objective rules, it would have been. And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective rules", is it not? Akiva Miller From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 1 22:55:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 00:55:06 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: I initially replied on Areivim to a post reminding women during the summer to cover their hair. Mrs. Katz added that there was no support for those who hold that hair covering in public is not necessary. Others have disputed what RYBS's position on hair covering was, in view of the fact that his wife did NOT cover her hair in public at all times(someone seems to have the impression that she wore a hat). Here are the sources I have collected, in addition to the fact that a significant percentage of Modern Orthodox women to not cover their hair in public except in shul/davening situations. In response to those who have stated that the younger more educated women are covering their hair, I would point out that they have been educated to believe that it is an obligation, and the permissive sources have not been shared with them- case in point Mrs. Katz who either is not aware or chooses to dismiss them out of hand. In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is: if it is the practice of women to cover [their hair] and she uncovered it, then this is immodesty ( *ervah*). But if it was not the regular practice [of women] to cover [their hair] then [going uncovered] is not in the category of immodesty at all. If they uncover one hand?s-breadth in a place where they are habituated to cover then it is [a case of] uncovering immodesty and it is prohibited to read the Shema prayer in their presence... But if their (ladies?) custom is to uncover their hair (or a hand?s-breadth of the body) ? as single women do who by custom walk around with head [hair] uncovered - then this [action] does not constitute immodesty (*ervah*)." If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. Here is a list of easily accessable sources: Rabbi Marc Angel(former president of the Rabbinical Council of America) discusses why hair covering is not mandated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbrQwEerLsY Massive article by Rabbi Michael Broyde: http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/0095-0180.pdf I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and everyone can come to their own conclusion. Rav Yosef Haim(author of Ben Ish Chai) writing that hair covering is not necessary(and how his opinion was altered by others): http://text.rcarabbis.org/the-ben-ish-hai-and-women%E2%80%99s-hair-covering-an-interesting-case-of-censorship-by-jacob-sasson/ See Rabbi Broyde's article(pages 155-158) for citations of those who state that hair covering is not mandated in the current society: R. Yitzchak Hurwitz in Yad HaLevi R. Moshe Malka(late Chief Rabbi of Petach Tikvah) R. Josef Messas(late chief rabbi of Morocco and later Haifa) R. Yaakov Haim Sofer Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did not cover her hair? Was this permitted by the *halachah*, or was it not prohibited on the grounds of modesty? He took out a *Gemara Berachot*, opened it to page 24A and showed me the Talmudic statement. "Said Rav Sheshet: [showing] hair by a woman is *ervah *(an act of immodesty)." Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with uncovered hair. Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat common. Some will say that- 'they couldn't control their wives' or other such statements. I would point out that RYBS also went to the opera- perhaps in keeping with an approach that hair wasn't erva, a lenient view of kol isha, all of which seems consistent. Furthermore, it seems quite far fetched that a rav who knew that he had great communal status would abide by gross violation of halacha in public by his own family, and at the very least would make it clear that he did not hold by it. Obviously, the fact that he did not make a deal of it(certainly not a big deal), illustrates something. Do you think he would countenance his wife eating treif? furthermore, the chiyyuv is also for men not to see hair(if that is the position that is being taken), and by not protesting his wife's uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 2 03:40:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 13:40:06 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: <<> 2) name at least 2 halachot that we learn from wicked people in Tanach 1. The definition of an "edah" from "this wicked edah". 2. Hezek re'iyah from Bil'am. 3. Standing for a davar shebikdusha, from Eglon. >> Some others are: 4. Lavan: Sheva Brachot; also the Bracha we give the Kalla at the bedeken 5. also "chaye shaah" is less important that "chaye olam" from the 4 lepers, gechazi and his sons -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 2 01:25:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 11:25:27 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: ""It's a big machlokes - there's gotta be someone who paskens the way I want, so that's what I'm gonna do." I shudder when I hear otherwise-observant people saying such things. There are indeed some cases where there is such a *lack* of consensus among the poskim that one can do as he wants (one of my teachers paskened this way and for this reason regarding brachos on dessert), but I do not see Siman 240 in this category. We seem to be abandoning the consensus of the Shulchan Aruch and Nosei Keilim, and running to minority rishonim." R' Lichtenstein was bothered by this point and answered that we need to rely on our teachers and Gedolim. "Probably most significant, however, is our reliance upon our own mentors. Sensing that modern gedolim, ?the judge of your era??for our purposes, most notably, the Rav, but not he alone?have examined the issue and the evidence and adopted a positive stance, we, ordinary students of Torah, follow in their footsteps as we identify with their position. Whether they felt justified in accepting, out of the depths of their own conviction, a minority view; whether they held that our topic was essen- tially a matter of hashkafic proclivity, not necessarily amenable to the nor- mal procedures of pesak; or whether some other unknown but imagined element?might, for instance, the hospitable climate of Kabbalistic sources, have had some impact?is a matter for conjecture. That the authority of our mentors can inform and sustain our sensibility is not." I understand that for many of us that is not a very satisfying answer and leads to many questions about why specifically here we follow minority opinions as opposed to other places (e.g. wombs issues, etc.) but I don't think there is a better answer. This is the way the halachic system works. Even after all of this, R' Lichtenstein himself was bothered by this very point: "I am left, nonetheless, with a lacuna. Even while adhering to the Rav?s position, one may freely concede wishing that he had done for us what we have been challenged and constrained to do here: examine the various tiers of tradition and elucidate the basis for his own judgment and commitment." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 01:21:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:21:03 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on tefillin Message-ID: There is a disagreement between Rashi/Rambam and R Tam whether one says one or two brachot on tefillin of the arm and head. While sefardim follow SA and say one bracha ashkenazim follow R Tam and say 2 brachot bur add "baruch shem kvod ..." to avoid a bracha le-vatala I have 2 things I don't understand about the ashkenazi minhag 1) The usual rule is "safek bracha le-kula" and so when in doubt don't say a bracha 2) How does saying "barch shem" help ? We have many disagreements about brachot. For example ashkenazim (again following R Tam) say brachot on customs, eg half hallel. We don't add "baruch shem ..." in these cases. Why only in tefillin? Furthermore whenever there is a doubt about a bracha (classical case is if one forgot to count the omer at night and remembered during the day) why do the act without a bracha - why not say the bracha and add "baruch shem" -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 07:43:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:43:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150730.233912.12529.1@webmail04.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150803144333.GA30399@aishdas.org> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 03:39:12AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed : in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah... ... and priya verivya, no? : Food has tremendous room for creativity even within : the restrictions of hilchos kashrus and brachos. Sex could be similar, : even within the bounds of hilchos nidda and arayos, but the restrictions : set out in OC 240 go much farther than merely to insure that one does : not become a menuval. ... : I think that he is agreeing with me that food and sex are very different, : but I disagree with his explanation of *why* they are so different. I have the same assessment. I am saying that the same principle of when perishus is appropriate is very different for food vs sex because food and sex are different in nature. Summarizing my point #1: : But while casual eating is fine, casual sex is : not. Casual sex involves people, and they must not be taken advantage of. : : My problem with this is on several levels. First, Chazal are pretty : explicit that the purpose of Hilchos Nida is to restore a honeymoon-style : atmosphere on a regular basis, and that alone might suffice to insure : that spouses aren't objectified.... If your objection is based on the "might suffice", all one needs to assert is or might not. : What is gained from the additional : restrictions (such as various positions, or finishing quickly) which : have no parallel in food? I am not sure that prohibitions based on mood are sufficient, as it's too easy to fool oneself about what the other person really wants. In any case, you return to OC 240 again at the end of the post and ask: : And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective : rules", is it not? Perhaps not. Is OC 1 black-letter halakhah? Is hitting the snooze button, or even lying around for a few seconds before getting up, actually assur? For that matter, there is a mitzvah to remember right vs left when putting on and tying shoes, but do you really think someone was oveir an issur if they don't? As the AhS OC often notes, the style of the SA is just to discuss do vs don't, and it blurs the distinctions between levels of issur -- a deOraisa can be next to an accepted minhag, and both may even be written in parallel language. : In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival : without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, : psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach : the Torah uses for Onah. : : While men and women are pretty much identical in the halachos of food, : Onah places the husband and wife in opposite situations... Whereas moredes has no parallel because she cannot initiate a gett. And for that matter, it has no parallel because he is obligated to support here. For that matter, the assymetry in who supports who is quite possibly why HQBH set up an assymetric process for gittin. The man who obligates himself in support can get of it. Onah is a protection against that objectification. Against turning that whole support thing into near prostitution. And with onah, the outcome is more symmetric -- he can end a marriage if dissatisfied, and is obligated to keep her satisfied. Without which BD can force him to willingly end the marriage. (Just paraphrasing the din...) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is a stage and we are the actors, micha at aishdas.org but only some of us have the script. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Menachem Nissel Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 3 08:17:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:17:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] bracha on tefillin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150803151733.GB30399@aishdas.org> On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:21:03AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I have 2 things I don't understand about the ashkenazi minhag : : 1) The usual rule is "safek bracha le-kula" and so when in doubt don't say : a bracha : 2) How does saying "bar[u]ch shem" help ? ... The AhS (OC 25:11 ) agrees with you on both points, and therefore posits (se'ifim 12-13) a totally different meaning to the 2nd berakhah. And even though shel yad and shel rosh are two different of the 613, we make one berakhah on maaser rishon and maaser sheini. He also quotes that the BY rejects a possibility that if someone talks between the two tefillin, he would have to make both berakhos on the shel rosh -- repeting "lehaniach" and yet still saying "al mitzvah". But even though he uses this as proof, he requires (se'if 16, following the Ran via the MA s"q 15) loosening the shel yad so that you are still saying "lehaniach" the 2nd time on both. This is a pretty big chiddush, a birkhas hoda'ah that says "asher qidshanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu al mitzvas..." However, similar arguments are made about Birkhas haTorah, if one says the berakhah is deOraisa (Ramban) and therefore "aqb"v la'asoq bedivrei Torah" can't be a birkhas hamitzvah. The IM says as much (OC 2:3). : We don't add "baruch shem ..." in these cases. Why only in tefillin? Leshitas AhS, it follows enacting the qesher gadol between us and HQBH for the same reason the pasuq is said after the first pasuq of Shema. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value, micha at aishdas.org but by rubbing one stone against another, http://www.aishdas.org sparks of fire emerge. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:04:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kenneth Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 17:04:47 GMT Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> I wrote: : Sex is also an enjoyment of olam hazeh, but I've seen this expressed : in only two areas: Oneg Shabbos and Chiyuv Onah... R' Micha Berger asked: > ... and priya verivya, no? I was trying to show differences between sex and food. I would say that, in the eyes of Halacha, there is no connection between pirya v'rivya and the olam-hazeh enjoyment of sex, in exactly the same manner that there is no connection between achilas matzah and the olam-hazeh enjoyment of food. The latter is a means of internalizing a historical connection, and the former is a biological imperative, but neither has any connection to olam-hazeh enjoyment. However, that it not to say that halacha is blind to the fact that sex *IS* enjoyable. This is recognized by the mitzvah of Oneg Shabbos, where if the act is to be done once a week, then Shabbos is receommended. Chiyuv Onah also recognizes that if the wife has a taavah for this particular hanaah, then it is the husband's obligation to satisfy her taavah. But pirya v'rivya? No, I don't see evidence of that. I asked: : And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective : rules", is it not? RMB suggested: > Perhaps not. Is OC 1 black-letter halakhah? Is hitting the snooze > button, or even lying around for a few seconds before getting up, > actually assur? For that matter, there is a mitzvah to remember > right vs left when putting on and tying shoes, but do you really > think someone was oveir an issur if they don't? I agree that there are degrees of obligation. A simple verb like "yaaseh" clearly implies a smaller obligation than "chayav laasos". "Must" is much stronger than "should". But if a subject makes it into Shulchan Aruch - as these did - that also shows a stronger obligation than something that appears only in Mesilas Yesharim, or even Gemara for that matter. Yes, I do think that when the alarm clock rings, one has an obligation to seriously consider whether he really *needs* to stay in bed a little longer, or whether he merely *wants* to. And I will admit that - b'shaas maaseh - I rarely consider that as seriously as I should. And that's one of the things I'm trying to improve on. Same thing for tying my shoes - I think that by now I do it correctly by habit, but I'm not really sure, and I'll try to remember to watch myself tomorrow morning. RMB wrote: > Whereas moredes has no parallel because she cannot initiate a gett. And > for that matter, it has no parallel because he is obligated to support > here. For that matter, the assymetry in who supports who is quite > possibly why HQBH set up an assymetric process for gittin. The man who > obligates himself in support can get of it. Yes, I agree that this could be part of why Hashem set it up that way. But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no corresponding safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. Akiva Miller ____________________________________________________________ Old School Yearbook Pics View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55c0f0f9c892870f9653ast02vuc From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:43:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:43:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos Message-ID: <117801d0cedd$1904bea0$4b0e3be0$@com> > But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan > Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went > uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why > aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? Good question. I can't help but thinking that this is one of those (many) halachic issues where the hanhaga of Klal yisroel in certain halachic (or hashkafic) areas has developed to be inline with yechidim than with the majority of chazal/rishonim/etc Why this happens is certainly a discussion - is it societal / siata shimaya guiding Klal yisroel / etc We have many others similar to this (some d'oriasa, some d'rabbanan) - human hair sheitals, chadash, live music after the churban, etc. When this should happen (and when it should be fought), I will leave to the einei haeida. Mordechai Cohen From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 10:49:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Baruch Cohen via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 10:49:07 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Halachic Requirement for Dayanim Evaluating In-Person Facial Expressions of Parties in Bais Din In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: List Mates: In an AMI issue that was reported in VosIzNais, Rabbi Hershel Schachter was quoted as saying: ""*There is a Mishna in Pirkei Avos that the oilam says a vort on. It says, "K'sheyihiyu habaalei dinim lifanecha, yihiyu b'einecha k'resha'im. K'she'yaamdu m'lifanecha yihiyub'einecha k'tzaddikim, shekiblu aleihem es hadin." ["When the litigants stand before you (the judges), they should be in your eyes like wicked people. When they stand up from being in front of you, they should be in your eyes like righteous people, because they have accepted the judgment."] They say from a few different dayanim that they would put a tallis over their face, to not see the face of a rasha. But that is wrong; part of the din Torah is to look at the person and see from his facial expression and how he talks...whether or not he is saying the truth. You have to be able to detect whether he is telling the truth*.'" ( http://www.vosizneias.com/92931/2011/10/11/new-york-in-exclusive-ami-magzine-intreview-noted-rabbi-schachter-slams-set-up-of-rabbinical-court-system/ ) Is there a Halacha that you can direct me to that mandates in-person and face-to-face participation by the parties to a Bais Din for the reasons given by Rabbi Schechter? I found this... The seating configuration of the Sanhedrin ??????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?? ?? The Mishnah describes how the members of the Sanhedrin sat in a row in the shape of a half-circle in order *for each person to be able to see everyone else*. Why was it necessary for everyone to be able to have direct eye contact with everyone else? Rashi explains that it is only when people have direct sight of each other that they can listen and then argue and debate with each other. ?"????? elaborates and says that when people argue and express their views, they often rise from their seats. If they did not sit facing each other, it is quite possible that they would not be able to hear when a person turns as he speaks from a standing position. Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin 1:3) explains that this arrangement was used in order for the President (????) and the Av Beis Din to be able to see everyone. Lechem Mishneh notes that this was a sign of respect for these leaders to sit in the middle and for everyone to easily be able to listen to them. Rashi also addresses why the Sanhedrin sat in a half-circle rather than in a full circle. From a technical standpoint, the witnesses and litigants would have to have a way to enter the circle to present themselves in front of the judges (see Rashi, Chullin 5a). Furthermore, if the judges sat in a full circle, while the witnesses would be facing some of the judges, their backs would be turned toward the others. *The judges might have a hard time hearing the witnesses and litigants, or they would not be able to see them as they spoke. Facial expressions and other subtleties are essential in communication, and the judges must be able to pick up on any and all such nuances during the deliberations*. The Tosefta (8:1) cites differing opinions regarding the seating position of the President of the Sanhedrin. Tanna Kamma holds that the President sat in the center of the semi-circle, with thirty-five of the members of the Sanhedrin seated on each side of him. R' Elazar b. Tzadok says that when Rabban Gamliel sat in the Sanhedrin in Yavne, one of the sages sat to his right, and all the others sat to his left. Rambam (ibid.) writes that the ???? sat with the Av Beis Din to his right, and the rest of the sages to his left, seated according to their ages and their wisdom, with the wisest among them to his immediate left, and the rest seated closer according to their level. Radva"z and Kesef Mishneh ask why Rambam does not rule according to Tanna Kamma, and, as he rules according to R' Elazar b. Tzadok, why the row begins with the Av Beis Din, and not with the ???? himself. Radva"z explains that it was not only the Av Beis Din who sat to the right of the ????, but the ???? sat in the middle, as Tanna Kamma explains, with the Av Beis Din to his immediate right. ??? ???? explains that Rambam rules according to R' Elazar b. Tzadok because he cites the actual case of Rabban Gamliel http://www.dafdigest.org/Sanhedrin/Sanhedrin%20036.pdf -- Respectfully, Baruch C. Cohen, Esq. Law Office of Baruch C. Cohen, APLC Los Angeles, CA 90010 e-mail: BCC4929 at gmail.com From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:24:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:24:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> From: Kenneth Miller via Avodah >> In RMB's second point, he contrasts survival without sex and survival without food. While it is true that sex is not required for physical life, psychologically it's a whole different story, and that's the approach the Torah uses for Onah. [snip] It seems to me that Onah may have the effect of objectifying males. << Akiva Miller >>>>>> To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without reproduction. Our nitzchius is absolutely dependent on this particular activity, which is why "peru urevu" is actually a mitzva and not "mutar if you wish." It is Hashem's chessed that He made this activity intrinsically pleasurable. If you were a robot or an alien without human emotions and you witnessed this human activity, you would wonder, "What the heck are these humans doing? And why?!" I am not an expert on male physiology but I am under the impression that for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. This reminds me of something else I wanted to say in response to some of RMB's posts. He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her. But human beings derive pleasure from each other all the time, whether the pleasure is a stimulating conversation, "please scratch my back," playing with a delightful, cuddly baby -- I could go on and on -- and it is just absurd to think that if another person gives me some kind of pleasure, I have "objectified" that person. Not to forget the main point I wanted to make: sex /is/ necessary for survival, and therefore some comparison to eating food /is/ valid. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:57:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:57:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> References: <16fc08.4ebdb7e9.42f25d6b@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150804185730.GA28011@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 02:24:43PM -0400, RnTK wrote: : To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS : required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human : species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without : reproduction... The question is the difference in relationship a person to their hunger compared to their sex drive. You appear to only be objecting to an overly broad use of "required for survival" by not saying "individual's survival", without touching the point that people relate to each desire very differently. (You also seem to ignore non-reproductive sex -- an infertile couple, post-menapouse, etc...) .... : This reminds me of something else I wanted to say in response to some of : RMB's posts. He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from : being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her... Pleasure is a positive thing, as long as it's not the only thing. It's turning a wife into a cheftzah by which he obtains his pleasure that is literally objectifying. If the husband is forced to think about her perspective, his wife as a person, during relations, the risk of the pursuit of pleasure taking over to that point, the mutual search for pleasure is humanizing and bonding, quite the reverse. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 11:10:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 14:10:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150804181031.667AC180E06@nexus.stevens.edu> At 01:51 PM 8/4/2015, Noam Stadlan wrote: >If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered >hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. Is it really true that what women in the general society do is some standard for tznius for Jewish women. If so, then the practices of "well undressed" gentile women (as R. A Miller used to call them) of today have eliminated all tznius standards. One sees women in public today dressed in almost nothing. [Email #2] At 01:51 PM 8/4/2015, Noam Stadlan wrote: >Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat >common. Just because something is or was commonly done does not make is correct according to halacha. Many, many people talk loshon hara, yet it is not proper according to halacha. [Email #3] Please see Covering the Hair by Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 13:07:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 23:07:57 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: >> Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters >> of the alph-bet (I only know one) < [R' Michael Poppers:] > In the Torah, a *pasuq* in P'Va'eschanan (4:34 > ) is usually noted, but it > (containing letter *sin* but no *shin*) works only when the *shin* and the > *sin* are considered the same letter (they are, so long as we're > considering the written form). The other *pasuq* in the Torah of which I'm > aware is Shmos 16 :16 (in it, > the *shin* is extant but there's no *sin*). We still need another 3 pesukim in the rest of Nach including one that has not only the 22 letters of the alphabet but also all the end letters -- Eli Turkel [Well in I already wrote: > Soferim use Tzefania 3:8 to show their penmanship, because it not > only includes all 22 letters, it also includes all the sofios. Is > that a way to denote total ultimate justice (the meaning of the words > ) or what? -micha] From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 4 15:31:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Simon Montagu via Avodah) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:31:53 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I see your pesukim and raise you a medieval Hebrew poem of four lines, where each line contains every letter of the alef-beit including sofiot exactly once with no repetition: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pagefeed/hebrewbooks_org_38040_154.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 5 02:53:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 05:53:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" Message-ID: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> I think a philosophy book just came out detending a variant of RSSchwab's "two clocks" explanation of ma'aseh bereishis. RSS's shitah appeared in AOJS's Challenge (ed. R Aryeh Carmel, R/Prof Cyril Domb pg 164 onward. surveys the area and summarized RSS as follows: Similarly, Rav Shimon Schwab talks of two types of time, cosmic time and earthly time. The 6 days of creation are counted according to cosmic time, during which period millions of years may have passed according to our measure of time. (Althugh I disagree with their next sentence on REED's position.) Now for the book. I just got this review : > he Fall and Hypertime > Hud Hudson, Oxford University Press, 2014, 211pp., $65.00 (hbk), > ISBN 0198712693. > Reviewed by Trent Dougherty, Baylor University > Hud Hudson's book is a brilliant and creative defense of the following > proposition. > There is a conflict between a literal reading of the book of > Genesis and science only if one assumes that the hypertime hypothesis > is false. > The import of Hudson's thesis is that those who allege a conflict between > science and a literal reading of Genesis are not basing that claim merely > on science but on controversial metaphysics as well.,,, > To understand the hypertime hypothesis (hereafter "HH"), begin > with the "growing block" theory of time, one of the standard set of > options. According to this theory, the past is real and "still exists" > as a "block" as spacetime and the future is "open," i.e. the future > does not exist. The block grows as the quantity of either space or > time increases. Hudson notes that there is nothing more intrinsically > mysterious about the block losing parts than its gaining parts. He > then points out that it is also not more intrinsically mysterious that > a "morphing block" shrink or grow not just in units of hyperplanes > ("slices" of the block) but also in sub-regions of hyperplanes. As a > result, there are no in principle limits to the ways in which a block can > morph, to the "shape" it can take. Furthermore, there is no good reason > why the hyperplanes (or sub-regions thereof) might not be "reshuffled" > in a different order. > Because the universe is here modeled as a spacetime block, the temporal > dimension only measures changes within the block. Hypertime measures, > as we may think of it, changes to the block (though technically blocks > at different hypertimes are numerically distinct,and there remains a > question concerning the status of various essentialisms about blocks > with respect to their parts). That means that at any given moment on > the hypertimeline, there can be a complete spacetime block, a complete > physical universe distinct from blocks at different hypertimes. Given > infinite hypertime, this generates a plurality of worlds not unlike that > of David Lewis. Hudson applies the possibility of this plurality in three > ways: to an understanding of omnipresence (which I will not discuss), to > (three versions of) the problem of evil (one of which I'll discuss below), > and in defense of his main thesis. The way HH helps with an understanding > of omniscience and the problem of evil gives it credit and motivates > it as a viable option so that its application to the main thesis is > not ad hoc (though it's being ad hoc would not prevent its success for > its purpose). I will describe the application to the problem of evil, > offer a criticism, then describe its application to the main thesis. > If there is a plenitude of spatiotemporally discrete universes, then it is > difficult to infer from any empirical observation that the actual world > is not the best possible world. It is important to remember that on the > hypertime hypothesis the spacetime blocks at different hypermoments are > only one portion of total reality. Our observable universe is a drop > in the bucket. So an argument from evil against the existence of God > from ours not being the best possible world would have to argue that > the observable universe could not even be a part of the best possible > world. That is not clearly an easy argument to make. > This move takes the form of what is traditionally called a "defense" > rather than a "theodicy"... Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 5 15:22:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 18:22:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Pesak and Safeik Message-ID: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> Anyone know a source (or at least a theory) that discusses when we treat a machloqes as a safeiq, rather than applying the rules of peaq? The issue comes up in AhS YD 24:42. (Mazal tovs on completing OC will be graciously accepted.) Siman 24 discusses 4 of the 5 halakhos leMoshe miSinai of shechitah. (Shehiyah got its own siman.) There is a machloqes between the Behag and Rashi about the line between aqirah and tereifos. Rashi says that aqira is the displacement of the qaneh or veshet caused by using a nicked knife. Most rishonim hold like the Behag, and then there is a submachloqes about what kind of dislocated simanim are aqirah, ad what are tereifos. Leshitas Rashi, they would all be tereifos. Anyway, here the AhS says that Rama holds that midinei shechitah, we are machmir for every definition of aqirah. But midinei tereifah, which differ in that it would also prohibit the milk or eggs from such an animal, we recognize that the iqar hedin if the Behag, and are meiqil. So okay, one tiny bit of my question is answered -- we have a special rule by shechitah that machloqesin are resolved by safeiq deOraisa lehachmir. But WRT tereifos.... The AhS says that despite the Rama, we are nohagim lehachmir. So, while the Rama thinks this is a case where the rules of pesaq apply, the AhS says "we" disagree and treat it like a safeiq. Why? I also realize the line isn't all-or-nothing. I presume that not every shitah rises to the level of creating a safeiq, so there is some kind of pesaq-like reasoning necessary to assess which do and which don't. So it's more an issue of how balanced do shitos have to be for us to be unwilling to pasqen and just assume it's a safeiq. But still, these two acharonim are setting te line at a different place. So, does anyoe discuss the kelalim of when to bail out from the (other) kelalei pesaq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight, micha at aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too." http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 07:47:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:47:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] They Found Gat Message-ID: <20150806144710.GA2303@aishdas.org> As you may have heard, a team found the gates of Gat, Golias's home town. And, as I've noticed in the past, the question of whether they find evidence of the events as found in Tanakh or evidence against can be predicted in advance by checking the religious stance of who is running the dig. So you get this story from Haaretz : Philistine City of Gath a Lot More Powerful Than Thought, Archaeologists Suggest Powerful fortifications newly uncovered by Israeli archaeologists suggest the kingdoms of Saul, David may not have been quite as powerful as thought. Nir Hasson Aug 04, 2015 3:08 AM [IDT] ... According to Maeir, the discovery of Gath as a huge, fortified city on the border of Judea during an extended period, without any signs of destruction as a result of a war with Judea, proves the Philistines controlled the Judean plain. Because Khirbet Kaifa existed for a relatively short period -- about 30 years -- it is likely the remnant of a failure of the Israelite kingdom to spread westward and not a sign of its power. "The Judean kingdom is supposed to be big, important and strong," says Maeir. "But it turns out there is a very big city on its western border. For years, I claimed Gath was a big city, but they countered that it has no lower city, and if it has one it is not fortified. After finding a huge fortification, its clearly the most important city of the 10th and ninth centuries." Now, to get a hint of how we would have heard about Gat had the dig been run by a bilical maximalist, here's an element mentioned in : Near the gate, Maeirs team also unearthed the remains of the citys extensive fortification wall, a Philistine temple, ironwork and pottery. While the pottery bears hallmarks of the distinctive Philistine style, elements of Israelite techniques can be seen on the fragments as well, indicating there was more interaction between the two cultures than previously thought. Since Pelishti culture was importing Jewish culture, doesn't that lend MORE credibity to the idea that David haMelekh's kingdom was at east on the same scale if not overshadowing theirs? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life is complex. micha at aishdas.org Decisions are complex. http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 15:28:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 23:28:31 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] : Re: De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> RAM writes: >And yet, Orach Chayim 240 *IS* "black-letter halakhah and objective rules", is it not? In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? And further read the Tur (and the meforshim on the Tur) in Even HaEzer simin 25 to get a fuller picture of the sources (and the original gemora sources) - so you can see the history of the machlokus on how to deal with this issue all the way back. As Rav Lichtenstein articulated it, the question is not so much that we differ from the position of Chazal, as our position (and the one quoted by the Rema) is much more in line with the majority position in Chazal, but why did the major rishonim - Rambam, Ra'avid etc differ so markedly from what appears to be the majority position in Chazal and posken - well like Rabbi Eliezer (shmuti hu?), as then did the Achronim. I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the influence of the outside world. The same sort of influence that reputedly led to the cherem of Rabbi Gershom (Jews who are supposed to be the upholders of morality cannot be seen to have more than one wife in a world where that is seen as immoral). In a world which identified relations with sin and death (standard Xtian theology of the time, and the Muslim theology in many circles was not that different) - it would have been inappropriate, and led to general looseness if the general non Jewish world view had been repudiated to the extent consonant with the positive positions found in Chazal. Hence Orech Chaim, the book most accessible to the masses, contains not a word of the Rema's position, that is buried in Even HaEzer, where it is more likely only the scholarly will look (or from the point of view of Maran, go look in the Tur). But to talk about relations positively in an open way in Xtian Europe would have created temptations for the non Jewish world that would have unleashed a level of vengeance (eg from the priesthood) that could likely not be endured. There was a lot of censoring and self censoring that went on in all sorts of areas, it seems to me also here, especially as there are the minority positions to bring and rely on. Only in the modern day world which has swung so far the other way is it possible to honestly and openly evaluate the position of Chazal, and that is what in effect has been done, by Rav Lichtenstein and others. >Akiva Miller Regards Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 6 17:28:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 00:28:27 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? Message-ID: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Apparently, In the U.S., the therapist's duties are owed to the client, subject to statutory obligations such as the mandatory-reporting requirement. There is no exception for the therapist's religious custom or belief, unless, in limited circumstances, the client consents to it. Question-from a torah point of view should it make a difference who shows up at the therapist's (or Rabbi's)door (for any therapy or advice)? How does Halacha balance the needs of the individual, the family, the community, Jewish society and/or society in general? 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 12:56:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 15:56:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" In-Reply-To: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> References: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> What's the difference between this and Gerald Schroeder? KT, GS, YGB On 08/05/2015 05:53 AM, Micha Berger wrote: > I think a philosophy book just came out detending a variant of RSSchwab's > "two clocks" explanation of ma'aseh bereishis. > > RSS's shitah appeared in AOJS's Challenge (ed. R Aryeh Carmel, R/Prof > Cyril Domb pg 164 onward. > > > surveys > the area and summarized RSS as follows: > > Similarly, Rav Shimon Schwab talks of two types of time, cosmic > time and earthly time. The 6 days of creation are counted according > to cosmic time, during which period millions of years may have > passed according to our measure of time. > > (Althugh I disagree with their next sentence on REED's position.) > > > Now for the book. I just got this review > : > >> he Fall and Hypertime >> Hud Hudson, Oxford University Press, 2014, 211pp., $65.00 (hbk), >> ISBN 0198712693. >> Reviewed by Trent Dougherty, Baylor University From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 13:32:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:32:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] "The Fall and Hypertime" In-Reply-To: <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> References: <20150805095357.GA12056@aishdas.org> <55C50D88.3000106@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150807203234.GA14121@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 03:56:56PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote: : What's the difference between this and Gerald Schroeder? R' Gerald Schroeder is working within physics, using Relativity to try to make the timelines match up. R' Schwab, and for that matter this Hypertime idea are metaphysical, saying that the 6 days were not physical days, meausured using the same kind of time Galileo turned into a variable when he measured pendulum swings, Newton took derivatives with respect to, and Einstein unified with space. Rather, a logically prior idea altogether. This is more in line with the rishonim who said that science as we know it post-dates creation, and therefore time during creation is has to be measured with a different kind of clock than the one of physics. ------- And some day when humanity develops to this point, the two will finally be in sync. Which would fit RAYK's metaphysics in which every duality is an illusion, as everything is the Or Ein Sof from the Absolute Unity. And le'asid lavo, even the division between olam hazah and olam ha'emes will fall. Leshitaso, techiyas hameisim is a consequence of the reunification of the worlds of life and of death. Those souls don't so much come back to life as the distinction disappears. (I do not recall if RAYK invokes "hayinu kekholmim".) And yes, in such a situation, physical time will be back in sync with supernal time. Although one needn't believe in RAYK's eschatology in order to accept the concept that the two definitions of time will be unified, nor do we need to believe in eventual synchronization in order to talk about the 6 days of ceration being on a different kind of clock than physics. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 7 13:56:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 15:56:48 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Re; sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R. Levine wrote: "Is it really true that what women in the general society do is some standard for tznius for Jewish women. If so, then the practices of "well undressed" gentile women (as R. A Miller used to call them) of today have eliminated all tznius standards" Response: Of course there are baseline standards of tzniut for Jew, men and women, that are independent of surrounding culture. But hair covering is not one of them.(At least according the sources and shitta that I have brought). R. Levine then brings an article by Rav Breuer. That is his shitta, it doesn't mean it is universally accepted or binding. Much of what he brings is not specific halacha but advice or Nach based(the entire sugya of kol kevuda etc) I would note that the vast majority of shittot do not require single women to cover their hair I will not have access to respond for a week or so, but will be address further responses at that time. shabbat shalom noam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 8 12:02:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 22:02:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] depression Message-ID: Enclosed is a summary of the last shiur of R Zilberstein to the doctors. I am giving a shiur on this in my shul this coming shabbat. Since I feel it is controversial I am looking for input from the list. Question from a psychiatrist - A patient has 3 kids and has mild depression since the last birth. She wont take chemical drugs and instead uses one based on plants which is good for mild depression. It had some side effects and so the patient stopped that also. The dictor suggested various anti-depression drugs and other help which the patient refused, Contacting a social worker it turns out the woman runs a "nursery' (mishpachton) from 8am to 4pm. The social worker says she manages only with a great effort; her husband comes home from work at 1pm and the mother helps. The woman refuses to open a file in the social ministry because of this nursery which they may close down. The social worker pointed out that if something happens the state will prosecute the psychiatrist. Question: On one side there might be a danger to the kids in the nursery and the psychiatrist might lose her license OTOH this is a major income for the young family. She has successfully run the nursery for several months without any complaint with the help of the husband and mother. If this is all explained to the ministry it most likely won't help and they will closer her down Answer: The job of a bet din is to watch out for the welfare of the community. Hence, according to Torah law the doctor must go the rabbi of the city or neighborhood to hear their opinion, R Zilberstein notes that in Bnei Brak there is an agreement with the authorities that the local bet din deals with such problems and calls in the local authority only if they feel this is necessary. Such an arrangement should be set up in every town that the local bet din makes the decision. see YD 336:1 that ba doctor needs the permission of the bet din to practice, Therefore one needs the permission of the local secular authorities to rely on the judgement of the local rabbi. It is well known that the "mara de-atra" have the ability to treat broken and depressed people. In England there was a baby born with Down's syndrone whose Jewish parents disappeared. The local board of health turned to Rav Yoseph Dinner Zt'L what to do, Rav Dunner , who was the 65, (after checking with his wife) said they would adopt the baby since at that time there was no Jewish institution capable of handing this baby. The local board of health accepted this solution. The couple cared for the child until they reached the age of 80. At that point they transfered the child to an instituion in Afula, Each year R Dunner would come to Israel to bake matzot and then visit the child in Afula. The doctors in Britain said the best social workers are the Jewish leaders. In the beit midrash of R. Pam there was born a child with Down's syndrone. R Pam always tried to cheep up the boy. One year the boy complained that on simchat Torah they used all the sifrei Torah except for his paper one. After Musaf R Pam went to the Bimah and announced to everyone that now they were reading from the sefer Torah of this boy. This was the happiest moment for the boy and the angles surrounding "kise hakavod" Conclusion: The psychiatrist should explain to the local rabbi the situation in the nursery. The rabbi should come to some agreement with the local secular authotities to rely on his judgement -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 8 21:21:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 21:21:33 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? Message-ID: you are basically asking when must the rabbi/frum therapist offer halachic therapy and then risk prosecution? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 12:17:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 15:17:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] human hair sheitals Message-ID: In the thread "De-Chokifying Arayos", I asked: > But that's not what's happening here. This is a case where the Shulchan > Aruch paskened very clearly in one direction, and this approach went > uncontested through centuries of acharonim. Then something changed.... Why > aren't we rejecting these revisionist poskim out of hand? R' Mordechai Cohen answered: >>> I can't help but thinking that this is one of those (many) halachic issues where the hanhaga of Klal yisroel in certain halachic (or hashkafic) areas has developed to be inline with yechidim than with the majority of chazal/rishonim/etc >>> ... >>> We have many others similar to this (some d'oriasa, some d'rabbanan) - human hair sheitals, chadash, live music after the churban, etc. You are raising a great point. I have wondered this about chadash and music myself, and I'm somewhat surprised that I didn't see the connection. Thank you very much for bringing it to my attention. (Though, to be honest, these examples sharpen my question about Conservative "psak".) But for THIS thread, my question is simple and direct: Tell me more about why you specify "human hair sheitals". Have chazal/rishonim ever distinguished between wigs made of human hair vs other kinds of wigs? I was always under the (possibly mistaken) impression that chazal and rishonim - and even acharonim - only discussed the requirement to cover hair, and how much to cover, and the ramifications of leaving it uncovered. But I don't recall any discussion of the covering itself except by the leaders of very recent chasidic groups. Am I mistaken? Where is this discussed in the seforim? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 13:15:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 16:15:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] trivia questions Message-ID: In Avodah V33n111, RET noted: >> Name 2 psukim in the Torah and 5 in Tanach that contain all the letters >> of the alph-bet (I only know one) << > We still need another 3 pesukim in the rest of Nach including one that has not only the 22 letters of the alphabet but also all the end letters < Fact-checking what I found via Google'ing (besides the *pasuq* already noted by R'Micha) provides these fifteen (!) *p'suqim* containing all the letters: -- Y'hoshua 23:13 -- M'lachim Beis 4:39, 6:32 -- Y'sha'yahu 5:25 -- Yirm'yahu 22:3, 32:29 -- Y'chezqeil 17:9 -- Hosheia 13:2 -- Amos 9:13 -- Esther 3:13 -- Daniel 3:22, 4:20, 7:19 -- Ezra 7:28 -- N'chemya 3:7 All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 9 14:11:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:11:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: R"n Toby Katz wrote: <<< To clarify what to some may seem a minor point: sex absolutely IS required for survival. An individual can survive without it, but the human species in general and Klal Yisrael in particular cannot survive without reproduction. Our nitzchius is absolutely dependent on this particular activity, which is why "peru urevu" is actually a mitzva and not "mutar if you wish." >>> Yes, that's true. But please note that you yourself are referring to "peru urevu". My question concerns a different mitzva, namely Onah, wherein sex is explicitly linked to food and clothing/shelter. I don't think it is a big stretch to say that the common thread of these three things is how important they are to this particular individual, and NOT how important they are to the species. <<< ... for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. >>> I think we may be understanding the word "objectify" in different ways. Contrary to what some might think, not all men are constantly obsessed with having sex. At any given point in time, a particular man might have other priorities - other activities that he'd rather do than this one. But a husband cannot give higher priority to these activities over Onah, just like he can't choose them over minyan, or other mitzvos. He must be sensitive to his wife's needs and wants, and if he senses her mood, he is under a chiyuv d'Oraisa to act accordingly. (Actually, he'll have this chiyuv even if he does NOT sense her mood accurately, in which case he will have been Mevatel the Aseh b'shogeg, though I suppose it could easily be argued that it's more of a "shogeg karov l'meizid" if he hasn't even tried to judge her mood accurately.) But there is no flip side to Onah. The wife has no responsibility to judge her husband's desires. In fact, even if she does realize that he is "in the mood", there is no Chiyuv d'Oraisa for her to ignore her other desires and respond to her husband's desires. Sure, it could well be advisable for her to do so for Shalom Bayis reasons, and one might even call it a "chiyuv" in that context, but the imbalance remains: Her chiyuv would be Shalom Bayis alone, while the husband must deal with both Shalom Bayis and Onah. That's what I meant by "objectify": Much of Orach Chaim 240 is to protect the wife from a forcible rape (for instance, she can't be asleep or drunk), and much is also to protect her from more subtle rape (such as thinking of another woman). But there are far fewer protections offered to the husband. Neither can be drunk, and neither can have decided to divorce, but in general, the wife is within her rights to demand relations whenever she wants, and to me, this can "objectify" the husband. RTK reminds us that the husband *will* have pleasure from this. But that is exactly my point: If someone is required to have a pleasure that (for whatever reason) he does not actually *desire*, it is a sort of rape. RTK also wrote: <<< He seems to be saying that if a man derives pleasure from being with his wife, he is ipso facto "objectifying" her. But human beings derive pleasure from each other all the time, ... it is just absurd to think that if another person gives me some kind of pleasure, I have "objectified" that person. >>> You are correct. Merely receiving pleasure does not automatically objectify a person. But if one receives pleasure without returning that pleasure to the giver, this carries a danger of objectifying the giver. And if one receives pleasure against the giver's will, that is the very definition of "objectifying" (in my view). R"n Chana Luntz wrote: <<< In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? And further read the Tur (and the meforshim on the Tur) in Even HaEzer simin 25 to get a fuller picture of the sources (and the original gemora sources) - so you can see the history of the machlokus on how to deal with this issue all the way back. >>> Indeed, the first few times I saw that Rema, he seemed to be saying, verbatim, that "you can do anything you want, and whenever you want to do it." A sexual hefkervelt, a world with no rules. But a more careful reading shows that he is only making two specific points: That there are no restrictions on positions, and that (as we've already said in this thread) the timing restrictions of O"C 240 are a "madrega" but not the basic halacha. But aside from these points, I see OC 240 and EH 25 as very similar: Their main focus concerns the *mental* state, and it is in this area (it seems to me) that Shulchan Aruch - including all acharonim until quite recently - endorses a very prishus-oriented approach. RCL again: <<< I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the influence of the outside world. ... In a world which identified relations with sin and death (standard Xtian theology of the time, and the Muslim theology in many circles was not that different) - it would have been inappropriate, and led to general looseness if the general non Jewish world view had been repudiated to the extent consonant with the positive positions found in Chazal. >>> There are many responses I could give to this. Perhaps the simplest would be: So then let Shulchan Aruch be silent; why did they choose to pasken overtly like the prishus view? Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 10 05:08:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:08:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: To continue from my previous post: R"n Chana Luntz wrote: <<< In order to have an informed discussion, don't you need to read Orech Chaim 240 in light of Even HaEzer 25 and particularly the Rema in si'if 2 there? >>> I think it is noteworthy that the Aruch Hashulchan often goes out of his way to justify the common practice in the face of the consensus of poskim, but does *not* do so in this case. In fact, Aruch Hashulchan EH 25:11 quotes the same Tur as the Rama did, but emphatically warns us *against* following it. This suggests that the turning of the tide, from a more prishus-oriented view to something else, occurred more recently than the days of the Aruch Hashulchan. Can anyone suggest a more precise time? Or, to put my question more blatantly: Does the less-prishus-oriented view appear only in recent articles such as the one by Rav Lichtenstein, and in the sort of verbal psakim such as he received? Does it appear anywhere at all in any of the seforim that one might happen to be learning, such as the Igros Moshe, Tzitz Eliezer, or similar? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 07:14:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:14:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akirah In-Reply-To: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> References: <20150805222242.GB26410@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150811141458.GA31500@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 6:22pm EDT, I wrote: : The issue comes up in AhS YD 24:42... : There is a machloqes between the Behag and Rashi about the line between : aqirah and tereifos. Rashi says that aqira is the displacement of the : qaneh or veshet caused by using a nicked knife. Most rishonim hold : like the Behag, and then there is a submachloqes about what kind of : dislocated simanim are aqirah, and what are tereifos. Leshitas Rashi, : they would all be tereifos. : : Anyway, here the AhS says that Rama holds that midinei shechitah, : we are machmir for every definition of aqirah. But midinei tereifah, : which differ in that it would also prohibit the milk or eggs from such : an animal, we recognize that the iqar hedin if the Behag, and are meiqil. In response RAF sent me offlist an essay he wrote in Dec 2001, titled "Hagdaras Iqur Simanim baTalmud", which I put up on-line here . The article does a survey of various definitions of ique hasimanim, which vary amazingly widely. He lists some causes: - The discussion is in scattered snippets across Chullin, not one organized sugya. - The rishonim do not agree about the girsa of the gemara that contrasts iqur from tereifah. - The rishonim do not even agree on basic defining features about iqur simanim. RAF also mentioned to me: "I have a very different peshat in ikkur, based on actually looking at the Behag." Sec. 4 does appear to quote a Behag that is at odds with the mesorah about shitas haBehag that the baalei Tosafos received. We've discussed the relationship between errors in reception and whether finding one would change pesaq before. Here, the nafqa mina lemaaseh is small but real, as per above. Tir'u baTov! -Micha PS: If anyone else has a Torah article they want up on-line, feel free to ask. -- Micha Berger Education is not the filling of a bucket, micha at aishdas.org but the lighting of a fire. http://www.aishdas.org - W.B. Yeats Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 15:53:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:53:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150811225301.GA13480@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 12:55:06AM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote: : Here are the sources I have collected, in addition to the fact that a : significant percentage of Modern Orthodox women to not cover their hair in : public except in shul/davening situations. Although there is long evidence of rabbis saying it's a problem, but not a battle they can win. So the mimetic side is dismissable. (Also, how does someone who advocates for more roles for women in shul make a mimetic argument?) : In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of : uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is... : If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered : hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. But saying it's not a breach of tzeni'us doesn't say it's allowed, that's your addition not in the translated text you quote. RYB could mean what the AhS says, that it's terrible things came to this, but you may daven in her presence. Or, that whle it's not a tzeni'us problem, it's still prohibited deOraisa as per the implication in parashas sotah. : Here is a list of easily accessable sources: : Rabbi Marc Angel... Listening to his citing R' Masas and your quoting R Badad, maybe it's a Seph thing? He presumes hair covering is das Yehudis, which makes his a rare shitah. (Again, given the derivation from a pasuq.) But then again, R' Ovadiah Yosef firmly disagrees. But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. ... : I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and : not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. : However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and : everyone can come to their own conclusion. ... which is what he does, that the theory is there, but it's a shitah dechuyah. And noticably, he too quotes R' Yosef Masas, R' Moshe Malka and the Kaf haChaim -- Sepharadi sources. : Rav Yosef Haim... So, assuming the woman doesn't eat qitniyos, may she go with her hair uncovered? And even if she does... At what point is a shitah dechuyah? ... : Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony : of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. : R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: : "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did : not cover her hair? ... : Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in : this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." : I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the : artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with : uncovered hair. : Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat : common... And yet the rabbanim protested. This isn't even admissable as mimetic tradition, any more than noting how often people speak leshon hara or buy off-the-books or anything else rabbis have failed to curb. : uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his : wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. He too, would only need to be convinced is wasn't ervah in the sense of "all those men" sinning. But as we see in the AhS, that doesn't mean it's allowed. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ micha at aishdas.org for justifying decisions http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 16:00:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:00:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R' Noam Stadlan wrote: <<< Of course there are baseline standards of tzniut for Jew, men and women, that are independent of surrounding culture. But hair covering is not one of them. ... I would note that the vast majority of shittot do not require single women to cover their hair. >>> I both agree and disagree. Hair covering is NOT a "baseline standard", in the sense that it applies only to married women and not to single girls. But hair covering IS a baseline standard for Jewish women, in the sense that it remains in force independent of the surrounding culture. Thus, we have at least three different standards: males, married females, single females. And actually, we have several more than that, if we distinguish among various ages of boy and girl children, not to mention infants. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 21:26:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:26:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: From: Akiva Miller via Avodah _avodah at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:avodah at lists.aishdas.org) <<< ... for men, this activity is actually physically impossible without pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka was but a man cannot. And for this reason, among others, the idea of "objectifying men" is just ridiculous. >>> [--TK] >> I think we may be understanding the word "objectify" in different ways. Contrary to what some might think, not all men are constantly obsessed with having sex. At any given point in time, a particular man might have other priorities -- other activities that he'd rather do than this one. But a husband cannot give higher priority to these activities over Onah, just like he can't choose them over minyan, or other mitzvos. He must be sensitive to his wife's needs and wants, and if he senses her mood, he is under a chiyuv d'Oraisa to act accordingly.... But there is no flip side to Onah. The wife has no responsibility to judge her husband's desires. In fact, even if she does realize that he is "in the mood", there is no Chiyuv d'Oraisa for her to ignore her other desires and respond to her husband's desires....<< Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) >>>>> There is a great irony in what you have written. You seem to think that there is an inequality, a lack of reciprocity, in the mutual obligations of men and women -- with women having all the power and men all the obligation. It is ironic because the mitzva for men to be sensitive to their wives' feelings derives from the /curse/ that was given to Chava! Look at Rashi on Ber 3:16, "el ishech teshukasech -- your desire will be towards your husband." Rashi says the curse is: You -- the woman -- will desire relations, but will not be so brazen as to request it verbally. Rather, "he will rule over you" -- it is all from him -- the initiative is his -- and not from you. [end Rashi] To modern ears this Rashi might sound strange because the idea that "women are not brazen" sounds so old-fashioned. Modesty has gone out the window in modern society. But even the brazen women -- and certainly the more refined and eidel women -- want to be wanted. By their nature, most women do not want to be the ones taking the initiative or the ones pursuing the men. For most women it is embarrassing to have to ask outright. If you want an example of a woman in the Torah who was brazen even way back then, look at Eishes Potiphar -- "Lie with me." The very fact that she behaved this way shows what a hussy she was, but also, it shows that she was utterly humiliated. Not only was Yosef not seduced by her wiles, but even when she so lost her dignity as to ask him outright, he /still/ refused. It is no wonder she felt such a burning desire for revenge. It was in order to mitigate the harshness of Chava's curse that Chazal instituted the rule that men have to be sensitive to their wives' desires, that a woman should not have to humiliate herself by spelling out what she wants. It is a chessed that a man does for his wife, to mitigate the curse, to somewhat level the playing field in which men have all the advantages! I actually think this a wonderful example of Chazal's extraordinary sensitivity to women. They acknowledge and partially correct an imbalance that favors men at the expense of women, ever since Adam and Chava. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 11 22:47:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (bk via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:47:59 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] Subject: depression Message-ID: I have worked in the mental health field and have other personal experience with serious depression. The description which you provided "mild depression", would not at all indicate a danger to anyone including daycare children. It seems that the description is very much lacking. Either there is much more to warrant defying her confidence, including/especially to a rav, or someone doesn't understand what depression is all about. I'm assuming that the former is the case. So, the question is, what can we learn from a case in which the problem is not accurate? b'kavod, ChaimBaruch Kaufman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 06:19:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:19:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Waiting Six Hours for Dairy- A Rabbanite Response to Qaraism Message-ID: <20150812131918.925F517FC6A@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/08/waiting-six-hours-for-dairy-rabbanite.html Qaraites are a Jewish group that began around 760 CE. They rejected the Talmud and rabbinic Judaism and insisted that Jews only observe halacha as expressed in the literal text of the Torah. "Qaraite" means "Scriptualist". The movement started in Iraq and Persia by Jews who objected to the authority of the leaders of the Babylonian Talmud Academies, the Gaonim. The Gaonim and their successors, the rishonim, are called Rabbanites because of their stance in defending the Talmud and rabbinic laws. Scholars have noted that many minhagim began as a response to the Qaraite movement. For example, the recital of Bameh Madlikim on Friday evening after davening [1] was started in the times of the Gaonim to reinforce the rabbinic stance on having fire prepared before Shabbos, in opposition to the Qaraite view that no fire may be present in one's home on Shabbos [2]. There is evidence that the reading of Pirkei Avos [3] on Shabbos afternoon, which began in Gaonic times, was to emphasize to the Jewish masses that the Oral Law was passed down since Moshe Rabbeinu as stated in the first mishna of Pirkei Avos. Professor Haym Soloveitchik [4] has argued convincingly that the unique arrangement of Hilchos Shabbos in Rambam's Mishna Torah was organized specifically with anti-Qaraite intent. Briefly, Rambam's formulation of the Shabbos laws does not follow a chronological order or any other expected logical order. See the above URL for more. YL llevine at stevens.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:03:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:03:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 11:25:27AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : R' Lichtenstein was bothered by this point and answered that we need to : rely on our teachers and Gedolim. : "Probably most significant, however, is our reliance upon our own mentors. : Sensing that modern gedolim, "the judge of your era" -- for our purposes, most : notably, the Rav, but not he alone -- have examined the issue and the evidence : and adopted a positive stance, we, ordinary students of Torah, follow in : their footsteps as we identify with their position... : I understand that for many of us that is not a very satisfying answer and : leads to many questions about why specifically here we follow minority : opinions as opposed to other places (e.g. wombs issues, etc.) but I don't : think there is a better answer. This is the way the halachic system works. To some extent, yes. However, I do not know what halachiccategory is "gedolim". My job is to have my own poseiq, someone ho cnot only knows the halakhah, but knows me and my situation. Or to get as close to that as possible. My rav's job is to have experts to inform him, and to know when a question is either too complicated for his skills, or the stakes to high (eg mamzeirus, potential intercommunal fallout, or....) to not consult others, starting with his own rav. Yes, you will eventually reach the few at the head of the pyramid, so I guess we can call them "the gedolim", and their opinions will end up shaping policy on big or broad issues. But I do not think RYBS would be happy learning that he had a talmid in the job of mara de'asra who had so little confidence in his own ability to map theory to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronos and desires of the people in it that he hands the job off to people who know less of that reality. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet micha at aishdas.org about things most people don't watch even on http://www.aishdas.org Yom Kippur. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:19:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:19:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> References: <003301d0d097$39d872f0$ad8958d0$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150812201911.GB8165@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 11:28:31PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: : I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the : influence of the outside world. The same sort of influence that reputedly : led to the cherem of Rabbi Gershom (Jews who are supposed to be the : upholders of morality cannot be seen to have more than one wife in a world : where that is seen as immoral)... I understood this as well as the Sho'el uMeishiv's take on intellectual property in a single way, and slightly different than your explanation. The Sho'el uMeishiv invokes "lo sehei Torah shelanu kesichah beteilah shelahem. If they recognize a kind of property as a right our native sense finds moral, we obviously must obligated to protect it as well. This is not DDD, as the protection isn't to the extent of the civi law, but to the extent of the halakhos of property. He is identifying a moral obligation we must halachically defend, not the civil law in and of itself... My understanding is that it's not that we learned morality from their law, but their law reflects a new social contract. The new expectations are a change in metzi'us. Now that we expect to have intellectual property, that is part of the new situation, to which a new pesaq applies. Similarly, I understood Rabbeinu Gershom's mandating monogamy in the same terms. He was less worried about being seen as immoral, or learning morality from Xian marriage norms. Rather, once society created different expectations of what marriage is, we had no ability nor obligation to reset to the old expectations (after all, even chazal referred to sister wives as "tzaros"), and therefore have to support a moral solution to the new expactations. A woman gets married expecting a man for herself. Rabbeinu Gershom mandated treating that woman morally. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Feeling grateful to or appreciative of someone micha at aishdas.org or something in your life actually attracts more http://www.aishdas.org of the things that you appreciate and value into Fax: (270) 514-1507 your life. - Christiane Northrup, M.D. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 13:22:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:22:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) In-Reply-To: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> References: <20150804.130447.885.0@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: <20150812202233.GC8165@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:04:47PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote: : ... But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent : the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no corresponding : safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. Given the size of the two porn industries, or the difference between what "porn" usually refers to and locating smut in a romance novel, I would think that it's not just Chazal who would conclude the threat of objectfication is assymetric. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 16:24:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:24:28 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos In-Reply-To: <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> References: , <20150812200346.GA8165@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <13CC426F-297A-4E3A-AC33-979E5391FA35@sibson.com> > > But I do not think RYBS would be happy learning that he had a talmid in > the job of mara de'asra who had so little confidence in his own ability > to map theory to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronos > and desires of the people in it that he hands the job off to people who > know less of that reality. > > I agree but I think it's also true That RYBS would not be happy learning that he had a talmid in the job of mara de'asra who had so so much confidence in his own ability to create the theory to map to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronosand desires of the people in it that he doesn't hand the job off to those more qualified to break new ground. Kol tuv 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 12 20:21:12 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:21:12 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) Message-ID: I wrote: : ... But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent : the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no : corresponding safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers. R' Micha Berger responded: > Given the size of the two porn industries, or the difference > between what "porn" usually refers to and locating smut in a > romance novel, I would think that it's not just Chazal who > would conclude the threat of objectfication is assymetric. Chazal were aware of the differences between those two industries, and they suggested reasons for it on the top few lines of Kesubos 64b. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 12:36:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:36:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Copyright Message-ID: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> Back in Jun 2001, Napster was in the news, and I heard a shiur from R Zev Reichman, then of REITS' Kollel Elyon. So at the first on-list mention of copyrights, I used it as an excuse to post a summary on-list at and . It's been 14 years, and I just learned of a beautiful einfahl by R' Asher Weiss on the subject. So, I'm reviewing the list, and adding to it. (v7n58 #13 is marked ">", #4 is marked ":".) > 1- Dina dimalchusa issues: > According to Tosafos on Gittin, dina dimalchusah dinah is only on > taxation. > The Beis Yitzchak does rule that ddd applies here. However, RZR opined > that ddd still wouldn't apply apply to Sony Bono's law that was aimed > specifically at Disney, allowing them to extend their copyright on some > animated characters. It's not an evenly applied rule. > 2- I already cited the most chamur, the Sho'el uMeishiv 1:44, who goes > beyond ddd. : The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral : obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it : is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership : of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal : (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights : are lehalachah also eternal. : Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for : that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a : halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos : of copyright. : I just want to note the SuM's assumption, and the importance he assigns : moral rights identified by the surrounding culture. > RZR wondered if the SuM would also recognize the French philosophy of > copyright: that the artist could sell reproduction and profit rights, but > eternally retains rights to controlling how the idea is changed. (So even > if you sell a painting, the owner is allowed to copy it, but not modify > it.) After all, this is also a secularly identified moral right. Would > it be a halachah only in France? > 3- Hasagas gevul: > There is an old cheirem, invoked in many if not most haskamos for a few > centuries, against copying sefarim. (The SuM mentions it.) The cheirem > is at least as old as the publication of Tomer Devora (about a century > after it was written) -- because it's mentioned in the haskamos. That > if one copies the sefer beli reshus, or buys such a copy he is subject > to the cheirem and will lose all the berachos showered on people who > learn TOmer Devorah listed in the begining of the haskamah. > The Chasam Sofer traces the cheirem back to the Maharam Padua's edition of > the Rambam. After he invested all the time and money preparing the plates, > a non-Jewish publisher, Justinian, took those plates and printed his > own copy of the Yad, charging one gold coin less than the original. The > Rama said that anyone who bought a Justinian edition was under cheirem, > as they prevented him from recouping his loss. > Given this lashon, the CS concludes that the problem is hasagas gezul. > However, as RZR noted, hasagas gevul only applies to unfair competition, > not to give copies away as a tzadakah or a fundraiser. > This is also the conclusion of R' Moshe. R' Bleich, back when he was > a talmid at Torah Vadaas found a rare publication of a notebook of R' > Chaim and had it published as a TvD fundraiser. The original publisher > found out about it and cried "hasagas gevul". They went to R' Moshe who > ruled in favor of R' Bleich. > 4- Issur geneivah: > R' Bleich himself, when writing on the subject, quotes "ein berei'ach > mishum me'ilah", and that there is no geneivah without a cheftzah. > 5- Hezek > Now we're in "Micha's 2 cents" territory. Li nir'eh that even for a > tzedakah to do it, even if not hasagas gevul, you are causing hezek to > someone who would otherwise earn money. > Even if not quantifiably assur, I would want to invoke bal tishaktzu on > this one. > 6- Chilul Hashem > In a case like Napster, where the case will have a kol and a trial in > the press, I would think that the risk of chillul Hashem, and therefore > *dinei nefashos*, is enough to assur it -- even in cases where the > copying would be found to be technically legal. 7- Chamas So I heard from R' J Ziring (YUTorah.org) that R' Asher Weiss in a 2013 shiur compared the theft of intellectual property to the dor hamabul (after revisiting some of the above). I found a blog post of RJZ's that describes it or : Chazal explain that the sin of the dor hamabul was that they would each steal less than a shaveh perutah. Thus, in the aggregate they would destroy people's livelihood, but none of them could be prosecuted in court. From here he argued that there is an issur to do something, which while not formally theft, lends to a society that destroys other people's financial well being. If no one respects intellectual property, then inventors, writers, and the like will have no way of supporting himself. Thus, even if no one can properly be called a gazlan, they have all participated in chamas. Tir'u baTov! -Micha > PS: While on the subject, I should point out that we obtain reshus to > include any emails that are reposted on Avodah. When asking, I make it > clear that a copy will appear in the web archive as well. -- Micha Berger The same boiling water micha at aishdas.org that softens the potato, hardens the egg. http://www.aishdas.org It's not about the circumstance, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but rather what you are made of. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 15:08:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:08:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Baal Nefesh in the Igeros Moshe Message-ID: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> R' Elli Fischer contrasted the use of baal nefesh yachmir in the MB with its use in the IM. (Also heard via R' Jonathan Ziring.) The MB uses baal nefesh yachmir to refer to chumeros where the person is acting in a way to fulfill all shitos. The MB lists the more recent opinions, and then advises that the baal nefesh follow the most stringent. (Although I believe we found in previous iterations that the MB doesn't actualy use the expression particularly often. The IM argues that chalav hacompanies is actually chalav yisrael, so that there is no textual reason to only drink milk that was literally Yisrae'el ro'ahu, as opposed to using anan sahade eidus. But leshitaso, FDA certified milk is kosher even according to the Peri Chadash. (YD 1:47) In 1:48 he dismisses all other possibilities, and then says baal nefesh yachmir. RMF's baal nefesh is not being chosheish for all shitos, he dismissed those other shitos. Instead he is keeping minhag yisrael saba beyond halakhah. Pretty much the opposite of the MB's baal nefesh, who is ignoring accepted pesaq in order to make sure all the textual bases are covered. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Worrying is like a rocking chair: micha at aishdas.org it gives you something to do for a while, http://www.aishdas.org but in the end it gets you nowhere. Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 13 20:27:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 05:27:01 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Baal Nefesh in the Igeros Moshe In-Reply-To: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> References: <20150813220836.GA21051@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55CD6005.7020707@zahav.net.il> I don't have it open in front of me, but IIRC, in his psak on eating veal RMF makes it very, very clear that the baal nefesh will not eat it and anyone who does is (to use my words) walking on thin ice. The way he relates to a baal nefesh in the CY issue (it is a nice thing to do but if you don't keep, no big deal) vs the veal issue (you really shouldn't be eating this stuff) is stark. Ben On 8/14/2015 12:08 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > In 1:48 he dismisses all other possibilities, and then says baal nefesh > yachmir. RMF's baal nefesh is not being chosheish for all shitos, he > dismissed those other shitos. Instead he is keeping minhag yisrael saba > beyond halakhah. > > Pretty much the opposite of the MB's baal nefesh, who is ignoring accepted > pesaq in order to make sure all the textual bases are covered. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 14 12:13:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Heather Luntz via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 20:13:15 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> I have been struggling with this thread, but have not found it easy to explain why, although I will do my best: On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:153am EDT, R Saul Guberman wrote: : RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi & : the Tosafists. : http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/ : Our *Torah shebe'al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish : history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a : great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, : but the *Torah shebe'al peh* would have survived without him. However, : without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*, : any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe'al peh* today. And RMB then wrote: >Which is a different statement than the subject line. >I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to >the survival of mesorah than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But Rashi and Tosafos made it possible for later generations to continue understanding the gemara. I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? I really struggle with that statement. Now, if you want to limit the claim, and say that Rashi and Tosphos are far more key than the Rambam to what people do in modern day yeshivas all day, including (if not particularly) the Briskers, then it would be hard to disagree. But is what people are doing in yeshiva all day in the 21st century "the mesorah" or is the Shulchan Aruch "the mesorah"? What are the consequences if we relegate the Shulchan Aruch and elevate the Tosphists in terms of halacha as she is practiced? Somehow these seem troubling directions in which to be heading, but I must log off as shabbas is coming very soon in this part of England (and I, for one, am not about to rely on Rabbanu Tam, Tosphotist par excellence, regardless of his mesorah, I don't know about you,). -Micha Shabbat Shalom Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 14 13:48:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:48:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 08:13:15PM +0100, Heather Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> Which is a different statement than the subject line. : :> I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah :> through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who :> stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to the survival of mesorah :> than the parshanim... : : I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan : Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the : Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, : we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. : : Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the : Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? Let me make it far more more explicit. The subject line differs from my understanding of RGS' expansion of RYGB's idea in that it claims "Mesora ONLY through Rashi" (emphasis added), whereas I heard them talking about cofication being "less critical". Comparative terms, not absolute ones. IOW, the mesorah could survive without codes, if we had to. But it couldn't survive without parshanim. Without them we couldn't handle any new case that isn't in a code, nor even have the skills to always determine which are the new cases. In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that discusses how the conclusions are reached. Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The parshan connects the past to the now. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger Life isn't about finding yourself micha at aishdas.org Life is about creating yourself. http://www.aishdas.org - Bernard Shaw Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 15:41:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:41:09 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> I wrote: : I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan : Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the : Tosaphists. It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam, : we would not have the Shulchan Aruch. : : Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the : Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!? And RMB replied: <<>Let me make it far more more explicit. The subject line differs from my understanding of RGS' expansion of RYGB's idea in that it claims "Mesora ONLY through Rashi" (emphasis added), whereas I >heard them talking about cofication being "less critical". Comparative terms, not absolute ones. >IOW, the mesorah could survive without codes, if we had to. But it couldn't survive without parshanim. Without them we couldn't handle any new case that isn't in a code, nor even have the >skills to always determine which are the new cases.>> Firstly of course, the Rambam wrote his perush on Mishnayos, so I don't think it is merely parshanut that distinguishes the two. Secondly, in the Rambam's code there are various "nire li" statements where he comes across areas where the answer from the gemora is not clear, and he therefore inserts his own view. It seems slightly bizarre to suggest that he or the Shulchan Aruch ever assumed that their code would make determining new cases more difficult, nor does that seem accurate historically. >In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that >discusses how the conclusions are reached. So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no Rambam and no Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any distinction at all between the halacha of the Orthodox and the halacha as championed by the Conservative movement? Is that not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would of necessity lead (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent than we have today - one that would perforce have to embrace the Conservative movement, and certainly all the forms of Open Orthodoxy that RGS is so vehemently against. Part of RAM's distress on one of the other threads on this list at the moment, regarding modern day psak vis a vis sexual relations versus the postion of the Shulchan Aruch has to do with the fact that Orthodoxy in general (although not, I would note, at least some of the Chassidic movements, such as Ger, and possibly increasingly not other groups within the Charedi world) has without appearing to notice, abandoned the position as set out in the Shuchan Aruch (albeit for one that can be said to be the more majority position of Chazal). But take the codes out of the equation and *all* these multiple rishonic positions become tenable, allowing a general free for all within the vastness of the parshanut tradition. The codes therefore are a critical part of what might be considered a dual process - equivalent to the situation where one first brainstorms ideas, and then whittles away to those most tenable. There are of course, situations where Sephardim do not posken like the Shulchan Aruch, and there are even more situations where Ashkenazim do not hold like the Rema, preferring a Shach, Taz or Magen Avraham (or even a Bach). But in the post-Shulchan Aruch world the conversation that RAM has been leading on the other thread is fundamental and critical - if we do not posken like the Shuchan Aruch in the particular case in question - we need to understand and investigate precisely why not, because by and large, the Shulchan Aruch draws the line as to where we go or do not go halacha l'ma'aseh. Without the Shulchan Aruch, we are only left with the brainstorming side of the halachic endeavour, and that means - as I intimated in my closing remarks, that if you find Rabbanu Tam's shkia analysis compelling (or indeed, that of a more minor rishon), there would seem to be little to prevent you holding like it halacha l'ma'aseh. What would hold us together? Indeed you are, I see, engaged in a debate regarding hair covering on another thread. But surely those who seek to justify the practice of many, many women who otherwise led and lead fully halachic lives are full square within the mesorah of tosphos. It is only those who also have an eye to the codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in the light of common practice. >Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The parshan connects the past to the now. That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation handed over to the next. And the generation of the Shulchan Aruch, in accepting it as "The" Code which shall be followed in most circumstances (with exceptions) handed that down to all generations following - making the Shulchan Aruch the mesorah par excellence. I can debate the nature of shkia with the Tosphotists in a conversation down the generations, but my mesorah regarding Shabbas is unlikely to be based upon any such conversation, nor is it expected to be. If you want to redefine the word mesorah to mean only that which Rashi has given us, then of course the title of this thread becomes 100% correct, just rather pointless. Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more of them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the Rambam, were able to formulate their halachic conclusions. Without them it would be far more difficult to have anything like the number of people we have today engaging with the gemora. The Rambam in contrast might well not see the point - if you can't manage without Rashi and Tosphos, then, in his view, maybe you shouldn't be trying, and should be relying on his code instead, leaving gemora engagement to the true elite who should be leading the people. That aspect of the Rambam's view has not dominated as "the mesorah" - using the more commonly understood use of the term. While we might debate the length of time that should be spent in yeshiva, and whether one should do work/army instead of long term yeshiva study - there is pretty close to universal agreement within Orthodoxy that all Jews should spend at least some significant time engaging with the fundamental texts, even if they are of only average intelligence. But what people do in yeshiva is still, in my view, only a small slice of "the mesorah", as it is commonly understood (as opposed to as redefined by RYBS) and a far greater slice is the Shuchan Aruch itself, and for that, the Rambam's influence is surely pre-eminent. >-Micha Shavuah tov Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 13:35:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shui Haber via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:35:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim Message-ID: Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? [image: --] Shui Haber [image: https://]about.me/shuihaber *"The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is knowing that you always are."* ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 19:20:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:20:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55CFF350.3030205@sero.name> On 08/15/2015 04:35 PM, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: > Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? Devarim 6:13, 10:20. Hil' Yesodei Hatorah 2:1 -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 15 22:14:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Noam Stadlan via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:14:40 -0500 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair Message-ID: R. Micha offered the following critiques: > Although there is long evidence of rabbis saying it's a problem, but > not a battle they can win. So the mimetic side is dismissable. (Also, > how does someone who advocates for more roles for women in shul make a > mimetic argument?) If the same rabbi's whose wives were not covering hair were the same ones saying it is a problem, this critique makes sense. otherwise, there is no reason to say that those whose wives were not covering their hair were unhappy with the mitziut. The mimetic argument here is that the shitta existed and was followed. It doesn't mean that it is obligatory. So I think this is apples and oranges regarding roles of women in shul. >: In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of >: uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is... >: If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered >: hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated. > But saying it's not a breach of tzeni'us doesn't say it's allowed, > that's your addition not in the translated text you quote. RYB could > mean what the AhS says, that it's terrible things came to this, but you > may daven in her presence. Or, that whle it's not a tzeni'us problem, > it's still prohibited deOraisa as per the implication in parashas sotah. I think that you are making a moving target, one rationale knocked down and another rationale surfaces. Obviously hair covering could be mandated for a number of different reasons, but all of them? I am not sure it is necessary to be yotzei l'chol hadayot and even if so, the sources who permit, permit it regardless of the rationale against. I also have to go back and look at the source because I think it said more than the quote. >: Here is a list of easily accessable sources: >: Rabbi Marc Angel... > He presumes hair covering is das Yehudis, which makes his a rare > shitah. (Again, given the derivation from a pasuq.) > But then again, R' Ovadiah Yosef firmly disagrees. He obviously is not paskening like R. Ovadiah > But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And > two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. There are Ashkenazim among the sources as well.....I am illustrating that not only the shitah exists, but was followed and continues to be followed by a significant segment of the MO community. And, were it not for the shoah, it seems that a large segment of Lithuanian Jewry would still be following it. ... >: I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and >: not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair. >: However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and >: everyone can come to their own conclusion. > ... which is what he does, that the theory is there, but it's a shitah > dechuyah. And noticably, he too quotes R' Yosef Masas, R' Moshe Malka > and the Kaf haChaim -- Sepharadi sources. >: Rav Yosef Haim... > So, assuming the woman doesn't eat qitniyos, may she go with her hair > uncovered? Again, apples and oranges, or peanuts and sesame. It isn't just a Sephardi shita. > And even if she does... At what point is a shitah dechuyah? Good question. From my limited point of view, if it makes sense and some Rabbonim of at least some stature (and I think Rav Messas et al quality) hold that position, it is not dechuyah. What is your definition? ... >: Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony >: of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. >: R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply: >: "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did >: not cover her hair? ... >: Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in >: this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)." >: I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the >: artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with >: uncovered hair. >: Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat >: common... > And yet the rabbanim protested. This isn't even admissable as mimetic > tradition, any more than noting how often people speak leshon hara or > buy off-the-books or anything else rabbis have failed to curb. I do not agree. Many in Meah Shearim protest that all women do not wear long thick stockings but that doesn't mean that every rabbi holds that long thick stockings are obligatory. if it is the rabbi whose wife didn't cover her hair, you have an argument. otherwise I suggest that those who protest do not speak for everyone. >: uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his >: wife to sin. The position seems quite untenable. > He too, would only need to be convinced is wasn't ervah in the sense of > "all those men" sinning. But as we see in the AhS, that doesn't mean > it's allowed. It is a possible option, but not the probable one. It seems you are going out of your way to figure out how this could occur in consonance with your pre-selected approach, rather than accepting the most likely and obvious rationale. kol tuv. Noam From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 16 14:05:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:05:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] sources for not covering hair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150816210531.GE28046@aishdas.org> : I think that you are making a moving target, one rationale knocked down : and another rationale surfaces... You gave two counterarguments: 1- Ashkenazi mimeticism 2- A list of sources that appear to be predominantly if not entirely Sepharadi. I therefore gave a teo part reply: 1- Ashk mimeticism was consistently gainst rabbinic will. Even the AhS who weighs halakhah-as-practiced as a major factor in pesaq laments the ubiquitous sin of neglecting this din. He also says it's not ervah. So, the sole person who does spell out Ashk position gives me no reason to equate either (1a) ubiquity nor (1b) a textual statement ruling out ervah with permissability. 2- Those sources are not only Seph, but are possibly dechuyos in their community as well. But at the end of the day, I did write: :> But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And :> two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient. (And I still find it ironic that someone making a mimetic argument about hair covering wants to also change the role of women by looking at tets to the exclusion of 3-1/3 millenia of common practice.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger For those with faith there are no questions. micha at aishdas.org For those who lack faith there are no answers. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 17 08:59:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 11:59:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] R' Soloveitchik on Single Women Lighting Shabbat Candles Message-ID: <20150817155949.GA11283@aishdas.org> http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/single-women-lighting-shabbat-candles Snippet: Torah Musings Halakhic Positions of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik Single Women Lighting Shabbat Candles By Aharon Ziegler on Aug 14, 15 1:00 am in Halakhic Positions ... ... Those who have family customs and if their minhag [custom] is that the single women do not light their own candles then they should certainly not deviate from their custom- "Ve'al Titosh Torat I'mecha"... ... .... As a matter of fact Rav Soloveitchik suggested that Le'chat'chila, all women should indeed first turn off the electric lights, light the Shabbat candles, open the electric lights and then recite the Beracha. Regarding single girls, Rav Soloveitchik noted that this was the practice in Europe, even in his town, and that is how the Rav practiced with his daughters when they were single-that they lit their own candles, even with a Beracha, even when his wife also lit candles with a Beracha. Interestingly, RYBS promoted mimeticism in not taking on the practice of lighting candles if one's mother and grandmother didn't light when they were single and still living with their parents. Yet in the same discussion, he acknowledges how the new reality of electric lights makes relying on the mimeticism of making the berachah on the candles / oil alone just a bedi'eved. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries micha at aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?" http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 01:22:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 04:22:24 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Copyright In-Reply-To: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> References: <20150813193600.GA26531@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55D2EB40.1060303@sero.name> On 08/13/2015 03:36 PM, in a message that Gmail, for some reason, decided was spam, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The Beis Yitzchak does rule that ddd applies here. However, RZR opined > that ddd still wouldn't apply apply to Sony Bono's law that was aimed > specifically at Disney, allowing them to extend their copyright on some > animated characters. It's not an evenly applied rule. This isn't true. > The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral > obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, > it is impossible that the Torah is less moral. This assumes its own conclusion. The exact same reasoning could have been used during the Jim Crow era to "prove" that the Torah requires racial segregation of shuls and yeshivos, or during Prohibition to "prove" that the Torah requires teetotalism. > Now we're in "Micha's 2 cents" territory. Li nir'eh that even for a > tzedakah to do it, even if not hasagas gevul, you are causing hezek to > someone who would otherwise earn money. Even if not quantifiably assur, > I would want to invoke bal tishaktzu on this one. Why should he earn that money? You could invoke the same idea against giving anything away to someone who might otherwise have bought it. Every wedding takes parnassah away from wherever the guests might have bought their dinner that night. Sellers do not own their customers, and have no rights to them. > Chazal explain that the sin of the dor hamabul was that they would > each steal less than a shaveh perutah. [...] From here he argued > that there is an issur to do something, which while not formally theft, Stop right there. Stealing less than a shaveh pruta *is* formally theft. The thief is over on lo sigzol. It's not *returnable*, which is an entirely different matter. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 17 22:18:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:18:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Splendor of Clothes Message-ID: <20150818051824.9B2F7183235@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/the-splendor-of-clothes/ Rav Soloveitchik further added that wearing a Yarmulke, a Kippa, is more dignified than a baseball cap. He said, "If the President of the United States suddenly appeared and wanted to take a picture with me, would I wear a Russian hat, a baseball cap,- or a Kippa? That is the way we should stand Shemoneh Esrei when addressing the King of the Universe, HaKadosh Baruch-Hu. See the above URL for more. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 18 15:08:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:08:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Yiras Shamayim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150818220842.GA26873@aishdas.org> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:35:26PM +0300, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote: : Is there a Halacha that says that one must have Yiras Shamayim? Where? While it's obligatory (see Zev's citations), I am not sure it's halakhah rather than something prior to halakhah. As in Moshe rabbeinu's list: Mah H' sho'el mei'imakh, ki im - leyir'ah es H' Elokekha - lalekhes bekhol derakhav - ule'avah oso - vela'avod es H' Elokekha... - lishmor es mitzvos H' ve'es chuqosav... It would seem that MRAH is excluding these for thing from the realm of mitzvos and chuqim, and yet still mandatory. Even though the Rambam calls "lalekhes bekhol derakhav" to be "HILKHOS Dei'os". I don't know how to shtim this with the pasuq. It seems more like the Rambam's approach, that there is a duty of pursuing qedushah, yashrus and tov in ways beyond the limits of black-letter halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten micha at aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip, http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 10:17:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:17:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Halachic Requirement for Dayanim Evaluating In-Person Facial Expressions of Parties in Bais Din In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150819171747.GA2506@aishdas.org> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:49:07AM -0700, Baruch Cohen via Avodah wrote: : ... The Mishnah describes how the members of the Sanhedrin : sat in a row in the shape of a half-circle... : Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin 1:3) ... : The Tosefta : (8:1) cites differing opinions regarding the seating position of the : President of the Sanhedrin. Tanna Kamma holds that the President sat in the : center of the semi-circle, with thirty-five of the members of the Sanhedrin : seated on each side of him. R' Elazar b. Tzadok says that when Rabban : Gamliel sat in the Sanhedrin in Yavne, one of the sages sat to his right, : and all the others sat to his left.... My apologies to RBC that I don't have any thoughts about his intended topic, but he got me thinking about something else... To quote myself from 2010 : > REMT quoted the IE, which I found at Shemos 25:37, in what Bar Ilan > calls the short version of the IE: > Neiroseha: And the qadmonim said that one lamp was in the middle > ve"hashisha ne'erachim ze achar ze bachatzi iggul" (to cut-n-paste > from REMT's post) > And after the scripture said "vehei'ir al eiver paneha", and the > reason for "al eiver" one [eiver], behold the shape is clear. Not semicircular as seen from the front, but the lamps in that pattern as seen from above. Continuing: > The IE appears to very explicitly places all the lamps on the same side > of the middle one. Similarly, in the long version of the IE, Shemos 27:21: > Yaarokh: baavur hayos haneiros bechatzi igul. Ve'od adaber al zeh. Notice that leshitaso, the layout of the Sanhderin parallels the layout of the neiros in the keli most associated with chokhmah. Which makes it interesting that the definition of neir ma'aravi also parallels the machloqes about where the nasi sat. We generally assume it's the middle lamp, on the central shaft. However, Tamid 33a speaks of the two western lights, which we also find implied in Abayei hava mesader, "hatavas shetei neiros" being at a different time than "hatavav 5 neiros". >From which Rashi (see also Rashi Menachos 86b "mimenah hayah madliq") concludes that the neir ma'ariv was the 2nd in the row. So it looks like a two machloqes, leshitasam, setup. But... IE's semicircular menorah is based on the idea that the middle lamp was westmost, the other lamps curving off toward the NE and SE directions. A variant on the shitah that the menorah stood so the lamps run north to south. The idea that the 2nd was the ner hama'ari has the lamps running from west to east. The 2 neiros on the west are lit on their own. The second from the west end is the neir hama'arivi, a title not given the westmost candle because it is lit facing the NhM, with the wick on the east. But that leshitasam looked so pretty! Anyone want to help me salvage it? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow micha at aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 12:25:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:25:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Who Does Halacha View as the therapists concern? In-Reply-To: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> References: <566f11dfd91a4b829b5e3473aa67dde3@VW2K8NYCEXMBX1.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150819192519.GB2506@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 12:28:27AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Question-from a torah point of view should it make a difference : who shows up at the therapist's (or Rabbi's)door (for any therapy or : advice)? How does Halacha balance the needs of the individual, the : family, the community, Jewish society and/or society in general? Confidentiality and for that matter focusing on the needs of the client serves society in general in the long run. Society needs not only therapists, but therapists clients are willing to get help from. If we tell therapists that they are to compromise client trust for the sake of the family, community or society, we will lose that. So, even if halakhah requires factoring others' needs in to a greater extent, it might not change things all that much. (After all, the profession developed those standards for a reason. That reason needn't reflect a different set of values.) There are also the secondary effects of the law... If someone loses the opportunity to offer therapy because disobeying those standards open them up to threat of suit or legal consequences, we still lose the therapy. Which has to be factored in to the halachic decision. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 14:45:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:45:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] [Bais Hamussar] The Small Things Message-ID: <20150819214542.GD812@aishdas.org> ----- Forwarded message from Bais Hamussar ----- Bais Hamussar Al Sheim HaRav Shlomo Wolbe zt"l Shoftim - Elul Rav Wolbe (Daas Shlomo) cites a mind boggling Medrash (Bereishis Rabba 2:7). Reb Avahu said, "From the beginning of time Hashem gazed at both the actions of the righteous and the actions of the wicked. Yet, it is not clear whose actions He desired. Once the Torah writes, 'And Hashem saw the light that it was good' it is clear that He desires the actions of the righteous and not the actions of the wicked." What is this supposed to mean? Could there be a possibility that Hashem prefers the actions of the wicked over the actions of the righteous? Rav Simcha Zissel Ziv, the Alter of Kelm, offers a beautiful explanation. Indeed, even the wicked perform good deeds. However, they limit their good deeds to grandiose actions whose effects can be heard around the world. They will found organizations, create moral ideologies and give their lives for the sake of their country. In contrast, the righteous focus on the small, even minuscule, actions. Chazal were asking who's good deeds are superior -- those performed by the righteous or those performed by the wicked? The answer was provided by the Torah: Hashem prefers the small actions of the righteous over the high-flying deeds of the wicked. A similar idea is mentioned by the Rambam. He asserts that for one who wishes to give tzeddaka, it is better that he give many small donations than one big donation. Many small mitzvos are preferential to a single big action. Rav Yisrael Salanter writes that the focus of teshuva also must be on the small actions. Many are overcome with despair when faced with the prospect of teshuva. "There is no possible way for me to stop speaking lashon hara" or "I simply can't overcome this middah" they lament. However, there is no room for despair when the topic is teshuva. They are absolutely right; at the present time they cannot entirely overcome their inclinations. Nevertheless, they can greatly reduce the severity of their actions if they would merely desist at the times when it is easy for them to refrain from transgressing. If they would take small steps and resist for five minutes here and there, they will already have progressed tremendously down the road of teshuva. With this in mind, our understanding of Chazal's well known statement becomes even more profound. "Hashem says to Klal Yisrael, 'Open for me a hole like the eye of a needle and I will open for you gateways that wagons and carriages will be able to pass through!'" Hashem specifically is interested in the small holes. Teshuva must begin with a focus on the small actions. "Just five minutes" is a mantra that can change your life. I will refrain from lashon hara just for five minutes. I will learn just for five minutes. I will spend just five minutes on helping another Yid. The truth is that sometimes one doesn't even need five minutes. A wave of the hand to motion that one can't talk now can save a person from pages of bittul Torah or loads of lashon hara. Moreover, Hashem guarantees that He will reciprocate our small gesture with a huge dose of Heavenly assistance, as He waves us through big gateways of teshuva! From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 19 20:49:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 23:49:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: I'm really very unsure what this thread is asking. Let's take, for example, this paragraph from R' Micha Berger: > In terms of R Yosef Caro's works, it would be like saying the > BY was more important than the SA. Not that the SA is irrelevant, > but we could have limped along without it. Not so the genre that > discusses how the conclusions are reached. What can you possibly mean, that we COULD HAVE limped along without it? We ARE limping along without it! There is so much that is ALREADY missing from the Mesora! There are so many masechtos missing from the Bavli, for example. I suppose it is possible that Ravina and Rav Ashi never saw a need to compile them, but it's much more likely that they were written and then lost, no? Now, imagine, if you will, a halacha which was decided (by a rishon, acharon, it doesn't matter) because of one obscure gemara that some ingenious thinker found and applied to a particular situation. Without this gemara, the halacha pesuka would have been different than we are accustomed to, but because that gemara -- obscure though it might be -- WAS found, and is a legitimate part of our Mesora, the halacha as we know it came to be. There must be hundreds of such halachos, maybe even thousands. But what if that particular gemara was not hiding in Chullin or Makos? Suppose it was a gemara in Terumos? Then that halacha would never be known to us, because that gemara has been lost. R"n Chana Luntz wrote: > Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more > of them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the > Rambam, were able to formulate their halachic conclusions. You do realize, of course, that there was no such person as "Tosphos". The Tosaphists were very real, and very important, but they were not the ones to decide on the inclusion or exclusion of any particular comment. That was the choice of the publisher of the gemara, and if his whim had gone in another direction, who knows what other views would have gotten more press coverage. (Yes, I know that there are many volumes filled with the writings of even the most obscure Tosaphists, but the fact remains that getting included in the standard printed edition is the path to widest influence.) My point is that while RMB and RCL are trying to imagine what Torah would look like without Tosaphos, as I see it, even the Tosaphos that we do have is a somewhat random document. If Hashgacha (or, some might prefer, blind luck) had gone in another direction, Tosaphos would be very different, and practical halacha with it. But it doesn't stop there. Need I remind anyone that even our Torah Sheb'ksav is a reconstruction (or, some might prefer, an approximation) created by the Baalei Mesorah? If the sources that they worked from had been just a bit different, then our Sifrei Torah today would be different too. And yet, somehow we manage. We use the Torah that we have today, because it rendered the previous versions (the source material of the Baalei Mesorah) to be passul. What an amazing concept! One day, these several Sifrei Torah, all with known yichus, each had its own chezkas kashrus. And the next day, a new document, different from those that preceded it, comes to center stage and replaces the others! I would like to suggest that this is exactly how it would have worked if there was no Rashi, or no Rabenu Tam, or no Rambam, or no Rav Yosef Karo: We would use whatever we did have, and that would be our Torah. It would be different than the Torah that we do have, but so what? Rashi's Torah was different too! IN CLOSING, RCL asked: > So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no > Rambam and no Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any > distinction at all between the halacha of the Orthodox and the > halacha as championed by the Conservative movement? Is that > not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would of necessity lead > (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent than > we have today ... If you've been following me, then my answer to this should be clear: No! This "much broader tent" is pure speculation. If we had no Rav ABC to guide us, the void would have been filled by Rav XYZ, whose views might have been to the right, to the left, or the same. And in *exactly* the same manner as how we are obligated by the new Torah created by the Baalei Mesorah, the possibility of differences is much less important than our confidence and emunah that this Torah is the right one FOR US. Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller on gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:19:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:19:26 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mesorah only through rashi Message-ID: <> Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against the concept. Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own interpretation and not rely or be bound by any text. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:29:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:29:15 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] mimetism Message-ID: <> I understood mimetism and trying to follow the custom of one's family. This is of no help when the physical circumstances have changed. Would anyone suggest using outdoor toilets because that is what our ancestors did and would object to an indoor bathroom. Plumbing changed the halacha. -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 00:25:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:25:33 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] splendor of clothes Message-ID: > Rav Soloveitchik further added that wearing a Yarmulke, a Kippa, is > more dignified than a baseball cap. He said, "If the President of the > United States suddenly appeared and wanted to take a picture with me, > would I wear a Russian hat, a baseball cap,- or a Kippa? That is the > way we should stand Shemoneh Esrei when addressing the King of the > Universe, HaKadosh Baruch-Hu. The average person would also not wear a black hat while taking a picture with the president. I have noted before there has become a new minhag of wearing a hat all the time not only when wearing davening or saying a bracha. I went this week to a charedi wedding and most of the men wore their hats throughout the meal. OTOH I also went to a shiur of Rav Zilberstein this week. Throughout the shiur he wore a kippah. In the break he took some food and put on his hat for the bracha and then removed it for the shiur. This is also what I observed from RYBS If so why do other rabbis insist on giving a shiur wearing a hat? [Email #2.] BTW I just received a copy of a formal photo of RYBS with Ed Asner. RYBS is wearing a black kippa -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 05:10:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 08:10:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] splendor of clothes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 3:25 AM, Eli Turkel wrote: > I have noted before there has become a new minhag of wearing a hat all > the time not only when wearing davening or saying a bracha. I went this > week to a charedi wedding and most of the men wore their hats throughout > the meal. For me, at least, this is a practical matter: There is often no place to leave a hat, not even in the coat room; and certainly no place from which the hat can be easily retrieved before bentching. --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 20 16:16:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 19:16:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:49pm EDT, R Akiva Miller wrote: : I'm really very unsure what this thread is asking... Part of the difficult of this thread is that we came in mid-conversation. RGS quoted Qinot Mesorat haRav. The quote is long, so I'm just giving part: Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebe'al peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... This is a comment RYBS frequently made in shiur. Picture sitting in a brisker shiur, where every talmid needs a reference set of shas and Rambam. It is logical for the rebbe to need to remind people that they couldn't play this game of comparing that Yad back to shas if we didn't have Rashi and Tosados opening up shas to understanding. Interestingly, RGS compared this to the Yam Shel Shelomo: Rav Shlomo Luria, the Maharshal, famously said that Rabbeinu Tam was greater than the Rambam (introduction to Yam Shel Shlomo). In discussing Kinah 42, Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik suggests that the French and German Tosafists were more important than the Rambam, without discussing who was greater. The Maharshal was very opposed to the SA. He had a hostile attitude toward the whole notion of codification which goes way beyond RYBS's intent in ways RYBS wouldn't agree to. He and the Maharal (his brother) were of the "many" in RET's response. On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:19am IDT, R Eli Turkel wrote: : Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against the : concept. : Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own : interpretation and not : rely or be bound by any text. This coming in in the middle caused language confusion and consequent frustration for RnCL. On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:41:09PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the :> Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The :> parshan connects the past to the now. : That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. : Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation : handed over to the next. Yes, but if you want to know what RYBS meant, it requires knowing what the word means in RYBS's lexicon, with the connotations he assumed. Notice my suggestion about how "mesorah" was being used fits the quote from the qinos and the example of the Yerushalmi. I understand the frustration of thinking you were discussing a statement that meant one thing and only after formulating a log response being told that it likely meant something else. But that's a straightforward misunderstanding due to your being outside the target audience when RYBS was saying / learning Qinos, and therefore not being used to the connoctations he assumes; and Lewis Carrol refferences aren't needed. I intend to write a post on the meaning of the word "mesorah" as developed in RYBS's and RHS's thought as the start of its own thread. Because it not only comes up here, it comes up in the discussions raging elsewhere (Torah Musings, Cross Currents, Facebook) on RWMO's objections to Open O and feminism. RnCL argues for the importance of codes in that post: : So let's do a thought experiment: Let us say there was no Rambam and no : Shulchan Aruch. On what basis would there be any distinction at all between : the halacha of the Orthodox and the halacha as championed by the : Conservative movement? Is that not where a Rashi/Tosphos only mesorah would : of necessity lead (even throwing in the Beis Yosef), to a much broader tent : than we have today... ... : But take the codes out of the equation : and *all* these multiple rishonic positions become tenable, allowing a : general free for all within the vastness of the parshanut tradition... ... : It is only those who also have an eye to the : codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in : the light of common practice. Actualy, it's only those who have an eye on common practice. After all, we discuss machloqesin between Rashi and the Rambam in halakhah lemasseh contexts all the time. And if Ashkenazim accepted Rashi's ruling, or one found in Tosafos, the Rama has no problem limiting his pesaq to that rather than that of the Rif, Rambam or Tur. And had there not been a Rama, then some shu"t or parshan could as well. For that matter, there is also the middle ground, the shu"t writer (eg the Ritva) who discusses halachic sevara and lomdus without either using a study of a pre-existing text as his organizing principle nor trying to codify a complete set of rulings. For that matter, the Beis Yoseif and AhS also sit in the middle ground -- code-like works that spend more space discussing how they understood the sources to get there. Returning to RAM's post for his reply to RnCL's question: : If you've been following me, then my answer to this should be clear: No! : This "much broader tent" is pure speculation. If we had no Rav ABC to guide : us, the void would have been filled by Rav XYZ, whose views might have been : to the right, to the left, or the same. And in *exactly* the same manner as : how we are obligated by the new Torah created by the Baalei Mesorah, the : possibility of differences is much less important than our confidence and : emunah that this Torah is the right one FOR US. Without the parshanim, there is no way to fill in the holes between se'ifim, to know how the conclusions were reached so that halakhah can survive beyond the limited set of cases in the Rambam or SA. However, without the codifiers, it's hard to find Rashi's ruling, but not impossible. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure micha at aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 02:02:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:02:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha Message-ID: RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear as ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) 1) Prozbul - while the originial takanah was for individuals that made loans and meant a trip to bet din today it has become a piece of paper signed given to the rabbi or some ad hoc bet din (similar to hatarat nedarim). 2) nonJewish produce during shemitta - whther bought directly from nonJews or through heter mechirah the end result is that the consumer feels little difference between a shemitta year and a regular year. Only consumers that use Otzar bet din have to account for shemitta rules (of course it affects the farmer) 3) mechirat chametz - In the extreme one goes away for the entire Pesach, sells everything in the house and returns after Pesach to eat whatever is around, no need to even put away the chametz. For the rest of us it means putting what we sell in some closet and for some getting rid of "real" chametz like cakes 4) heter iska - again originally meant making a document for a specific loan and allowing a possibility pf loss. Today (in Israel) the banks and other financial insitutions have the document on the wall somewhere and most customers are not even aware of it. Because of court cases the heter iska has been refined so that the possibility of loss to the bank is essentially zero. In addition the heter iska today applies to non business loans - eg renovating a house, buying a car or going on a pleasure trip In addition to things that appear as cereonies to the average layman there are halachot called "ha-aramh" which is a trick way of avoiding the usual halacha. Again some eamples (again including inyana de-yoma" 1) paying the chazan for RH and YK for singing the first night of selichot 2) returning to shemitta - buying the lulav and throwing in for free the etrog 3) R Tarfon "married" 300 women so they could eat termah In an actual case involving yibum a couple without children and the husband was senile and near death while the brother-in-law lived in New Zealand. The solution was for the brother-in-law t "marry" the wife's sister and then divorce her but now the wife no longer needs a yibum or chaitzah. Note that pruzbol and heter iska began as ha-aaramah and later became a ceremony. I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview it. Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 21 11:57:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 14:57:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah Message-ID: <20150821185758.GA8815@aishdas.org> The word "mesorah" is overloaded with too many meanings. Literally, it's "that which was passed on". So logically, a common usage would make it synonymous with TSBP. And yet it's also used for the near opposite -- we speak of the mesoretic text, its vowels and its trope -- the ultimate in TSBK. And the collections of notes that describe that text are also called "mesorah". (So the mesorah describes the mesorah?! And you can join the email list if you wish to discuss the mesorah, diqduq, nusach hetefillah and the like.) More along the lines of the direction I want to head in, unlike talking about TSBP and thus focusing our attention on Divine origins, when we speak of mesorah we focus out attention on the chain of people. And so there is the usage of "mesorah" to mean mimetic tradition, and is often posed in contrast to textual TSBP. Notice R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik not only defines "mimetic tradition" as knowing what a kezayis is because you remember what your father and greandfather ate at the seder but also considers such cultural mesorah (my term) rather than textual transmission to be the carrier of value and emotion. It is the loss of mimetic tradition that he blames for the loss of dread of the Yamim Noraim and (in speech, not writing) for the loss of what his father RJBS called the "Erev Shabbos Jew" (from "On Repentance, pp 97-98): Even in those neighborhoods made up predominantly of religious Jews, one can no longer talk of the 'sanctity of Shabbat.' True, there are Jews in America who observe Shabbat... But it is not for Shabbat that my heart aches; it is for the forgotten 'erev Shabbat'.... There are Shabbat-observing Jews in America, but there are no 'erev Shabbat' Jews who go out to greet Shabbat with beating hearts and pulsating souls. There are many who observe the precepts with their hands, with their feet, and/or with their mouths - but there are few indeed who truly know the meaning of the service of the heart!" Then we speak of someone "having a mesorah" in two different uses: both if they have a received practice and cultural (as above) and if they have a known rebbe-talmid lineage. Still in contrast to texts, we're talking about the importance of all that Torah that doesn't fit into books. We also talk about those in the hands-on kelei qodesh, such as a sofer, a mohel, a shocheit, etc... also of "having a mesorah" from the one who taught them the craft. And that too is all about the kind of thing you need to learn with your senses and muscles, and not know from books discussing the topic in the abstract. To pasqen mar'os, a rav must also have a mesorah in that sense. It's a skill, a craft, that is learned from practice under the guidance of a mentor. Usually called "shimush". For regular pesaq too there is an element that is a craft, an art, a skill, the kind of thing one needs to learn from shimush, not by studying from abstract texts. Qara veshanah velo shamash TC, harei zeh am ha'aretz. ... - Sotah 22a This is why I like R/Dr Moshe Koppel's metaphor of laws of grammar for some usages rather than always comparing halakhah to civil law. (More as per his sefer "Metahalakhah" than in the essay "Judaism as a First Language" .) As I wrote in Feb : The "First Language" model is much like R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik's mimeticism, but also somewhat different. Halachic rules are an approximation of something that is inherently more complex in kind than rules and algorithms. Much the way grammar is only approximated by ever more complex rules which still never get a foreigner studying the language in class to the same feel for grammar that the native-speaker has. (And why TSBP loses something when not be'al peh.) So the ESL student may know what a past pluperfect is, and I don't, but the native speaker is more likely to know what is valid poetic license and what will produce non-English results. Similarly, a poseiq needs to pick up that feel, not the formal rules. Unstructured knowledge. I have two rather lengthy quotes that help create a feel for what I am talking about. They're quite beautiful, so I appreciate this excuse to share them. Notice how RYBS explicitly defines the word "mesorah" at the beginning of this first quote, UBiqashta miSham 10:1, pp. 63-65 (tr. RARR, The Rav, vol. I, pp. 247-250): Let me stress the idea of the Mesorah by telling you a personal story. I remember that when I was growing up I was frightened and lonely boy. I was afraid of the world. For me, the world was a cold and strange place. I imagined that everyone was mocking me. But I had one friend; do not laugh at me, it was the Rambam [Maimonides]. How did we become friends? Simply, we met. Rambam was a constant guest in our home. During the days when my father was newlywed, supported by my grandfather... father studied Torah day and night. A small group of outstanding young scholars gathered around him and eagerly absorbed his teachings. My father studied with his disciples in the room where my bed was located. My wont was to sit on my bed and listen to my father's words. He constantly quoted Rambam. His method was to first open the Talmud and analyze the text under discussion and the relevant commentaries. He would generally say: these are the explanations of Tosafot. Now, let us analyze the explanations of Rambam. My father would inevitably discover that Rambam rejected the basic explanation of the text and differed with Tosafot. My father would declare, as if to complain, that we cannot comprehend the approach and conclusion of Rambam towards the Talmud text. It was almost as if my father were directly saying to Rambam: "Rabbi Moshe, why have you taken this approach?" My father would continue, "at first glance, the Ra'avad (commentary on the Rambam) is correct at his criticism." The students would jump forward and each would express his thoughts. My father would carefully listen but would refute their proposed interpretations. Once again he would exclaim that the words of Rambam were incomprehensible. Nevertheless, my father would not give up. He would place his head on his hand and soon be engrossed in deep thought. The students would not disturb his thought process. Finally, my father would gradually lifts his head and begin to expound the true meaning of Rambam. Sometimes he would be lengthy, and on other occasions brief. I would strain my ears to catch my father's every word. In my young and impressionable mind, there developed a duel impression: First, that the Rambam was being attacked by enemies who wanted to hurt him, and second, that the Rambam's only defender was my father. I felt strongly that without my father, who knows what would happen to the Rambam? It was as if the Rambam himself were with us in the room, listening to my father's words. The Rambam sat next to me on my bed. What did he look like? I don't know exactly. He seemed to look like an exceedingly handsome and good father. His name was also Moshe, just like my father. Intensely following my father, the students absorbed his every word. Slowly but surely, the tension evaporated. My father continued his discourse with strength and courage. New ideas were clarified; the laws under discussion were classified and carefully articulated. A new light emerged; the questions were resolved and the topic properly explained. Rambam emerged triumphant, and my father's face was filled with happiness and delight. He had defended his friend, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon. The Rambam was comforted and smiled. I too was delighted and joined in the feeling of joy in the room. I would jump from my bed and run to my mother and cry out the good news: "mother, mother, the Rambam won; he beat the Raavad. Father helped him. Look how wonderful my father is!" But once in a great while my father did not succeed, and despite all his efforts the enemies of the Rambam defeated him. Their questions were as strong as iron. Although my father mustered all his strength, he could not save the Rambam from his detractors. Salvation did not come for the Rambam. Deep in thought, my father would lean on his head on the palms of his hands on the table. The students and I, and even the Rambam, waited in great tension for my father's words. But my father would raise his head and sadly state: "there is no answer. The words of the Rambam are difficult. The shiur ended with no explanation. The students were sad, and even my father was depressed. A sense of despair descended upon all of us. I cried. Even the eyes of the Rambam glistened with tear-drops. With a broken heart, I would walk slowly to my mother and cry out to her: "Mother, father cannot answer the Rambam. What will we do? He did not succeed today." And my mother would tell me: "Don't worry. Father will find and answer to the Rambam. If he does not succeed, then when you grow up perhaps you will find an answer to the Rambam. Always remember, my son, the important thing about Torah is to study it in happiness and enthusiasm." It is true that this story is part of my youth. It is not, however, the fantasy of a young child or the creation of mystical feelings. This story is an historic and psychological reality that guides me at all time. When I sit down to learn, the giants of the Mesorah are with me. Our relationship is personal. The Rambam sits to my right, Rabbeinu Tam to my left. Rashi sits at the head and explains, Rabbeinu Tam asks, the Rambam decides the halacha, and the Raavad objects. All of them are with me in my small room, sitting around the table. They look at me with fondness. They world the text out with me, and life a father, they encourage and strengthen me. Learning Torah is not just a didactic, formal, and technical experience whose purpose is the creation and exchange of ideas. Learning Torah is the intense experience of uniting many generations together, the joining of spirit to spirit, and the connecting of soul to soul. Those who transmit the Torah and those who receive the Torah are invited to meet one another at the same historic juncture. And Reflections of the Rav, vol II, pp. 21b-23 (original language in: RARR's The Rav vol II, pp 186-189) this quote winds up with mention of the mesorah: The old Rebbe walks into the classroom crowded with students who are young enough to be his grandchildren. He enters as an old man with wrinkled face, his eyes reflecting the fatigue and sadness of old age. You have to be old to experience this sadness. It is the melancholy that results from an awareness of people and things which have disappeared and linger only in memory. I sit down; opposite me are rows of young beaming faces with clear eyes radiating the joy of being young. For a moment, the Rabbe is gripped with pessimism, with tremors of uncertainly. He asks himself: Can there be a dialogue between an old teacher and young students, between a Rebbe in his Indian summer and students enjoying the spring of their lives? The Rebbe starts his shiur, uncertain as to how it will proceed. Suddenly the door opens and an old man, much older than the Rebbe, enters. He is the grandfather of the Rebbe, Reb Chaim Brisker. It would be most difficult to study Talmud with students who are trained in the sciences and mathematics, were it not for his method, which is very modern and equals, if not surpasses, most contemporary forms of logic, metaphysics or philosophy. The door opens again and another old man comes in. He is older than Reb Chaim, for he lived in the 17th century. His name is Reb Shabtai Cohen, known as the Shach, who must be present when civil law (dinai mamonot) is discussed. Many more visitors arrive, some from the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries, and others harking back to antiquity -- Rabbeinu Tam, Rashi, Rambam, Raavad, Rashba, Rabbi Akiva and others. These scholarly giants of the past are bidden to take their seats. The Rebbe introduces the guests to his pupils, and the dialogue commences. The Rambam states a halacha; the Raavad disagrees sharply, as is his wont. Some students interrupt to defend the Rambam, and they express themselves harshly against the Raavad, as young people are apt to do. The Rebbe softly corrects the students and suggest more restrained tones. The Rashba smiles gently. The Rebbe tries to analyze what the students meant, and other students intercede. Rabeinu Tam is called upon to express his opinion, and suddenly, a symposium of generations comes into existence. Young students debate earlier generations with an air of daring familiarity, and a crescendo of discussion ensues. All speak one language; all pursue one goal; all are committed to a common vision; and all operate with the same categories. A Mesorah collegiality is achieved, a friendship, a comradeship of old and young, spanning antiquity, the Middle Ages and modern times. This joining of the generations, this march of centuries, this dialogue and conversation between antiquity and the present will finally bring about the redemption of the Jewish people. After a two-or three hour shiur, the Rebbe emerges from the chamber young and rejuvenated. He has defeated age. The students look exhausted. In the Mesorah experience, years play no role. Hands, however parchment-dry and wrinkled, embrace warm and supple hands in commonality, bridging the gap with separates the generations. Thus, the "old ones" of the past continue their great dialogue of the generations, ensuring an enduring commitment to the Mesorah. So there is a community of baalei mesorah that carries down a mimetic tradition of how to pasqen. A tradition of informal knowledge that cannot be codified into books and that creates a feel and emotional consequence. This is RYBS's usual usage of the word, "mesorah". No better or worse than any of the other usages, but more relevant to two of the conversations we've (we as in various members of the A/A chevrah, not necessarily here on Avodah) been having lately. In the discussion of feminism and Torah (which hasn't been here, but we have had identical cycles here before), RHS's piece "Preserving Our Mesorah in Changing Times" and others like it are often cited. RHS opens: What is Mesorah? Mesorah is not primarily a corpus of knowledge to master but a process of accessing a chain of student-teacher relationships that reaches back to Sinai. Moshe received the Torah and transmitted it to his student, Yehoshua, who in turn taught it to his students and so on, continuing through today.[1] The nature of transmission of the mesorah is instruction from a rebbe to his student. We connect to the mesorah, to the sacred structure of laws, beliefs and attitudes, through our teachers.[2] 1. Avot 1:1. 2. For a more extensive discussion of mesorah, see Nefesh HaRav, pp. 34-58 and Beikvei HaTzon, pp. 21-37. Firmly in line with what we've seen from his rebbe, mesorah is used in the sense of the chain of transmission down time that conveys the art and culture of halakhah decision-making and Torah as a whole. And a bit further down he discusses "Who Is Authorized to Institute Change?" {emph mine): Changes in practice require delicate evaluations that only a master Torah scholar, a gadol baTorah, can properly conduct. Only someone with a broad knowledge and a deep understanding of the corpus of halachah, with an intimate familiarity with both the letter and the spirit of the law, WITH A MASTERY OF BOTH THE RULES AND THE ATTITUDES OF THE MESORAH, can determine when a change is acceptable or even required. The more wide-reaching the proposed change, the greater the expertise required to approve it. The evaluator must not only be a master of the mesorah, but he must also be able to consider new practices based solely on values internal to the mesorah, removing external influences from the deliberation.[14] 14. See Halakhic Mind, n. 98. But I think this example from a teshuvah (tr and poor title by YWN is more on-topic: Indeed, the Rav would often say (see drasha to Parshas Korach), that every person must recognize that he needs a Rav or a Rebbe. Even a Talmid Chochom whose Rebbe had passed away must constantly ask himself in truth (when they present questions to him) what his Rebbe would have said in such a scase, and what stance he would have taken. ... The expression that some of those who have permitted this utilize that according to the technical halacha a certain act is permitted, and that which people wish to prohibit it is because of political considerations is incorrect. For even a matter such as changing the mesorah the traditions of the Jewish people is in and of itself an integral section of halacha. When one rules on the donning of Tefillin for women it is not enough to merely examine the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch in Hilchos Tefillin and in the sources there and treat it as a simple question. The version of mesorah in RYBS's usage is the same concept RHS invokes to reject a "but it can be fit to the technical halakhah so your objection is merely political" attitude. Change must conform to mesorah to be valid, even if the textualists are satisfied. This is not an invocation of "daas Torah", because we're talking about questions of Torah, not politics or other metzi'us; we are invoking knowledge, if cultural and informal knowledge rather than book knowledge, and not invoking any metaphysical or mytical power; and because we do not expect a single correct answer that "the gedolim hold". But it still makes halachic decisionmaking when it comes to significant change subject to the skill of a few, and the rest of us are forced to submit to their understanding. The other use we've been knocking around, and this was here on-list, is RYBS's statement (Qinos Mesorat haRav, quoted by RGS here : Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebeal peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... RYBS identifies mesorah as the ineffible skill to think like a poseiq. And that we do get from those who explain how the prior generations developed the law, how the community down the ages conversed about the law, from living in the culture whose mimeticism is mesorah. And we saw Sotah's opinion of someone who learns without shimush. From only a little further down in that sugya (22a): Tanna: Hatannaim (those who repeat codified law) are swallowers of the world. Could you really think [they] are "swallowers of the world"? Ravina said: For they are morah halakhah from their repetition of the law. There is a a beraisa like this: R' Yeushua said, "And are they 'swallowers of the world? Aren't they settlers of the world, as it says 'halikhos olam lo' (Chavaquq 3)? Rather, because they are moreh halakhah from their repetition of the law. You can't pasqen from codes, from legal knowledge. It takes knowledge of how the codes reached their conclusion -- both textual knowledge obtained from the meforshim, and the skills to pasqen obtained by shimush. As R Yochanan quotes besheim Rashbi (Berakhos 7b), "gedolah shimushah shel Torah yoseir meilimudah". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Aug 22 16:06:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chana Luntz via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 00:06:16 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:41:09PM +0100, RMB wrote: :> Mesorah, in RYBS's lexicon, is the conversation down time, the flow of the :> Oral Law from generation to generation. The code describes a snapshot. The :> parshan connects the past to the now. I replied: : That might be so, but that merely makes it a Humpty Dumpty conversation. : Most people understand mesorah as being that which each previous generation : handed over to the next. And RMB further replied: <> I read the quote and the original RGS posting before commenting on the thread because I generally try not to jump in mid-conversation without understanding what has previously been said. And that is precisely what I am objecting to. Because the RGS piece (including the quote) - is actually about our mesorah *regarding learning* (ie a much narrower slice of the wider definition). In that, as I said, I think it correct - our mesorah regarding how to learn - how to sit in Yeshiva and deal with the texts owes far more to Rashi and Tosphos than to the Rambam. But as stated in the quote, this suddenly becomes "our mesorah" in general and that is what I find problematic as I will try and articulate below. So let us look at the quote again: RGS quoted Qinot Mesorat haRav. The quote is long, so I'm just giving part: Our Torah shebe'al peh is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously, but the Torah shebe'al peh would have survived without him. However, without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any mesora, any chain of tradition; we could not teach Torah shebe'al peh today. Take as a simple example, the Jerusalem Talmud. Many Rishonim, the early Medieval scholars, speak about the Jerusalem Talmud, and certain parts were interpreted and explained, but without commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafists, it is a sealed book... The point I am making is that "any mesorah, "any chain of tradition" is much, much wider than what is done in Brisker yeshivas as part of the learning process. <> Now, if the point you are making is that RYBS was addressing yeshiva bochrim within a yeshiva setting (albeit explaining kinos on Tisha B'av) and hence explaining what it is that they do all day learning-wise- then the use of such language is probably excusable without the modifier - ie in this context mesorah is simply short for "mesorah with regard to how to learn". But the problem is that this language has now been pulled, by way of RGS's article (and lends itself to being pulled by its sheer breadth), into a wider application and wider audience, and not modified as such. It was then pulled across into Avodah, and the reference questioned, which I think it should be, because RGS's argument is implicitly if not explicitly far wider. And that I think is a problem, because what is true for one slice of "the mesorah" is not necessarily true for the whole. Whether this imprecision is RYBS's or RGS's is hard for me to be sure, as you say, this is a quote taken out of context. <> And this is where this slide from discussing one slice of the mesorah - what to do in Yeshiva, to a much wider slice of the mesorah becomes problematic, because of the implication you have just made which is that what is true of the section applies to the whole. And in this context you are dealing with what is called in common parlance the mesorah, not about conversations down time. So by slight of hand what you are doing is taking a definition which you acknowledge is a very limited and idiosyncratic one, but then sliding the conclusions that arise from that definition into the more standard debate, and claiming that was RYBS's opinion regarding the debate about what is more commonly known as "the mesorah". Let us therefore back up for a minute and discuss that aspect of RGS's post which in my view is unquestionably correct, even using the usual definition of mesorah: RGS comments that he and his father tried to learn meseches Nedarim just using the meforash, in the absence of Rashi, and were not able to do so (they were then only able to do it using the Ran, a much later commentary) - thus demonstrating the point of the post, which is, without Rashi, most of the Talmud Bavli would be a closed book to most people of average, and even above average, intelligence (like the Talmud Yerushalmi). This is unquestionably true. The Rambam was also aware of this problem (after all he learned all of Talmud Bavli without Rashi and everybody he knew either did so or tried to do so). His solution to RGS's problem was to tell RGS and his father, and people like him, not to try and learn Talmud Bavli, but to learn his, the Rambam's, Code instead. Ie instead of trying to tackle Maseches Nedarim, he would suggest that RGS and his father learn Hilchos Nedarim from the Mishne Torah. Now the truth is that if RGS and his father had in fact learnt all of Hilchos Nedarim from the Rambam, and all of the rest of the Mishne Torah, backwards and forwards and inside out - they are likely then to be well set up to tackle the Talmud Bavli without Rashi. Ie you *can* use the Rambam as a guide back into the Talmud if you are bright enough (because you have most of the concepts already explained by him), but it is not an easy way to do it. The Rambam assumed that the average person would stop with his Code, and only the best and brightest would need then to go back to the Talmud, to help determine the ambiguous cases not caught by his code, in a method not a million miles away from the one use by smicha students in learning Hilchos Shechita or Kashrus - first learn the Shulchan Aruch, then work your way back to the underlying gemoras so you are in a position to posken those cases the Shulchan Aruch doesn't catch. Our mesorah is like Rashi in this regard and not the Rambam (except when it comes to smicha students). We open up the Talmud Bavli even to children using Rashi and hundreds of thousands are sitting in yeshiva following Rashi. The problem is that people (it would appear including you) then generalise from "how we learn" to "how we posken" - which is what really is involved in the discussion regarding Open O and feminism. And they are not the same thing at all. Indeed, the fact that smicha students (those that are being set up to posken) are taught in a totally different way to the more general way of learning in yeshiva, and one that owes far more to the Rambam than to Rashi and Tosphos should alert you to that. I am then going to diverge a bit to discuss RAM's post, because he is discussing something completely different again: I wrote: > Yes Rashi and Tosphos enable the masses, or at least many more of > them, to learn the process whereby the elite, such as the Rambam, were > able to formulate their halachic conclusions. And RAM replied: <> But you here (and it is even more explicit later) are discussing something completely different to what I was and am discussing. To best differentiate, I would say that you are discussing *content* and I am discussing *process*. Yes with regard to *content* it makes a difference which particular one of the Tosphosim were included on the page, and which weren't - but that is not what I am discussing. Rather I am discussing *how to learn* - ie how to make sense of this Talmud Bavli which (as RGS elucidated so eloquently) is so difficult for people to get into without help. What Rashi did was to provide a clear and simple explanation of the words on the page. What Tosphos did (and in this regard the whole commentary called Tosphos - despite the fact that it was made up of many different people, in fact teaches pretty much the same thing) was to teach people to say "hold on a minute, if we take the simple explanation provided by Rashi, then: a) there is a contradiction with what the gemora says somewhere else; or b) there is a contradiction with what in fact people do - so therefore we need to try and solve this problem. I then further goes on to teach people to say: very commonly we can solve this problem by: (i) re-interpreting this gemora; and/or (ii) reinterpreting that gemora; and/or (iii) finding some way of harmonizing the two gemoras, or the gemora and people's practice, or if we cannot manage to that (but only in extremis), (iv) working out that a certain gemora is more authoritative or the people are wrong. Note that when you are considering the process, it doesn't matter which particular sets of Tosphos' questions made it onto the page and which didn't - what is far more important is the fact that the commentary in general teaches people to ask these questions and mechanisms for trying to answer them. That is what a (eg child) who is first taught to study the gemora with Rashi suddenly encounters when he moves on to Tosphos. Hold on, Rashi's commentary may make a lot of sense in localised context, but we now have to try and consider the whole. Now of course the Rambam had not only to be his own Rashi, but he had to be his own Tosphos. He could not have written his Code if underneath the surface he did not deal with the fact that the gemora appears to contradict itself all over the place, and also to contradict what people are actually doing. The fundamental job of most meforshim on the Rambam is therefore (a) to explain how the Rambam understood the simple explanation of the gemora (ie what the Rambam would have said if he had written Rashi) and (b) how the Rambam resolved the contradictions in the various gemoras and with common practice (ie how the Rambam deals with the kinds of problems raised by the Tosphosim). But all of this is under the surface. All we have from the Rambam is the result, what we have from Tosphos are the questions. And it is the questions which give people a better window into how to learn gemora. So that is why, when discussing *process* it does not matter that: <> Because while we might have different Tosphos questions (ie content) on (or off) the page if hashgacha had gone in a different direction, or if there were gemoros on some of the mesechtos on which we have none, the process of *how* Tosphos (or the Rambam) would have dealt with that content is still the same. But if we would have had no Rashi and no Tosphos at all, ie the process they originated, but only the Rambam, we would all have learnt the code backward and forward, and a few bright sparks would have then used that to understand the gemora - a very, very different process of learning. In that regard our mesorah of learning comes from Rashi and Tosphos. On the other hand, RET is correct: <> Although I would modify that statement not to say "and not be bound by any text", as most at that point agreed that they should be bound by the gemora (and the Tanach as understood by the mishna/gemora), just not beyond that. And that is the point. There are two different concepts being discussed here, the mesorah of "how to learn" and the mesorah of "how to posken" (which then leads into what it is that people do). And when the Shulchan Aruch came out a lot of people strongly objected to the way of poskening that is a consequence of the codes. They thought that each posek should re-learn the relevant underlying gemoras, and work out their own harmonisation of them without being influenced, and certainly not bound, by what the Shulchan Aruch said. Some people perhaps thought that was a bit extreme, and that at least they should learn the underlying gemoras with all the rishonim, and, to the extent there was rishonic view, at least make a judgement within that spectrum (but not necessarily prioritise eg the Rambam, Rif and Rosh, or the Trumas HaDeshen and the Mordechai, being the most recent, over the others). The problem you have though is that - well, according to the gemora there are at least 50 ways of determining that a sheretz is kosher. Even if you then say that the gemora draws certain lines in the sand, there is no question that - well, let us take the hair covering question as illustrative. There are clearly (at least) two ways of reading the question: (a) hair covering for married women is an absolute and immutable d'orisa principle; (b) hair covering for married women is a tznius related convention - and given the convention at the time of the gemora (and earlier) it is required in those societies where it is practiced by modest Jewish women by virtue of rabbinic decree. If you can't see that the underlying sources (eg the mishna and gemora) *could* lead to either interpretation, then you are either wilfully blinding yourself or you can't learn. If you purely follow Rashi and Tosphos, then *if* you can read the underlying gemora sources in such a way as to harmonise with common practice today (even if you believe it is a bit of a dochek), then you would be free to do so, or at least, have no basis to criticise others who do this. However, nobody has that conversation today. The conversation you are having is about "how authoritative" are the various poskim (and from which tradition) who do appear to rule in one way or another. The power of Rav Broyde's article for example - is that he argues that the Rosh (and hence the Tur) and even the Rambam actually posken (b) out of the options, and this can be seen in the Shulchan Aruch. That is the kind of conversation we have today - with others of course rejecting that this is what can be read into the Shulchan Aruch. Hence I said: : It is only those who also have an eye to the : codes who can say that there are restrictions on where parshanut can go in : the light of common practice. And RMB replied: <> But neither Rashi nor Tosphos gave us any method of limiting where psak went, and indeed the Ri can hold one thing and Rabbanu Tam another within the same Tosphos. The Codes are far less open. And the language of the Shulchan Aruch is in the vast majority of cases the language of the Rambam thereby leading back to the thought process of the Rambam. The Rema then picks up a few of the cases where Ashkenazi practice differs and used a Code process to insert Rashi's explanation into the Code (although often where it had already been filtered through the Rosh and the Tur first). That is taking Rashi content and using it in a Rambam like way. Which is why the mesorah for how we posken is much closer to the Rambam than it is to Rashi. And what we do outside of the yeshiva is more about how we posken than about how we learn. Which is why I disagree: >Without the parshanim, there is no way to fill in the holes between se'ifim, to know how the conclusions were reached so that halakhah can survive beyond the limited set of cases in the Rambam >or SA. Of course there is, you have to go back to the original gemora - having first learnt through all of the related si'ifim in the Codes, and then make sure you understand how the rulings that are in the Codes relate to the underlying gemora. Once you have done that you can start to fill in the gaps, But only the select few who need to actually posken need to know this method - which is why it only needs to be taught to smicha students. But it is obvious that is the method used by the Rambam when answering questions outside of his own code in his teshuvos. <> And if you don't find it, it probably doesn't matter - because without the attitude of the codifiers, you really only need Rashi to understand the gemora and if you can do it without him, then great. And if you can't understand the gemora without him you wouldn't have a hope of formulating any ruling as the gemora would be a closed book. >Micha Shavuah tov Chana From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 04:38:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:38:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Daf HaKashrus August 2015 Message-ID: <20150823113822.1203D183A0B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/kashrus/daf_hakashrus_aug_2015.pdf This issue includes articles about bishul on Shabbos and dairy bread as well as other topics. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 02:10:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 12:10:56 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi Message-ID: [Email #1, in reply to R' Akiva Miller.] > My point is that while RMB and RCL are trying to imagine what Torah would > look like without Tosaphos, as I see it, even the Tosaphos that we do have > is a somewhat random document. I believe this is somewhat of an exaggeration. The school of Tosafot was basically begun by Rabbenu Tam followed by Ri (haZaken). Unfortunately we don't have much of their notes and Sefer haYashar is fragmentary. However, from Tosfat Shantz through Tosafot Tuch we have several manuscripts. It is true that the early publishers (or more exactly the rabbis chosen by these publishers) used whatever material they had however, I don't think that in most cases the differences between different talmidim were that great. Obviously some were more verbose and some less so and each included their individual rebbes and their own opinions. Nevertheless on the whole they were similar. Tosafot haRosh was the main version used in much of Spain. For reasons that are not clear to me this version was lost for many centuries before reappearing relatively recently. In individual cases one learns something new from Tosafot haRosh but I am not sure that on the whole it is that dramatically different from the printed versions [Email #2, in reply to me. -micha] > To pasqen mar'os, a rav must also have a mesorah in that sense. It's > a skill, a craft, that is learned from practice under the guidance of > a mentor. Usually called "shimush". I recall seeing recently (on avodah?) a machloket of poskim whether one needs shimush in order to pasken on maaros or it is sufficient to learn from seforim. In general some poskim feel that for many areas shimush is no longer needed now that we have detailed seforim. A number of gedolim of the 20th century essentially learned alone with minimal input from teachers. -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 07:20:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 17:20:01 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] child conversion Message-ID: The recent court to allow conversion of under bar/bat mitzvah children is controversial. The bone of contention is whether it is considred a zechut for children to become Jewish when they grow up in a non-religious setting. R. Rosen recently gave a list of rabbis that allow it (at least bideved) and those that forbid it. I found the list interesting and not what I would have guessed Machmirim and not allowing the conversion: R Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor, Sridei Eish,R. Kook and R. Yisraeli Mekilim (at least bideved) Bet Yitzchak, Mateh Levi, Achiezer, RMF, R. Elyashiv, ROY -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 23 15:03:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:03:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150823220352.GA13158@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:10:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : In general some poskim feel that for many areas shimush is no longer : needed now that we have detailed seforim. A number of gedolim of the : 20th century essentially learned alone with minimal input from teachers. Well, RYBS's notion of "mesorah" is broader than that, as Rashi and Tosafos are considered part of it. Yes, shimush is more central to relaying a feel for how halakhah should be decided, but books that spell out past decisions also apparently play a role. But the truth is most of the gedolim in the 20th cent (Slabodka alumni aside) learned one-on-one often moving in with their rebbe. What you call "minimal" I would call "short and intense". Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 25 18:27:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:27:59 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion Message-ID: The assumption is that it is better to be a non-religious Jew (thereby violating numerous halakhos) than a moral non-Jew. (I am being over simplistic as being non-Jewish citizen in Israel is more of a liability than elsewhere, so there may be a zechus to be a non-religious ger katan.) The irony as many have noted is that those who are most lenient about child conversion tend to be those who are also lenient in accepting that one could lead a perfectly good life as a non-Jew. Those who think that it is better to be Jewish than non-Jewish by extension should accept the conversion of a ger katan who will be raised by a non-religious family. The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for reasons of Nationalism. Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Aug 25 18:50:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Kaganoff via Avodah) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:50:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) Message-ID: To parachute into an ongoing discussion, I have found that people use Mesorah in four different ways: 1) Personal Mesorah from a Rebbe to a Talmid. What a scholar or layman learns from his teacher. 2) Mesorah as the unbroken chain of Torah going back to Sinai. Rambam zt"l has the most famous mesorah chart, though I like Micha Berger's. (Parallels can be in Hadith transmission traditiona, Sufi traditions or the Catholic Church's assumption of an unbroken chain back to Peter). 3) Communal norms and traditions. This is how the term is commonly used in the Chareidi communities and also how it is being used in the ongoing discussion. This is the idea that there are legitimate practices, norms, values or halakhic understandings. For example different methodologies of learning. Or, as my brothers-in-law say to me, well if that is the mesorah of your community, then it is legitimate, even if they don't relate to this practice. (Personally, I do not relate to such a usage. Either an approach is valid/true or not valid/true.) I discussed the last category in an essay that Gil was kind enough to post: http://www.torahmusings.com/2011/07/two-types-of-orthodox-judaism/ There are probably other uses of the term *mesorah*, but I cannot think of them at the moment. Best wishes, Yonatan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Aug 26 00:43:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:43:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] smart lighting Message-ID: can one use smart lighting on shabbat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_lighting -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 05:00:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:00:05 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov Message-ID: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? KVCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 10:37:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:37:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:00:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party : to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not : actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) My own lexicon: hakaras hatov: realizing that a good thing came into your life hoda'ah: acknowledging the one who / One Who provided that good Say Avi gives Berakhah a ball. Berakhah's hakaras hatov has an primary object, which is the ball -- the tov she received from Avi. Not taking life's gifts for granted. But her hoda'ah has a primary object -- which is Avi, and a secondary object, the ball. As in the grammar of "Modim anachnu Lakh al..."; the prespositional phrase giving you the secondary object is a list of all the things Hashem does for us. I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. Which, if you think about it, is what Chazal say about the early makos and how Moshe would not be the one to launch a makah that afflicts the water that saved him as a baby or the sand that hid the body. I'm not thrilled with the whole idea of exchanging favors, creating a market. It turns everything back on self-service -- every positive act is tainted by expectation of being repaid. : How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? Perhaps kibud av va'eim and kavod harav are their own concepts for a reason. And that hakaras hatov might explain the issur against hurting or cursing one's parents, but not kavod and yir'ah. I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 10:55:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:55:37 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". Tir'u baTov! -Micha Zechiyah uMattanah - Chapter Seven Translated by Eliyahu Touger Halacha 1 It is a universally accepted custom in most countries that when a man marries, his friends and acquaintances send him money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Then the friends and acquaintances who sent him this money come and eat and drink with the groom during all - or part - of the seven days of wedding celebration; everything should be done according to the accepted local custom. The money that he is sent is called shushvinut, and the people who send the money and then come and eat and drink with the groom are called shushvinin. Halacha 2 Shushvinut is not an outright gift. For it is plainly obvious that a person did not send a colleague 10 dinarim with the intent that he eat and drink a zuz's worth. He sent him the money solely because his intent was that when he would marry, he would send him money as he has sent him. Therefore, if the sender marries a woman, and the recipient does not return the shushvinut, the sender may lodge a legal claim against the recipient and expropriate the money from him. KVCT 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. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 12:01:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:01:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55DF5E92.9020405@sero.name> On 08/27/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". I believe the reference is to the law of shushvinin. But that is not a matter of hakaras hatov; it's an explicit quid pro quo arrangement. If you don't pay it back when it falls due, you're cheating the person of a quantifiable amount of money that you explicitly owe him, so he can sue you for it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Aug 27 12:28:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:28:42 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de@VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com> <20150827173732.GA29088@aishdas.org> <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <55DF64EA.6000201@sero.name> On 08/27/2015 01:55 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Mistranslation: This should be "...the expenses of the feast." -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 11:40:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 11:40:40 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus Message-ID: if there is a general assumption that one eats in another shomer shabbos' house without going thru their pantry, does the same hold in a shmitta year in israel where there are also multiple minhagim ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 14:08:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:08:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> On 08/28/2015 02:40 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote: > if there is a general assumption that one eats in another shomer > shabbos' house without going thru their pantry, does the same hold > in a shmitta year in israel where there are also multiple minhagim ? Lich'ora, since there is no consensus about shmita standards among shomrei shabbos, one who has a stricter practise can't assume that a randomly selected shomer shabbos is at least as strict as his. Therefore, without ascertaining this he can't eat those things which (according to his practise) are subject to shmita, but can eat those things which are not. Most importantly, though, he *can* eat from the other person's kelim, even if he *knows* that his shmita practices are more lenient than his own; for this purpose he can rely on "stam keilim einam benei yoman", even though normally one may only rely on this bediavad. This is the famous kula of "keilim divnei rhenus". -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Aug 28 13:56:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:56:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov Message-ID: R' Micha Berger: <<< I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. >>> "Mah ashiv laShem, kol tagmulohi alai?" Akiva Miller On Aug 28, 2015 2:46 PM, "via Avodah" wrote: > Send Avodah mailing list submissions to > avodah at 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 at lists.aishdas.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..." > > > A list of common acronyms is available at > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi > (They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.) > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Child Conversion (Kaganoff via Avodah) > 2. Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) (Kaganoff via Avodah) > 3. smart lighting (Eli Turkel via Avodah) > 4. hakarat hatov (Rich, Joel via Avodah) > 5. Re: hakarat hatov (Micha Berger via Avodah) > 6. Re: hakarat hatov (Rich, Joel via Avodah) > 7. Re: hakarat hatov (Zev Sero via Avodah) > 8. Re: hakarat hatov (Zev Sero via Avodah) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:27:59 -0400 > From: Kaganoff via Avodah > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion > Message-ID: > oOARsdknGfHD5uwwUfKrmZGA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > The assumption is that it is better to be a non-religious Jew (thereby > violating numerous halakhos) than a moral non-Jew. > > (I am being over simplistic as being non-Jewish citizen in Israel is more > of a liability than elsewhere, so there may be a zechus to be a > non-religious ger katan.) > > The irony as many have noted is that those who are most lenient about child > conversion tend to be those who are also lenient in accepting that one > could lead a perfectly good life as a non-Jew. > > Those who think that it is better to be Jewish than non-Jewish by extension > should accept the conversion of a ger katan who will be raised by a > non-religious family. > > The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious > Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also > for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for > reasons of Nationalism. > > Yonatan > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150825/68f7e72c/attachment.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:50:52 -0400 > From: Kaganoff via Avodah > To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah (was Re: Mesora only through Rashi) > Message-ID: > JWwz1eftmfgGuULn71A at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > To parachute into an ongoing discussion, I have found that people use > Mesorah in four different ways: > > 1) Personal Mesorah from a Rebbe to a Talmid. What a scholar or layman > learns from his teacher. > > 2) Mesorah as the unbroken chain of Torah going back to Sinai. Rambam zt"l > has the most famous mesorah chart, though I like Micha Berger's. (Parallels > can be in Hadith transmission traditiona, Sufi traditions or the Catholic > Church's assumption of an unbroken chain back to Peter). > > 3) Communal norms and traditions. This is how the term is commonly used in > the Chareidi communities and also how it is being used in the ongoing > discussion. This is the idea that there are legitimate practices, norms, > values or halakhic understandings. For example different methodologies of > learning. Or, as my brothers-in-law say to me, well if that is the mesorah > of your community, then it is legitimate, even if they don't relate to this > practice. (Personally, I do not relate to such a usage. Either an approach > is valid/true or not valid/true.) > > I discussed the last category in an essay that Gil was kind enough to post: > http://www.torahmusings.com/2011/07/two-types-of-orthodox-judaism/ > > There are probably other uses of the term *mesorah*, but I cannot think of > them at the moment. > > Best wishes, > Yonatan > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150825/4814ca39/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:43:29 +0300 > From: Eli Turkel via Avodah > To: Avodah > Subject: [Avodah] smart lighting > Message-ID: > < > CAGDtJ1GVgO0Ez55DoorrtQw_kfhbpGcPtQS8J8mV2rq-8rjYAA at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > can one use smart lighting on shabbat > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_lighting > > -- > Eli Turkel > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150826/394e7ffd/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:00:05 +0000 > From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" > To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group (avodah at lists.aishdas.org)" > > Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: > <7a2882b12eb74f069ba83fdd615346de at VW2K8NYCEXMBX2.segal.segalco.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party to > return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not > actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) > How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? > KVCT > 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. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150827/99422da9/attachment-0001.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:37:32 -0400 > From: Micha Berger via Avodah > To: "Rich, Joel" , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <20150827173732.GA29088 at aishdas.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:00:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > : Is Hakarat Hatov actionable in beit din (e.g. would they force a party > : to return a favor?) or is it a good midah but not exhibiting it is not > : actionable? (and what about in the beit din shel maalah?) > > My own lexicon: > hakaras hatov: realizing that a good thing came into your life > hoda'ah: acknowledging the one who / One Who provided that good > > Say Avi gives Berakhah a ball. > > Berakhah's hakaras hatov has an primary object, which is the ball -- > the tov she received from Avi. Not taking life's gifts for granted. > > But her hoda'ah has a primary object -- which is Avi, and a secondary > object, the ball. As in the grammar of "Modim anachnu Lakh al..."; > the prespositional phrase giving you the secondary object is a list > of all the things Hashem does for us. > > I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although > there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, > Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an > obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. > > Which, if you think about it, is what Chazal say about the early makos > and how Moshe would not be the one to launch a makah that afflicts the > water that saved him as a baby or the sand that hid the body. > > I'm not thrilled with the whole idea of exchanging favors, creating a > market. It turns everything back on self-service -- every positive > act is tainted by expectation of being repaid. > > > : How does this relate to kavod av/rav and shushbein cases? > > Perhaps kibud av va'eim and kavod harav are their own concepts for a > reason. And that hakaras hatov might explain the issur against hurting > or cursing one's parents, but not kavod and yir'ah. > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, > micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just > http://www.aishdas.org beginning. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:55:37 +0000 > From: "Rich, Joel via Avodah" > To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group (avodah at lists.aishdas.org)" > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: > <8a4e4cbff8b44564936edaf2aa19bbc7 at VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > > Zechiyah uMattanah - Chapter Seven > Translated by Eliyahu Touger > > > Halacha 1 > > > It is a universally accepted custom in most countries that when a man > marries, his friends and acquaintances send him money to support the > expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. Then the friends and > acquaintances who sent him this money come and eat and drink with the groom > during all - or part - of the seven days of wedding celebration; everything > should be done according to the accepted local custom. > > The money that he is sent is called shushvinut, and the people who send > the money and then come and eat and drink with the groom are called > shushvinin. > > > Halacha 2 > > > Shushvinut is not an outright gift. For it is plainly obvious that a > person did not send a colleague 10 dinarim with the intent that he eat and > drink a zuz's worth. He sent him the money solely because his intent was > that when he would marry, he would send him money as he has sent him. > > Therefore, if the sender marries a woman, and the recipient does not > return the shushvinut, the sender may lodge a legal claim against the > recipient and expropriate the money from him. > > KVCT > 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. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:01:38 -0400 > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > To: Micha Berger , The Avodah Torah Discussion > Group > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <55DF5E92.9020405 at sero.name> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > On 08/27/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > I must confess I don't know what you mean by "shushbein cases". > > I believe the reference is to the law of shushvinin. But that is not > a matter of hakaras hatov; it's an explicit quid pro quo arrangement. > If you don't pay it back when it falls due, you're cheating the person > of a quantifiable amount of money that you explicitly owe him, so he > can sue you for it. > > -- > Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you > zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in > the street and commands me to surrender my purse, > I have a right to kill him without asking questions > -- John Adams > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:28:42 -0400 > From: Zev Sero via Avodah > To: "Rich, Joel" , The Avodah Torah Discussion Group > > Subject: Re: [Avodah] hakarat hatov > Message-ID: <55DF64EA.6000201 at sero.name> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > On 08/27/2015 01:55 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > > money to support the expenses he must undertake on behalf of his wife. > > Mistranslation: This should be "...the expenses of the feast." > > -- > Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you > zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in > the street and commands me to surrender my purse, > I have a right to kill him without asking questions > -- John Adams > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Avodah Digest, Vol 33, Issue 117 > *************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Aug 30 20:32:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 23:32:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz - Lu'ach 5776 Message-ID: <20150831033207.C42DF1831DF@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 00:33:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 03:33:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz - Lu'ach 5776 Message-ID: <20150831073325.1618E182644@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Ashkenaz/Lu'ach%20-%205776.pdf From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 18:44:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 21:44:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: <20150901014419.GA6761@aishdas.org> Something I noticed... After the animal is shechted, a lung could be hollow, or full of liquid, and it's still kosher. But if there is a pinhole in both membranes around the lung, it's treif. Similarly the brain -- if the outside is solid, the inside could be rotten and the animal is still kosher. These are laws of tereifah that we refuse to change recardless of whether veterinary medicine disagrees about survivability. So I assume there is some point being made about chiyus in general in all this. However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is more important than penimius. Maybe something more like "fake it till you make it" -- as long as you keep the externals going, there is hope that the internals will fill in. But I'm fishing for better suggestions. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 19:18:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 22:18:20 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Factory Farming and Panicking the Animals Message-ID: <20150901021819.GA14109@aishdas.org> If the lung is tzemuqah (dried enough to be wrinkly like a raisin, but not dry enough to be called yeveishah)... There is a halakhah leMoshe miSinai that if it was due to fright caused by a person, the animel is tereifah if it's caused by HQBH (eg a lion attack), the animal is kosher. (AhS YD 36:70) If you do not know what the cause was, you check the lung -- man-made rei'ah tzemuqah won't rehydrate when soaked in water for 24 hours. But, this test is only used if the cause of the fright wasn't known (se'if 74); the cause of the stress is the iqar, not the dryness. Interesting is a comment at the end of se'if 70: Therefore it is correct that shoechtim be careful not to shecht one ba'al chai in front of another ba'al chai so that the lungs not get wrinkly and will require checking, ae will be explained. Also, there is tza'r ba'alei chaim in it ve'issur gamur hu and so wrote a number of gedolei ha'achronim. So I'm wondering, is our factory-style slaughter mutar? Can you say that this speed is a tachlis that makes the tza'ar needful, and thus mutar? Do people disagree with the AhS and his unnamed acharonim? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If you're going through hell micha at aishdas.org keep going. http://www.aishdas.org - Winston Churchill Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Aug 31 20:52:42 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 05:52:42 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] shmitta kashrus In-Reply-To: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> References: <55E0CDB7.5090905@sero.name> Message-ID: <55E5210A.9050302@zahav.net.il> I would just add that like any other kashrut issue, a lot depends on why one has a particular practice. If one refuses to eat heter michira vegetables (that is the real issue) because he feels the HM is simply invalid, that is quite different than not using HM products because one wants to be machmir (assuming of course that not relying on the HM is a chumra). Ben On 8/28/2015 11:08 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > Lich'ora, since there is no consensus about shmita standards among > shomrei shabbos, one who has a stricter practise can't assume that > a randomly selected shomer shabbos is at least as strict as his. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 10:49:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 13:49:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another Tereifos Observation Message-ID: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> As I mentioned yesteday, any hole in the surface of the lung large enough to leak air would make the animal tereifah. What if the hole heals? AhS YD 36:7 (and elsewhere) says that a qerum (membrane) she'alah machmas makkah doesn't count. In se'if 14 he learns peshat in Rashi (Yavamos 76a "eino qerum") that there are two sevaros: 1- because this kind of closure isn't permanent 2- the closure is new. Akin to Chullin 68b "kivan shenitrefah, shuv ein lah heter) But in reality, the AhS says, "be'emes chad ta'amah hu" -- what makes the closure temporary is that it is made from the liquids of the makah. And therefore once the makah is healed, it has no cause. RYME notes that this is bedavqa when a new membrane is closing the hole. But if the side grow in until it closes, the lung is kosher. What about "kivan shenitrefah"? He writes "keshehaheter hayah mukhan be'eis hatarfus, lo chal alahh sheim tarfus ba'olam." Continuing what I wrote yesterday, that there must be much lehislameid from the halakhos of tereifos, given how we etched them in stone despite many of the rules losing their veterinary explanations.... We are told to have bitachon that before sending troubles, "Ein HQBH makeh es Yisrael ela im kein borei lahem refu'ah techilah" (Megillah 13b) This rule of tereifos, that the chalos sheim "tereifah" doesn't apply if the means by which the hole would close were pre-existing, seems to imply something further. In a sense, the makah itself isn't real because the refu'ah is already prepared. It is not that the bad times cause the good ones. Because they aren't permanent enough to be the root of permanent solutions. Rather, it is because it's all one process, the bad times being a bump in a road that from the moment you strarted traveling it leads to good. Or as Nachum ish Gam Zu said, "gam lu LEtovah" (emphasis mine), not "gam zu tovah". What redeems the bad times is that the route from them to tov is there before they even begin. ---- Language note: I noticed that rei'ah means "lungs", even though the term is in the singular and the translation is in the plural. There is no term of art for a single lung -- the main body of each lung is an omah and the lobes are onos or in Hebrew "aznayim". Tir'u baTov! -Micha Off-topic PS: I am seriously finding the beginning of YD turning me off to meat. -- Micha Berger When faced with a decision ask yourself, micha at aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now, http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?" Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 09:55:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Blum via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 19:55:32 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Kosher Switch, Grama and Rav Osher Weiss In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://podcast.headlinesbook.com/e/8-15-15-headlines/ where Rav Osher Weiss explains in detail his approach to grama, and electricity on Shabbos in general. Akiva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 11:17:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 14:17:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Another Tereifos Observation In-Reply-To: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> References: <20150901174902.GB11612@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55E5EBB7.7060400@sero.name> On 09/01/2015 01:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > Language note: I noticed that rei'ah means "lungs", even though the term > is in the singular and the translation is in the plural. There is no > term of art for a single lung -- the main body of each lung is an omah > and the lobes are onos or in Hebrew "aznayim". Yes, Chazal conceived of the lungs as a single organ. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 1 18:45:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 21:45:33 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: R' Micha Berger asked: > Similarly the brain -- if the outside is solid, the inside > could be rotten and the animal is still kosher. > ... > However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that > chitzonius is more important than penimius. > > Maybe something more like "fake it till you make it" -- as > long as you keep the externals going, there is hope that > the internals will fill in. > > But I'm fishing for better suggestions. I will offer another data point which also seems to suugest that chitzonius is more important than penimius. Mechaber 78:1 and Mishne Brurah 78:2,3 are obviously talking about a person who unfortunately suffers from incontinence. If he urinates while davening, he must pause, but can continue when the flow stops. This applies even if his legs and undergarments are totally wet, but NOT if the urine is on his outer garments. It seems that the cleanliness of one's outer garments is more important than the cleanliness of his undergarments, or even of his body itself. Similarly, if one needs to defecate, but he can hold himself for 4 mil, he will be yotzay davening b'dieved -- Mechaber 92:1. But that leniency is because it is mere pnimius; Mechaber 76:4,5 seems to be stricter once the tzoah has gone external. (Note: I think that it would not be difficult to show that chitzonius *is* important. The problem as I see it is that we've found some cases where it is *more* important than pnimius.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 00:17:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 10:17:46 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] bavli variants Message-ID: We are pleased to announce the launch of a new version (1.2) of the ' *Hachi **Garsinan*' Site for Variant-Readings of the Talmud Bavli. The site is freely accessible to all through the Friedberg portal: http://jewishmanuscripts.org . Version 1.1 of the website shows all hand-written text witnesses of the Talmud Bavli from the Cairo Genizah, with digital images (more than 4,600) and their transcriptions, in the framework of a software that allows the display of all text-witnesses of a specific Talmudic text in parallel columns in small units. Identical excerpts in a specific text-witness and in the Vilna can be marked, in order to spare the user the effort of comparing the texts. There are also additional helpful functions such as Save and Print, as specified in the website Homepage. *In the new version (1.2) - text witnesses from the following early printings have been added:* - *Guadalajara**(1480?), Spain / Portugal (Toledo? 1480-1490), Portugal (Faro? before 1498), Faro (1497?), Fez (1516-1521)* - *Soncino (1484-1489), Italy (1489-1498), Barco (1498-1499), Pesaro (1509-1516), Constantinople (1505-1509)* - *Venice** (1520-1523) * *(for details on tractates included in early printings - see Homepage). * *Furthermore, a function has been added to enable the user search for **terms or expressions in the Vilna** edition and each of the text witnesses that take part in the current version (Genizah and early printings) as well as a function to display the lexicon (**list of different words and their frequency**) of Vilna and of each of the other text-witnesses. Finally, the new version allows each user to alter the way that the text units are displayed on the variant-readings screen, using special editing tools designed for this purpose.* -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 05:05:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 08:05:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In my previous post, I cited some halachos which seem to demonstrate - surprisingly - that externals are *more* important than internals. Perhaps the source pasuk for those halachos might help us out. Devarim 23:15: "... v'hayah machanecha kadosh, v'lo yir'eh v'cha ervas davar..." "... your *camp* will be holy, and nothing unseemly will be seen in *you*..." We learn much from each of these phrases, but does anyone compare the relative importance of the reisha to that of the seifa? Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 08:31:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 11:31:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150902153128.GB27954@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 09:45:33PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : Mechaber 78:1 and Mishne Brurah 78:2,3 are obviously talking about a person : who unfortunately suffers from incontinence... : Similarly, if one needs to defecate, but he can hold himself for 4 mil, he : will be yotzay davening b'dieved -- Mechaber 92:1. But that leniency is : because it is mere pnimius; Mechaber 76:4,5 seems to be stricter once the : tzoah has gone external. I am not sure these are examples. It may have to do with when tzo'ah smells, or when it starts being "tzo'ah" rather than part of the person. : (Note: I think that it would not be difficult to show that chitzonius *is* : important. The problem as I see it is that we've found some cases where it : is *more* important than pnimius.) Thinking about it more, I have more confidence in my earlier guess, that chitzonius is a better indicator of future penimius than current penimius is. Someone who is a passionate eved H', but for some reason isn't acting on it will likely lose that passion, and someone who develops the right habits in attempt to develop the feelings, mitokh shelo lishimah, ba lishmah. So it's not that it's more important; it's still of derived value. And yet, this reasoning explains Yahadus's focus on halakhah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Never must we think that the Jewish element micha at aishdas.org in us could exist without the human element http://www.aishdas.org or vice versa. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 2 18:30:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 21:30:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In Avodah V33n118, R'Micha wrote: > However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is more important than penimius. < Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what can be seen? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 06:30:18 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:30:18 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We recently had a thread which discusses the meaning of the word "mesorah". Coincidentally or not, I'd like to ask about the meaning of the verb "moser" as it occurs in the context of the Prozbul. I'd like to begin by giving two different *colloquial* uses of "moser": It can refer to the act of literally handing a fellow Jew to the authorities, but it can also refer to merely informing the authorities about a fellow Jew. My question about Prozbul is this: When the Prozbul says that the lender is "moser" the loans to Beis Din, does he actually hand them over, or does he merely inform? For decades, I had thought that the lender actually gives the loans to the Beis Din, in a manner similar to how anyone can use a commercial collection agency: Usually, if someone owes me money, I can sell that debt to a collection agency, but in the context of Shmitta, I give it as a gift to the beis din. Then, the beis din authorizes me to collect the debt on their behalf, and will allow me to retain 100% of it as my service fee. With the above, I have accomplished three important things: (1) When Rosh Hashana arrives, no one owes me anything, so I have no possibility of violating any halachos of Shmitas Kesafim. (2) When I collect from the borrower, I'm merely acting as an agent of beis din, to whom Lo Yigos does not apply, so I'm not violating anything. (3) Although the lender did not repay anything to me directly, my finances did not suffer, and future Shmitos will not influence to me avoid lending. BUT - From what I've learned, when a Prozbul is done, no kinyan ever occurs between the lender and the Beis Din, not even a kinyan sudar of the sort that I do when authorizing the rav to sell my chometz. Without a kinyan, I can't see how the loan ever leaves the ownership of the lender. So it is clear to me that Prozbul does NOT follow the "collection agency" model. Is there some other model that it does follow? The Mechaber Choshen Mishpat 67:8 talks about a situation that I will presume occurs before Erev Rosh Hashana: "If one claims money, and the other denies it, and the first sues in beis din and wins, and the psak din is that the second one must pay - this is a gibui, and shmita does not cancel it." If I'm understanding this correctly, then when a court verdict declares the A must pay B, this is not the sort of debt that shmita cancels, because the requirement to pay does not come from any interaction between the two men, but directly from the beis din's power. In other words, the lender can ask the borrower for money, but he is not asking for the loan to be repaid; rather, he is enforcing the court's ruling. This is a new obligation upon the borrower, which was created by the court, and is therefore exempt from Shmitas Kesafim. Perhaps this is how Prozbul works: Without any evidence or documentation, or even an itemized list, a person approaches the beis din and tells them that there are debts which are owed to him. The beis din responds with a court order that those debts must be paid. He can now collect them, because it is the *Beis Din* that wants them to be paid (irrespective of the fact that the lender wants them paid). This explanation solves the problem of Lo Yigos: The lender is not pressing the borrower for repayment of a personal loan; he is pressing the borrower to pay the court judgment. But the personal loan does still exist, doesn't it? The lender would still have an obligation to be personally m'shamet the loan at some point, but I think most people think that the Prozbul relieves them of that obligation. I'm stumped. When the lender is "moser" the loan to Beis Din, exactly what is happening? Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 11:26:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 18:26:19 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0b20dda77d534fbdbec18095eaf0ce72@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> We recently had a thread which discusses the meaning of the word "mesorah". Coincidentally or not, I'd like to ask about the meaning of the verb "moser" as it occurs in the context of the Prozbul. Akiva Miller ================================= Listen hear for discussion on point http://www.torahbase.org/prozbul-concept-halachos-5775/?lang=en Rav Asher Weiss-Prozbul ? Concept and Halachos 5775 Kvct 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 4 13:07:33 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:07:33 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch Message-ID: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> S"A O"C 55:11 as recorded in the 1st volume of the mishna brurah (it's not in my regular S"A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of the S"A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn't apply "now" because dina dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? KVCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 14:41:24 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2015 23:41:24 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] What am I missing? Message-ID: <55EB6184.5050706@zahav.net.il> Re prozbul, I seem to be missing something. Personally I haven't loaned out any huge sums such that if I don't get them back, I would be reticent about loaning in the future. If I did loan out something small, why should I sign the prozbul? If the borrower doesn't pay me, well he doesn't have to (right?). If the borrower does pay me, he gets a bracha and everyone is a winner. What am I missing? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 21:10:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 00:10:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <55EBBC9C.9070304@sero.name> On 09/04/2015 04:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > S?A O?C 55:11 as recorded in the 1^st volume of the mishna brurah (it?s not in my regular S?A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of the S?A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn?t apply ?now? because dina dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? The note appears in the first edition, so presumably it was put there by the original publisher, in order to get it past the censor. Or perhaps it was inserted at the censor's insistence. In any case it houldn't need saying that it was not intended to be taken seriously by the intended audience. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49623&pgnum=170 (BTW, the censor's approval is dated 23-Dec-1882, the Hebrew date on the front page is 5683, but the secular date on the front page is 1884. Presumably that's how long publishing took.) -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 5 21:04:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 00:04:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Factory Farming and Panicking the Animals Message-ID: From: Micha Berger via Avodah >> If the lung is tzemuqah (dried enough to be wrinkly like a raisin, but not dry enough to be called yeveishah)... There is a halakhah leMoshe miSinai that if it was due to fright caused by a person, the animel is tereifah if it's caused by HQBH (eg a lion attack), the animal is kosher. (AhS YD 36:70) ....Interesting is a comment at the end of se'if 70: Therefore it is correct that shoechtim be careful not to shecht one ba'al chai in front of another ba'al chai so that the lungs not get wrinkly and will require checking, ae will be explained. << Micha Berger >>>> I remember reading that Temple Grandin had designed a spiral ramp with high walls for cattle to walk along before reaching the slaughtering spot. The design was such that the animal could not see out the sides or very far ahead as it walked, and would thus not witness other animals being slaughtered. This was meant to keep the animal calm and not frightened. I did not find the article with a quick google search but I am sure it's available somewhere. Temple Grandin is a famous expert in humane methods of animal slaughter. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 01:19:51 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 11:19:51 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? Message-ID: Most of selichos is us beseeching Hashem (poetically) for forgiveness and declaring that we are unworthy and sinners. However, the main part of selichos is the recitation of the 13 middos. However, the recitation of the 13 kiddos seems like almost magic, something we say because Hashem told us to as we say in the preceding paragraph "Hashem you commanded us to say the 13 [middos] ... as you told Moshe [the anav] ...". What is our kavannah supposed to be when we say the 13 middos? What should we be thinking? Why is saying the 13 middos so important? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 16:25:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 19:25:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150906232531.GA15175@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 11:19:51AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Most of selichos is us beseeching Hashem (poetically) for forgiveness and : declaring that we are unworthy and sinners. However, the main part of : selichos is the recitation of the 13 middos. However, the recitation of the : 13 kiddos seems like almost magic, something we say because Hashem told us : to as we say in the preceding paragraph "Hashem you commanded us to say the : 13 [middos] ... as you told Moshe [the anav] ...". What is our kavannah : supposed to be when we say the 13 middos? What should we be thinking? Why : is saying the 13 middos so important? Actually, the wording in the gemara is Whenever Israel sins *ya'asu* lefana keseder hazaeh, and I will pardon them. The point isn't to say the 13 Middos, they're just a reminder that we're supposed to do them. If we remember the essential, to be merciful people in His Image, HQBH is ready to pardon everything else. (I am defining "mocheil" as pardon as in being mochel a debt, in contrast to full forgiveness. That's a choice among how acharonim take selichah, mechilah and kapparah, so your mileage may vary.) I passionately recommend printing up and keeping it with your selichos and YK Machzor. It's a summary of the 13 Middos as per Tomer Devorah mapped to the version of the Thirteen Middos in Shemos that we say in Selichos. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You cannot propel yourself forward micha at aishdas.org by patting yourself on the back. http://www.aishdas.org -Anonymous Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 16:58:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 19:58:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 08:07:33PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: : S"A O"C 55:11 as recorded in the 1st volume of the mishna brurah (it's : not in my regular S"A) has a footnote delineated with *) . The text of : the S"A deals with the stauts of an avaryan who was not in nidui counting : for a minyan. The footnote says nidui doesn't apply "now" because dina : dmalchuta has done away with nidui. Anyone know who added this footnote? Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. However, the MBs Poland wasn't it. Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams, micha at aishdas.org The end is near. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 07:31:21 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 10:31:21 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: Let's go back to one of the sources: Yoma 72b - "Any talmid chacham whose tocho (inside) is not like his baro (outside) is not a talmid chacham." Is this speaking only of one who appears fine externally, but is deficient internally? Or does it also apply to one who is fine internally, but doesn't look it to an outside observer? If it applies to both, does anyone compare the two? I have always presumed that the one who is not-so-good on the inside is a bigger problem than the one who is okay on the inside. But if I understood them correctly, RMB and RMP brought independent reasons why one should focus on the externals. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 01:32:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 11:32:52 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] What am I missing? Message-ID: R' Ben Waxman asked: > Re prozbul, I seem to be missing something. Personally I haven't loaned > out any huge sums such that if I don't get them back, I would be > reticent about loaning in the future. If I did loan out something small, > why should I sign the prozbul? If you have money in the bank in Israel then you have lent the bank money and therefore Shemitta will cancel your loan and the bank could keep your money. Now, the fact is that all the banks in Israel have a hater iska so that they can pay interest, but even with a heter iska half the amount is an iska but half is a loan, so the half that is a loan would be cancelled by shemita. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 17:56:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 20:56:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> I passionately recommend printing up . It explains the 13 Middos as found in Shemos and therefore Selichos in terms of the version in Michah and the Tomer Devorah thereon. Rather than repeating the same words / names over and over throughout selichos and much of Yom Kippur, it can become an opportunity to commit and recommit to emulating them. As the gemara (RH 17b) says Whenver Israel sin, they shall perform before Me like this structure (ya'asu lefanai keseider zeh), and I will forgive them. Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger How wonderful it is that micha at aishdas.org nobody need wait a single moment http://www.aishdas.org before starting to improve the world. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anne Frank Hy"d From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:27:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:27:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 08:56 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > > As the gemara (RH 17b) says > Whenver Israel sin, they shall perform before Me like this structure > (ya'asu lefanai keseider zeh), and I will forgive them. > > Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:18:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:18:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] What is the purpose of saying the 13 midos in Selichos? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55ECF3DF.8090003@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 04:19 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: > However, the recitation of the 13 middos seems like almost magic, > something we say because Hashem told us to as we say in the preceding > paragraph Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we say them and invoke that promise. Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a magical power that the holy ketores has. The Malach Hamaves told Moshe Rabbenu about this trick, and when the occasion arose Moshe told Aharon to use it. "There are more things in heaven and earth..." -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 6 19:22:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 22:22:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was > written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? No. > Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law > and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't > practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. > > However, the MBs Poland wasn't it Yes, it absolutely was. > Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 12:08:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 15:08:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Dr. Leo Deutschlander - Father of the Bais Yaakov Movement Message-ID: <20150907190830.A1951181640@nexus.stevens.edu> The name of Sarah Schneirer is invariably associated with the Bais Yaakov Movement. However, she was not the only one who was responsible for the success of the movement before WW II. Sarah Schneirer was an idealist who decided that religious schools for girls were needed in Poland and who set out to found such schools. However, WADR to Sarah Schneirer, she had a very limited academic background and her Jewish education was quite basic. (This was the case for most girls who lived when she did.) Thus others were needed to assist her in the development of the Bais Yaakov Movement. One such person was Dr. Leo Deutschlander. Up until today I knew very little about him. I did know that there had been an article in the Jewish Observer about his life, but I did not have access to it. Today a friend mine, who has a complete collection of all issues of the JO, brought me a copy of the article about Dr. Deutschlander. I have put it at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/deutschlander.pdf Note that other people who helped Sarah Schneirer with the development of the Bais Yaakov movement are mentioned and almost all of them have a Frankfurt background which means they attended the school that RSRH started in Frankfurt that educated both boys and girls. Thus in a certain sense RSRH is to be considered the grandfather of the Bais Yaakov Movement. Judith nee Rosenbaum Grunfeld played a key role in the development for the Bais Yaakov movement. See her article about Sarah Schneirer at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/sara_schenierer.pdf Anyone really interested in the history of the Bais Yaakov movement should read Rabbi Abraham Atkin's PhD thesis which is titled The Beth Jacob Movement in Poland 1917-1939. I have put this document at http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/bais_yaakov/beth_jacob_movement_poland.pdf Note that the article about Dr. Deutschlander says that he never had children. To the best of my knowledge, he never married, yet he taught Bais Yaakov girls of seminary age and perhaps even younger, something that would be considered scandalous today! Given that Dr. Deutschlander never married, I find him being characterized by Chaim Shapiro as the "Father of the Bais Yaakov Movement" somewhat amusing. >:-} YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 11:41:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 14:41:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar Message-ID: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> Please click here to download a back issue of Halachically Speaking on eating before Shofar. ---------- From the article Custom of Some Gedolim The Steipler zt"l used to recite the zohar and other tefillos during the break. In his later years he recited portions of tehillim.[1] He did not make kiddush before tekios.[2] Harav Moshe Feinstein zt"l did not eat before tekios.[3] Harav Elyashiv zt"l [4] and Harav Yisroel Belsky Shlita do not eat or drink before tekios. [1] Orchos Rabbeinu 2:page 182:4. Refer to Darchei Chaim V'sholom 716:page 251. [2] Orchos Rabbeinu 2:page 181:1. Refer to Chelek Levi 189. [3] As related by Harav Aron Felder Shlita. [4] As quoted in Chag B'chag page 113:footnote 79. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 14:13:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 17:13:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar In-Reply-To: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150907184147.BF803181640@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <55EDFE13.7010505@sero.name> I have to admit that this is one of the Lubavitcher customs that puzzle me. All year, not just on Shabbos but also on weekdays, the official Lubavitch minhag is to allow eating before davening (after saying sh'ma, on weekdays in tefillin), on the grounds that it's difficult to daven properly without it. In the Tzemach Tzedek's words, "it's better to eat in order to daven, than to daven in order to eat". If you find that you're davening in order to get to breakfast, you'd do better to get breakfast over with and then daven with kavanah. And yet on Rosh Hashana, when one often doesn't get to kiddush until 2 or 3 in the afternoon, and when one needs kavanah in davening more than ever, Lubavitchers fast until kiddush! I don't understand it. If you can make it on Rosh Hashana, why not on any other day? And if you can't daven on an empty stomach on a weekday without thinking about breakfast, then how can you daven on an even emptier stomach on Rosh Hashana without thinking about lunch? -- Zev Sero KVChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 16:32:39 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:32:39 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:18:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. : Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we : say them and invoke that promise. : Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores : to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a : magical power that the holy ketores has.. Where is this made explicit? On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:27:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: :> Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. : That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". Who said that remembering something in tefillah, unlike lekhishah, talks about the words themselves without internalization? What's the verb for tefillah, anyway? In any case, the idea that it's about saying the words until we're committed to emulating them isn't mine, it's R' Elimelekh miLetzhinsk's, the Chafeitz Chaim's and R YL Chasmin's. The latter two relate this gemara to "mah Hu 'Rachum' af atah..." Hashem is not only just, He's not a Vatran. The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that micha at aishdas.org a person can change their future http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 16:43:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 19:43:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:22:37PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: : On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was :> written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? : No. Source? :> Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law :> and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't :> practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. :> However, the MBs Poland wasn't it : Yes, it absolutely was. Again, source? Actual excommunications were commonplace. Comes up in teshuvos on agunah. :> Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. : Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could : be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the : MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. In the CC's hayday, Radun was in the Vilna Voivodship, Poland. And I didn't ask about censortship, I asked about autonomy, as in having courts empowered to punish, and the Jewish community certainly did. At least, azoi shteyt YIVO The Polish government never recognized Jewish communal autonomy de jure, but autonomy existed de facto in hundreds of local communities, school systems, and youth movements during the interwar period. Because regardless of whether this appeal to dina demalkhusa was real or to satisfy a censor, the mileau that created this footnote had to have such a law. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where micha at aishdas.org you are, or what you are doing, that makes you http://www.aishdas.org happy or unhappy. It's what you think about. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Dale Carnegie From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 17:42:30 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 20:42:30 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> References: <20150907005608.GA10344@aishdas.org> <55ECF61B.2020400@sero.name> <20150907233239.GA4801@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EE2EF6.2060509@sero.name> On 09/07/2015 07:32 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:18:07PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : Yes, that is exactly what it is: magic. Theurgy, as R Micha calls it. > : Hashem promised that when we say these 13 words He will listen, so we > : say them and invoke that promise. > > : Another indisputable example of theurgy in Judaism: burning ketores > : to stop a plague. This is explicitly not about the kavana, but a > : magical power that the holy ketores has.. > > Where is this made explicit? It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell? Also, the gemara deduces that this is where Moshe must have got it, because how else could he possibly have known about it? Now if it was about the kavanos or the zechus of the mitzvah stopping plagues, then why couldn't Moshe Rabbenu have worked it out from first principles? This shows that it isn't anything that could be worked out, there's no reason why it should be so, it just is. In other words, magic. > > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:27:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > :> Hashem doesn't ask us to say the pesuqim, He asks us to do them. > > : That's not what Rashi says there. "She'im yazkirum". > > Who said that remembering something in tefillah, unlike lekhishah, talks > about the words themselves without internalization? What's the verb for > tefillah, anyway? "Lehazkir" doesn't mean to remember, it means to mention, to pronounce words. For that matter, the word "yaasu" that you're basing yourself on refers not to the midos themselves but to the "seder tefillah", i.e. the ritual of naming the midos. > Hashem is not only just, He's not a Vatran. The notion of magic words > that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah > would be very problematic. But that is what the gemara seems to say. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 18:06:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 21:06:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Footnote to the Shulchan Aruch In-Reply-To: <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> References: <1189dd03981f4549b044b426bb2be884@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> <20150906235841.GB15175@aishdas.org> <55ECF4ED.2010502@sero.name> <20150907234328.GB4801@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EE34A8.7060303@sero.name> On 09/07/2015 07:43 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 10:22:37PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > : On 09/06/2015 07:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> Was excommunication banned under the Ottomans in 1563, when the SA was > :> written, or in Venice 1565 when it was first published? > > : No. > > Source? There is no source that it was banned then. Why would you even imagine that it would be? There is no such note in any edition of the Shulchan Aruch. In any case, the concept of banning cherem doesn't seem to have come up until the late 18th century. http://t95.el.sl.pt > :> Whether or not the Jewish community put people in nidui despite such a law > :> and this was all for the censor (as Zev presumes) or it actually wasn't > :> practiced, clearly in some community such a law must have existed. > > :> However, the MBs Poland wasn't it > > : Yes, it absolutely was. > > Again, source? Actual excommunications were commonplace. Comes up > in teshuvos on agunah. Catherine the Great banned cherem in 1795. Of course they ignored the law and did it anyway, but to get a sefer past the publisher they had to pretend to be obeying the law, so if the sefer mentioned cherem they had to note that this was written before it became illegal. > :> Until it got closer to WWII, Jews had a lot of autonomy in Poland. > > : Poland?! It was Russia, and the Jews had no autonomy. No book could > : be published without the censor's approval. The censor's stamp on the > : MB is dated 23-Dec-1882. > > In the CC's hayday, Radun was in the Vilna Voivodship, Poland. What Poland? There was no such place as Poland. It was Russia, and there was no autonomy. > And I didn't ask about censortship, I asked about autonomy, as in having > courts empowered to punish, and the Jewish community certainly did. > At least, azoi shteyt YIVO > > The Polish government never recognized Jewish communal autonomy de > jure, but autonomy existed de facto in hundreds of local communities, > school systems, and youth movements during the interwar period. Read what you just wrote: "The Polish government". What period could this paragraph possibly be talking about? The period when there was a Poland and a Polish government. IOW not the time we are discussing. And indeed if you look at the page again, you will see that it is explicitly discussing the interwar period, after Polish independence. > Because regardless of whether this appeal to dina demalkhusa was real > or to satisfy a censor, the mileau that created this footnote had to > have such a law. Yes, it did. Catherine's law that I mentioned above. And it also had a strict censorship law, which this sefer was subject to. If you need any further convincing, note the language of the censor's stamp. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 7 20:16:09 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 23:16:09 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Joel Rich wrote: > Listen hear for discussion on point > http://www.torahbase.org/prozbul-concept-halachos-5775/?lang=en > Rav Asher Weiss - Prozbul - Concept and Halachos 5775 Thank you very much for showing me this. I listened to it a few times, and it seems that he gives his conclusions right at the beginning: (00:42 to 01:05) "The takana of Pruzbul is that there is no need to physically give over your notes to Beis Din and there is no need Beis Din should be the ones to collect your money. Hillel was metaken: it is enough if you declare, either orally or in writing, Mosrani lachem..." (02:00-02:24) "The takana of Hillel was: It is enough if you write 'Mosrani lachem ploni v'ploni'. It is considered AS IF you transferred your notes to Beis Din, and when you collect the money, you would be considered AS IF you would be shliach of Beis Din even though it's not really the real thing in practicality. But that was the takana of Pruzbul." But how does it work? He clearly says (at 8:40 to 9:23) that the functions of a Beis Din do not include acting as a collection agency. There ARE (9:49 to 10:30) are very limited circumstances where Beis Din does have that function, such as collecting for yesomim, because that *is* one of the roles of the Beis Din, as "avi yesomim". One the other hand, (10:30 to 10:52) yesomim do not need to make a pruzbul at all, because Beis Din is *automatically* the Avi Yesomim, and their loans will not be cancelled by shmitta. So he suggests (12:19 to 12:40) that although it is not Beis Din's practice to accept the responsibility of collecting loans except for unusual cases, perhaps the difficulties posed by Shmitta put other loans in this category, and so if someone would be moser his loans to Beis Din, then Shmitta will not cancel them. But exactly why are such loans exempt? He explains (14:20 to 14:40), "You have to be m'shamet loans, but the moment you gave your notes, your loans over to Beis Din, it is k'gavui dami - it is as if those monies were already collected." He then compares this situation to the case where the lender has collateral for the loan, and that too is "already collected" and exempt from Shmitas Kesafim. It seems to me that this is how Rav Weiss understands the Pruzbul: The loan was and remains property of the lender, but Beis Din accepts the responsibility to go to the borrower to demand payment. From that point, it is considered as "already collected". Since it is already collected, not only is he allowed to request the money after Rosh Hashana, but there's no need to even state "M'shamet Ani". There is no need for any kinyan, because the loan remains property of the lender, and the role of Beis Din is simply to accept responsibility for collecting the loan; this occurs automatically at the inception of the loan where the lender is an orphan, and it also occurs automatically at the execution of a Pruzbul per Ezra's takana. ON THE OTHER HAND, over Shabbos a friend lent me his copy of Sefer Dinei Shviis Hashalem, published by Keren Hatarbut Degel Yerushalayim, which contains a photo of a pruzbul on the stationery of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and (apparently) in his handwriting, dated 29 Elul 5754. It contains a very interesting clause. Other pruzbuls avoid details, and simply say something like "I am moser my loans to beis din", but this one adds some very significant points. Here is the full pruzbul, as best as I can render it: "[B'mosav tlasa bei dina k'chada havinu] We were three dayanim sitting together, [uva l'faneinu...] and R' Aharon Dovid Goldberg came [v'amar lanu] and said to us: [Hen shana zu hee shnas hashviis] This year is the seventh year, [v'yesh li chovos b'shtar uv'al peh] and I have loans - both in writing and orally - [al ayzeh anashim] against certain people. [V'hareni moser lachem pruzbul] I am now moser a pruzbul to you, [viyhavis l'chon b'matana] and give it to you as a gift [b'kinyan dalet' amos karka] with a kinyan of four amos of land, [me'arah d'ees li] from the ground that is mine. [V'al gabayhon] And through that, [arshees yas'chon] I give you permission [limigbah kol chovos] to collect all my loans, [d'ees lee al inshee] which I have against people. [Mayatah t'havoon li daiyna] Henceforth you will be my dayanim, [v'sagbuhu uskabluhu li] and you will collect and accept payment for me. [V'im lo tagbuhu atem] And if you do not collect it yourselves, [mayata kayvan shemasarti lachem pruzbul zeh] then since I was moser this pruzbul to you, [ani goveh kol chov] so I can collect any loan [sheyesh li ad hayom etzel kol adam] which I have up to today against anyone, [kol zman she'ertzeh] any time I want. [next paragraph] - "[Anachnu beis din] We the court [shamanu dvarav] heard his words, [veefinu kocho] and affirm its validity, [shelo t'shamet lay] that he will not have a cancellation, [v'yigbeh kol chovosav] and he can collect all his loans, [al ydei pruzbul zeh] via this pruzbul, [k'takanas Hillel v'Chazal] in accordance with the takana of Hillel and Chazal. [next paragraph] - "[Banu al hechasum] We have signed below [yom kaf"tes l'chodesh Elul, shnas heh-tav-shin-nun"dalet] this day, 29th of Elul 5754 [poh Ir Hakodesh Yerushalayim] here, the holy city of Yerushalayim. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach [I cannot read the other two signatures]" (end of pruzbul) I don't understand the purpose of the four amos of land. (Yes, I'm quite aware of the requirement in halacha, I just don't understand why that requirement was included. That's a topic for another thread.) And I quite likely made some errors in the transliteration and the translation. But I think that I understood it well enough to state with confidence that it seems that RSZA does indeed subscribe to the "collection agency" model, which Rav Asher Weiss had so clearly rejected. RSZA explicitly uses the word "kinyan". One could argue that the "matanah" which the lender is giving to the beis din is merely the pruzbul and not the loans. One could also point out that after the kinyan has occurred, the lender continues to refer to the loans (which beis din would collect) as "MY loans", suggesting that they are still owned by the lender and not the beis din. But if that is so, then what does it mean to make a kinyan on the *pruzbul*? This pruzbul is merely a record of the court proceedings, and it seems very likely to me that the intent is for the court to acquire the loans themselves, in very much the same way that a modern collection agency works. If anyone disagrees, and feels that RSZA does *not* subscribe to the "collection agency" model, please explain how you think this pruzbul works. And if anyone does agree with me, then I wonder if any other poskim hold that way, because every explanation of pruzbul that I've seen describes the document itself, and no one ever mentions any requirement of kinyan. Thank you Akiva Miller (now at AkivaGMiller at gmail) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 02:10:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Cantor Wolberg via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 05:10:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar Message-ID: And if you can't daven on an empty stomach on a weekday without thinking about breakfast, then how can you daven on an even emptier stomach on Rosh Hashana without thinking about lunch? Kal v?chomer, how can you daven on T?B and Y?K when you wake up without having even drinking or eating and then must go another good 12 hours on an empty stomach? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 03:51:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:51:38 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote; > "It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that > ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to > have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there > the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so > obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. > How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell?" Rashi in Chumash quoting the Mechilta offers a second explanation of why the ketores was used to end the plague. Bnei Yisrael were complaining about the ketores that it was a sam hamaves, that it killed people. The ketores killed Nadav and Avihu, it killed the 250 people, therefore Hashem said watch that it can stop the plague and that sin is what really kills people. We see clearly from this explanation that there was nothing magical about using the ketores, rather Hashem wanted to make a point to the Jewish people about the ketores. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 07:35:55 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:35:55 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very problematic. (Or perhaps "confusing" would be a better description, as it moves the focus away from a "problematic halacha", chalila, and towards my obligation to understand it.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 08:14:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 11:14:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:35:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a : measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very : problematic... And I don't believe there is such a thing, so I have no problem. I suggested twice now 2007 http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol23/v23n174.shtml#12 and 2010 http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n130.shtml that itzumo shel yom mechaperes only someone who acknowledges and embraces the etzem shel yom. >From 2007: > My understanding is that itzumo shel yom is mechapeir, but without inuyim, > one isn't connected to that etzem. IOW, someone who eats on YK doesn't > get kapparah, but someone who observes YK gets kapparah from YK itself, > not the zekhus of observance. > And it's clear from R' Elazar ben Azaryah on Yuma 86a that YK is never > effective in and of itself. > - For an asei, teshuvah is effective > - For a regular lav, teshuvah must first achieve selichah (removal of > onesh) before YK can effect kaparah > - For a chayav kareis, one needs teshuvah and YK for selichah, and onesh > brings kaparah > - For chillul Hashem, only misah brings kaparah. > The philosophical problems are > (1) The justice in YK being mechapeir > (2) Given a ba'asher hu sham approach, why would onesh or misah in and > of itself help? > I couldn't make heads or tails of it without stretching the notion, > and saying that YK is mechapeir to the extent that one allows oneself to > experience the soul-changing nature of YK, and thus change the ba'asher > hu sham. Similarly oneshim or misah. I know all this could be seen as dachuq BUT, Divine Justice is the 11th iqar. I would prefer to take a number of chazal's statements as colloquial shorthand for more nuanced ideas than to dismiss what we have blessed as a defining feature of Yahadus. Or IOW, given that Ani Maamin and Yigdal made it into the siddur, I feel the burden rests on those who take itzumo shel yom in its simple sense. (And yes, "problematic" should be tken as "a problem for us to understand.") Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger If a person does not recognize one's own worth, micha at aishdas.org how can he appreciate the worth of another? http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye, Fax: (270) 514-1507 author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 10:08:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:08:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 midos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55EF15F0.8060200@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 06:50 AM, Marty Bluke wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote; >> "It's described as a secret that the Malach Hamaves gave Moshe, that >> ketores stops plagues. Moshe didn't tell Aharon what kavanos to >> have, just take some ketores and go there. And when Aharon got there >> the Malach Hamaves protested, and wanted to continue his work, so >> obviously it was the ketores that was stopping him, not anything else. >> How is that not an explicit statement that it works like a magic spell?" > Rashi in Chumash quoting the Mechilta offers a second explanation of > why the ketores was used to end the plague. Bnei Yisrael were > complaining about the ketores that it was a sam hamaves, that it > killed people. The ketores killed Nadav and Avihu, it killed the 250 > people, therefore Hashem said watch that it can stop the plague and > that sin is what really kills people. > > We see clearly from this explanation that there was nothing magical > about using the ketores, rather Hashem wanted to make a point to the > Jewish people about the ketores. Yes, this is an alternative explanation, offered because the primary explanation leaves some question unanswered. But it is the second explanation rather than the first, because the problem with it is obvious: Hashem didn't tell Moshe to do this. Moshe told Aharon on his own initiative, which is why the gemara wonders how he knew that it would work. This is also why the Malach Hamaves challenged Aharon's right to stop him; if the instruction had come from Hashem he would have had no reason to object to being stopped. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 12:04:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:04:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Eating Before Shofar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55EF3124.3060704@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 05:10 AM, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote: > Kal v?chomer, how can you daven on T?B and Y?K when you wake up > without having even drinking or eating and then must go another good > 12 hours on an empty stomach? Absolutely. But you don't have a choice. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 8 12:07:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:07:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> References: <20150908151449.GD2131@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55EF31E7.5090303@sero.name> On 09/08/2015 11:14 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 10:35:55AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > : True, but I think the notion of magic days and procedures that gain even a > : measure of kapparah without necessitating teshuvah is also very > : problematic... > > And I don't believe there is such a thing, so I have no problem. > > I suggested twice now 2007 > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol23/v23n174.shtml#12 and 2010 > http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol30/v30n130.shtml that > itzumo shel yom mechaperes only someone who acknowledges and embraces > the etzem shel yom. Rebbi is the one who says Itzumo shel yom mechaper, and he explicitly says that one who eats on YK is automatically forgiven the moment he swallows the food, so that the only way to get kares for eating on YK is to choke on the food and die before swallowing it. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 10:18:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:18:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] thermostats Message-ID: as thermostats for the house get more sophisticated do they present a shabbat problem? http://www.cnet.com/products/nest-learning-thermostat-third-generation/?ftag=CAD1acfa04 -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 10:37:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 13:37:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 12:11:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 15:11:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> References: <20150909173716.GB7014@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F08476.8010605@sero.name> On 09/09/2015 01:37 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay > (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan. Whether it's allowed is a different question from how it works. Moser Shtorosav leveis din worked even when shmitah was d'oraisa. Tosfos says that Hillel didn't invent it, he merely legitimised it. Before his day it was known, but it was considered unethical, and no reputable beis din would go along with it. To do it required finding a fly-by- night beis din willing to entertain it, so upstanding lenders didn't take advantage, and instead were reluctant to lend. Then Hillel decreed his "solution for rich and poor", which was to instruct botei din to accept and even encourage such applications, so that people would be willing to lend. And he only felt comfortable doing so because shmita was d'rabonon. -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 15:32:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 18:32:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 09:30:46PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : In Avodah V33n118, R'Micha wrote: :> However, I can't picture drawing the conclusion that chitzonius is :> more important than penimius. : Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what can : be seen? How is the surface of a lung or brain more visible than the innards? The only difference is how much cutting is required. In general, halakhah only deals with what can be seen in principle, not what happens to be visible in this instance. You can't eat unchecked lettuce any more readily because the light bulb blew in the room you're in. And in principle, these things can be checked. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything. micha at aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it. http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 17:23:44 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:23:44 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> Re: Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom - Rabbi Natan Slifkin From: Ben Rothke via Areivim <_areivim at lists.aishdas.org_ (mailto:areivim at lists.aishdas.org) > >> "The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom" is the latest book by Rabbi Natan Slifkin. I found it to be a fascinating work. My review is here: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/book-review-the-torah-encyclopedia-of-the-ani mal-kingdom Let me know what you think. << --Ben Rothke >>>>> I think the book is magnificent. I've seen the first volume and read a good chunk of it (the projected second volume is not out yet). It is a fascinating work based on tremendous research, and also aesthetically beautiful. The first volume is about wild animals mentioned in the Torah. The projected second volume I believe is about domestic and kosher animals. The book definitively answers, at least to my satisfaction, a question I've wondered about for a long time: What is a re'em? According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). In Moshe's brachos to the shevatim he says Yoseph has "the horns of a re'em" (Dev. 33:17). Bil'am says when Hashem took the Jews out of Egypt He had "like the strength of a re'em" (Bamidbar 23:22). R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs, a huge and powerful horned animal, a wild ox, nearly the size of an elephant, that lived in Europe, Asia and North Africa. It went extinct only about 400 years ago. The last recorded aurochs died in Poland in 1627. BTW a description and drawing of the aurochs can be seen on pages 17 - 18 of a lovely 28-page monograph that is particularly appropriate for this season. See *Exotic Shofars: Halachic Considerations* by R' Natan Slifkin. http://zootorah.com/assets/media/essays/ExoticShofars.pdf --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 9 21:37:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:37:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> ------------------------------ I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem?s love for His people: ?If you sin, even if you?re not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here?s a ?ticket? of sorts that I?m giving you _now_ to show my love for you, that if you ?remind? me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate that you see yourselves as close to me, and I?ll give you some measure of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah.? The best Mashal I could think of for this is a PBA placard ? you buy it and put it in your car, and when the cop pulls you over for speeding, you show it to him and he goes easy on you, because he sees that you?re really a friend of the police. NOT because you demonstrated regret for speeding, necessarily. Does that make sense? KT, MYG From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:14:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:14:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Thinking about, knowing about, and knowing G-d In-Reply-To: <000601d0eb81$09d77c90$1d8675b0$@gmail.com> References: <20150901180343.GC11612@aishdas.org> <20150903002115.GA1793@aishdas.org> <55F08884.3010503@sero.name> <000601d0eb81$09d77c90$1d8675b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150910191452.GD3345@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:27:43AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Areivim wrote: : R' ZS: :> The Nachum in your story is too busy to think about HKBH, and that's not :> good, but OTOH HKBH Himself said "I wish they would forget me and keep my :> Torah", so this Nachum is better than someone who is constantly :> thinking about HKBH but doesn't keep mitzvos. But this is why Tanya :> (ch 41) says to interrupt ones learning once an hour to think about why one :> is learning. : This discussion reminds me that there's another step - not only to think : about Hashem, but to _know_ about Hashem, as in the old story (excerpted : from a piece I wrote for "A Daily Dose of Torah"): : R' Levi Yitzchok of Berditchev studied for an extended period of time with : the Maggid, R' Dov Ber of Mezeritch. When he returned, his father-in-law - : who did not approve of R' Levi Yitzchok's leanings towards chassidus - asked : him, "What did you learn there?" R' Levi Yitzchok answered, "I learned that : Hashem exists." His father-in-law, annoyed, protested that everyone knows : that, and to prove it, asked the maid, "Does Hashem exist?" She answered, : "Certainly!" : "She says it," R' Levi Yitzchok responded, "but I know it!" : Certainly pertinent to Malchiyos. I often quote something R/Prof Shalom Carmy wrote in (Aug '01): > [RGStudent: ] >> However, in his Al HaTeshuvah (pp. 195-201), R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik >> investigates what it means to "know" God. As he points out, it is >> impossible to know God. Rather, the Rambam means that we are obligated to >> constantly recognize God's existence. As it says in Mishlei (3:6), "In all >> your ways know Him." Cf. Rabbeinu Yonah's commentary to Mishlei, ad loc. > People who throw around big words on these subjects always seem to take > for granted things that I don't. > The people who keep insisting that it's necessary to prove things about > G-d, including His existence, seem to take it for granted that devising > these proofs is identical with knowing G-d. > Now if I know a human being personally the last thing I'd do, except as > a purely intellectual exercise, is prove his or her existence. RMYG's point is similar to that in the quote from RGS. There is a difference between knowing about Gcd and knowing Gcd. The latter is experiential, and doesn't demand proof. And IMHO more related to Malkhios. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger None of us will leave this place alive. micha at aishdas.org All that is left to us is http://www.aishdas.org to be as human as possible while we are here. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:23:31 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:23:31 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] hakarat hatov In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150910192331.GA25852@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 04:56:04PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger: :> I do not even know of a term for requiring repaying a favor. Although :> there is meishiv ra'ah tachas tovah (Mishlei 17:13, c.f. Bereishis 44:4, :> Shemuel I 25:21, Yirmiyahu 18:20, Tehillim 35:12, 38:21, 109:5). Not an :> obligation to repay as much as an issur against doing them wrong. : "Mah ashiv laShem, kol tagmulohi alai?" I do not see obligation here. Rather, how can I possibly repay, given that everything I have is from Him. Even if voluntarily. Therefore (next pasuq), I will simply recognize what He gave me (kos yeshu'os esa) and that He was the One Who gave it (uvsheim H' eqra), follow through on what I already promised.... Do you see new obligations in this pereq? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Live as if you were living already for the micha at aishdas.org second time and as if you had acted the first http://www.aishdas.org time as wrongly as you are about to act now! Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 12:47:25 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:47:25 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:02:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. : I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear as : ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) ... It's an intersting point, but relating it to RYBS's position just confuses the matter. You're using the word "ceremony" in nearly the opposite sense. And while you note that: : I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview it. : Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not : ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view This isnt' merely an answer, it's an indication that you're discussing two different topics. There is no question, just a miscommunication. Anyway, the contrast between the usages of the word "ceremony" interested me. You listed a number of cases where a halachic legality can be accomplished through something the lay-person considers meaningless ritual: pruzbul, mechiras chameitz, heter isqa, ha'aramos, etc.. RYBS made that statement about ceremony in the sense of ritual in which the person finds meaning, but lacks halachic structure. The two examples that most readily leap to mind are (1) his disparaging kiruv that focuses on white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos candelabra, and (2) his modifying the minhagim of the Three Weeks and Nine Days because leshitaso, the minhagim must follow the same forms as ones found in hilkhos aveilus. I posted about this in Aug '08 at . I also noted in 2011 that RYBS's position that minhag must mirror halachic structure is in opposition to the Brisker Rav's (his uncle's) shitah. RYZS holds that one makes berakhos on minhagim that have a cheftzah shel mitzvah (eg lighting a Chanukah menorah in shul), and that the Rambam and Rabbeinu Tam don't argue about that. What they do argue about is whether Chatzi Hallel is close enough to Hallel to qualify for a berakhah. However, leshitas RYBS, there are no such minhagim that wouldn't require a berakhah. If Chatzi Hallel didn't require a berakhah because it's not close enough to the cheftzah shel mitzvah, it would be "ceremony", and not a valid minhag. He therefore would have to reject his uncle's chiddush. Neo-Chassidus is basically a MO rebellion to this kind of Halakhic Man approach to Yahadus. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just http://www.aishdas.org beginning. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 10:54:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:54:54 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] The Performing Kiddush Prior to Tekiyas Shofar Puzzle Message-ID: <20150910175503.5E910182948@nexus.stevens.edu> From http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6500 Picture, if you will, the hallowed halls of almost any Yeshivah, almost anywhere in the world, on Rosh Hashanah morning. As the strains of Shiras Chanah conclude, followed by the post-Haftarah brachos, there suddenly is a loud bang on the Bimah and the Gabbai calls out "Kiddush!" Most of those assembled take a break for a quick Kiddush and then return for the day's main Mitzvah - the Tekiyas Shofar, the Blowing of the Shofar. The reciting of 'Lamnatzeach' soon reach a crescendo, not unlike a deafening roar, as the congregation eagerly anticipates and prepares for the Shofar Blowing. Although this is indeed the common custom in almost every Yeshivah, curiously, the idea of making Kiddush and eating prior to the main Mitzvah of the day is considered an anathema to some. In fact, the Matteh Efraim, who is considered the authority on issues relating to the Yomim Nora'im, writes that it is actually prohibited to eat before Tekiyas Shofar, barring if one is weak, and, even only then, a small 'Te'imah', tasting of food, in private, is allowed.[1] If so, why do so many make Kiddush[2] and eat before Tekiyas Shofar? To sum up the matter, and although this dilemma is quite complicated, one must ascertain from his knowledgeable halachic authority, as well as taking his personal situation, strength level, and minhag into account, as to what to do on Rosh Hashanah morning.[23] Postscript: One interesting upshot of this machlokes seems to be the recent proliferation of Vasikin Minyanim on Rosh Hashanah. In this way, it is possible to daven all of Shacharis and Mussaf and still be able to make Kiddush after completing davening but still before Chatzos, as well as gain all the spiritual benefits of 'Davening Haneitz'.[24] A seemingly excellent way to avoid spiritual conflict on the Day of Judgment, all the while literally fulfilling the Rambam's famous dictum (Hilchos Teshuvah Ch. 3: 4) of 'Uru Yesheinim Mi'shnascham, Wake up you slumberers, from your sleep', for the clarion call of the Shofar. See the above URL for more. ---------- Any one living in Flatbush is welcome to come to the YI of Ave J Haskama Minyan on RH morning. We start at 7:15 and davening will be over by 11:30 (with Musaf). Then there is plenty of time to go home and make kiddush before Chatzos. Davening is on the second floor in the Simcha Hall. YL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 08:46:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:46:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha responded to me: >> Isn't this yet another example in *halachah* of working only with what >> can be seen? > How is the surface of a lung or brain more visible than the innards? > The only difference is how much cutting is required. And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an external tool is required in order to 'see' something. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 13:00:38 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:00:38 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:46:32AM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: : And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external : magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an : external tool is required in order to 'see' something. You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying glass. To me that seems obvious. But to articulate it, I find myself going to words like cheftzah, which is a bit too technical to be appropriate language for relaying why I find it self-evident. The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. The magnifying glass compensates for the fact that water bears and other microscopic beasties are not in the realm of experience. We aren't getting the situation right, we are compensating for something with the cheftzah itself. To put it another way, maggot eggs do not have halachic existence. Do tiny crustaceans cease to exist and come back into existence if you flip the light off or on? (This is just different kind of appeal to cheftzah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 13:19:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:19:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> References: <20150909223257.GA26619@aishdas.org> <20150910200038.GE25852@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha noted: > You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. < I omitted the blown lightbulb because IMHO the level of required light is a murky subject (poor attempt at humor :)). > I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying glass. < And I am disagreeing: you need an external tool to reach that inside area. Since you're pushing your "kasuv hashelishi", you also need to define what level of light is "normal" -- surely you're not saying that a bug which can only be 'seen' when the level of light exceeds *olam-hazeh* norms (e.g. the lumen level exceeds that of the sun at its strongest) qualifies as visible? > The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. < I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. All the best from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:46:32AM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: > : And with insects in water, the only difference is whether external > : magnification is required -- the *tzad hashaveh* would be whether an > : external tool is required in order to 'see' something. > > You omitted my kasuv hashelishi, insects in water that can be seen > by the naked eye in normal lighting, but you're drinking in the dark. > > I am saying that reaching the inside of a cow lung is more like bringing > the cup of water over to the light than like checking with a magnifying > glass. > > To me that seems obvious. But to articulate it, I find myself going > to words like cheftzah, which is a bit too technical to be appropriate > language for relaying why I find it self-evident. > > The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, > the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside > the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an > aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is > within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. > > The magnifying glass compensates for the fact that water bears and > other microscopic beasties are not in the realm of experience. We aren't > getting the situation right, we are compensating for something with the > cheftzah itself. > > To put it another way, maggot eggs do not have halachic existence. > Do tiny crustaceans cease to exist and come back into existence if > you flip the light off or on? (This is just different kind of appeal > to cheftzah.) > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole > micha at aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own." > http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other, > Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 17:40:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:40:49 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Child Conversion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911004049.GA29555@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 05:20:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: :> The recent court to allow conversion of under bar/bat mitzvah children is :> controversial. The bone of contention is whether it is considred a zechut :> for children to become Jewish when they grow up in a non-religious setting. I thought we dissuade geirim (non-qetanim) in part because this is not true. Alternatively: How do the meiqilim justify this practice, particularly in venues (Golden Age of Spain, much of the world today) where there is comparatively little antisemisim? Rashi (Yevamos 74a, "de'amar) is concerned about the sinning convert's influence on other Jews. This being R' Chelbo's "qasheh ... kesapachas". Tosafos understand R' Chelbo as referring to the extra issurim of mistreating a geir, or that they make us look bad. The Semag (Lav 116, quoted by the BY YD 268) says we dissuade the ger to make sure he knows exactly what he is accepting, avoiding a "meqach ta'us" (my term). On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:27:59PM -0400, Kaganoff via Avodah wrote: : The exception (and here I am venturing into Areivim territory) is Religious : Zionists who would argue for the superiority of the Jewish soul and also : for the need to allow ger katan conversions in non-religious families for : reasons of Nationalism. Or, that being a Jew in Israel is so much better that zakhin le'adam shelo befanav applies. IOW, not by reasons of nationalism, but by taking nationalism into account as part of the metzi'us. Similar to those who rule that we do not dissuade a non-halachic convert, since they will be living among the Jews and their children will quite likely marry Jews either way. And in the latest volume of IM (vol 9, EhE 14), RMF similarly tells a BD to be proactive in convertain someone who thought until now they were Jewish. He even invoked the case of Timna, saying that to not do so would be to be repeating the avos' mistake. So we do see that facts on the ground about whether it is beneficial for the life they will be leading do matter. The bigger problem I have is qabbalas ol mitzvos. RnCL and I argued at length about whether the following qualifies as QOM, but whatever you want to call it.... Upon reaching adulthood, the geir has to affirm their acceptance of the mitzvos. While people pictures this means coming to BD on their 12th or 13th birthday, that is impossible -- the affirmation would have to be tokh kedei dibur of growing shenei sa'aros. Instead, BD sees if during that span of their lives they were observant, and if they were, we consider the geirus affirmed. This din is real enough that the gemara asks about a giyores from when she was less than 3, who is married of to a kohein as a qetana may be given terumah. After all, she might annull the geirus, in which case should would retroactively not have been an eishes kohein! The gemara answers based on rov (most children do not choose to convert out of the religion they were raised with), not that the affirmation is optional. So, what's going to happen to these qetanim when they reach adulthood? How can they be said to have effectively accepted ol mitzvos? Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision, micha at aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 17:20:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:20:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I actually thought pruzbul only works because ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan >>> Agreed. But there still has to be rules, logic, framework. My original post was a request for help in identifying those rules. (And for now, Rav Asher Weiss' explanation seems quite plausible.). Example: If the streets in my town are a reshus harabim, there's no way to carry on Shabbos without actual walls. If the streets are merely karmelis, then we can make a haarama to say that the area is surrounded by a series of doorways. But they have got to be real halachic doorways; if even one lechi has the string on the side instead of above, forget it. So too here. I don't mind being moser to beis din, if only I was clear on what it is that I'm giving them, and how that happens, and what it accomplishes. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:04:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:04:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911010426.GA12008@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 08:20:47PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I actually thought pruzbul only works because : ha'aramah is okay (sometimes) when you're avoiding a derabbanan >>> : : Agreed. But there still has to be rules, logic, framework... I was mostly dismissing your mentioning the lack of qinyan sudar. We can make a shaliach without one, for a ha'aramah. Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:25:58 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:25:58 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> References: <000701d0eb82$6e447380$4acd5a80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20150911012558.GA18449@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:37:41AM -0400, Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah wrote: : R' Micha Berger wrote: :> The notion of magic words that gain even a measure of mechilah without :> necessitating teshuvah would be very problematic. >>> : I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem's love for His people: "If you : sin, even if you're not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, : here's a "ticket" of sorts that I'm giving you now to show my love for : you, that if you 'remind' me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate : that you see yourselves as close to me, and I'll give you some measure : of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah." But spending time demonstracting our desire for or actual closeness to HQBH is itself arguably a measure of teshuvah. And in any case avoids my problem with ascribing power to a sequence of syllables in and of themselves. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 18:29:19 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:29:19 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> Message-ID: <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:23:44PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: : According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job : 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and : 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). : R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs... He argues that it's an auroachs. Calling any identification of this sort a "demonstration" is overly confident. Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we can use mythical creatures as metaphors. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The true measure of a man micha at aishdas.org is how he treats someone http://www.aishdas.org who can do him absolutely no good. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Samuel Johnson From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 20:00:56 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:00:56 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< I was mostly dismissing your mentioning the lack of qinyan sudar. We can make a shaliach without one, for a ha'aramah. >>> I presume you mean like how I can make the rav my shaliach for mechiras chometz without any kinyan. (In practice we do make a kinyan, but only as a chumrah.) So I don't need a kinyan at pruzbul either, and I can make the beis din a shliach without any kinyan. Okay. But if so, then exactly what is it that I'm making the beis din my shaliach FOR? What are they doing on my behalf? If I am making them my shaliach to collect my loans on my behalf, then that sounds like Rav Asher Weiss' explanation. Sure, beis din is patur from lo yigos, but it was a big chidush to me that that's enough to exempt me from being m'shamet a loan that I still own. (But if one wants to go with the Collection Agency idea, then shlichus is irrelevant - beis din would need to own the loan.) Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 10 20:51:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 23:51:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: <1a9316.271c37fb.4323a9c7@aol.com> In a message dated 9/10/2015 9:29:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, micha at aishdas.org writes: Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. >>> That is a fascinating and insightful point! --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 02:00:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:00:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony in halacha In-Reply-To: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> References: <20150910194725.GB25852@aishdas.org> Message-ID: > Please elaborate BTW The Jewish Action had a recent article on the popularity of MO neo-chassidut. I went to a wedding this week where the chatan learns in a yeshiva from Ofra. To my sight it looked like a Breslov Yeshiva. Big white kippot with extreme dancing. The boys mostly has long peyot. The Rosh Yeshiva/mesader kedushin put on a tallit for the chuppa which I had never seen. He stressed that the chatan's tallit had techelet and he should make a shecheyanu but no bracha on the tallit since it was night, etc However, this was a RZ wedding with a bracha for the soldiers etc. On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 12:02:01PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: > : RHS following RYBS insists there is no such thing as ceremony in Judaism. > : I am not sure I agree but in any case there are many things that appear > as > : ceremony to the average layman. Some examples include (inyama de-yoma) > ... > > It's an intersting point, but relating it to RYBS's position just > confuses the matter. You're using the word "ceremony" in nearly > the opposite sense. And while you note that: > : I again stress that I am using ceremony in the way that most peopleview > it. > : Of course RHS would counter that these are halachic constructs and not > : ceremonies. This is true in the halachic view but not in the popular view > > This isnt' merely an answer, it's an indication that you're discussing > two different topics. There is no question, just a miscommunication. > > Anyway, the contrast between the usages of the word "ceremony" interested > me. > > You listed a number of cases where a halachic legality can be accomplished > through something the lay-person considers meaningless ritual: pruzbul, > mechiras chameitz, heter isqa, ha'aramos, etc.. > > RYBS made that statement about ceremony in the sense of ritual in which > the person finds meaning, but lacks halachic structure. > > The two examples that most readily leap to mind are (1) his disparaging > kiruv that focuses on white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos candelabra, > and (2) his modifying the minhagim of the Three Weeks and Nine Days > because leshitaso, the minhagim must follow the same forms as ones found > in hilkhos aveilus. I posted about this in Aug '08 at > . > > I also noted in 2011 that RYBS's position that minhag must mirror halachic > structure is in opposition to the Brisker Rav's (his uncle's) shitah. RYZS > holds that one makes berakhos on minhagim that have a cheftzah shel > mitzvah (eg lighting a Chanukah menorah in shul), and that the Rambam > and Rabbeinu Tam don't argue about that. What they do argue about is > whether Chatzi Hallel is close enough to Hallel to qualify for a berakhah. > > However, leshitas RYBS, there are no such minhagim that wouldn't require > a berakhah. If Chatzi Hallel didn't require a berakhah because it's not > close enough to the cheftzah shel mitzvah, it would be "ceremony", and not > a valid minhag. He therefore would have to reject his uncle's chiddush. > > Neo-Chassidus is basically a MO rebellion to this kind of Halakhic > Man approach to Yahadus. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger When a king dies, his power ends, > micha at aishdas.org but when a prophet dies, his influence is just > http://www.aishdas.org beginning. > Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Soren Kierkegaard > -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 09:03:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:03:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> I have been asking this question to various people, and several have suggested that the answer is somewhere in the range of "hefker bes din" and "amiraso legavoah kimsiraso lahedyot". IOW, beis din doesn't need to make a kinyan; its inherent power is sufficient to take possession of your loans as soon as you verbally relinquish them. -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 08:02:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:02:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony Message-ID: <> It would seem that RYBS's definition of a ceremony is almost a tautology. If it is anything of religious significance then its not a ceremony. Otherwise who cares. It is only modern customs that present a difficulty because we don't establish new categories. In the old days customs like lighting the menorah in shul or havdala in shul became invested with religious significance because they were public customs Question minyana d-yoma Is the custom of "simanim" on RH a ceremony? -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:53:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:53:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] ceremony In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150911175305.GC18449@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 06:02:04PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : It would seem that RYBS's definition of a ceremony is almost a tautology. : If it is anything of religious significance then its not a ceremony. If a ritual is of halachic significance then it's not a ceremony (as RYBS used the word in coining the aphorism we're discussing). Now, to Halakhic Man, one can say there is no Yahadus except halakhah, and therefore ceremony is not part of Yahadus. So, RYBS's position on ceremony is a natural consequence of Halakhic Man, but they aren't a tautology according to other derakhim. To other hashkafos, white tablecloths and shiny Shabbos licht may not define Shabbos, but they can for many help foster the atmosphere hilkhos Shabbos create. Which is why I mentioned the spread of Chavaquq-like Judaism in YU. Because Chassidus is big on ritual. :-)BBii! -Micha -- Micha Berger You are where your thoughts are. micha at aishdas.org - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5 http://www.aishdas.org Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 05:49:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:49:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: R' Micha Berger wrote: <<< The bug in a dark room is something we are in principle capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't a feature of the bug. Similarly, the problem inside the lung is one an eye is capable of seeing, the invisibility isn't an aspect of the deformity itself. In both cases, the cheftzah itself is within the realm of human experience, at least in the right situation. >>> R' Michael Poppers responded: <<< I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. >>> The lungs of a *dead* cow are easily accessible if one has a knife; no super-vision is needed there. It is only the lungs of a *living* cow where one would need super-vision (especially if I need the cow to stay alive for more milk next week). Hmmm... Do we consider the lungs of a living cow as visible like a large insect, or as nonexistent like beitzei kinim? The nafka mina is the kashrus of that cow's milk. I would *like* to say that the lungs are invisible and inconsequential. But IIRC we can drink the milk because of rov - most lungs are kosher. There is a real possibility that the lungs are treif, and we deal with that possibility in a manner *other* than "lo nitna Torah l'malachei hashareis". Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 09:47:49 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (saul newman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:47:49 -0700 Subject: [Avodah] asmachta Message-ID: see point 5 , on the idea that could asmachta be a talmudic example of , well let the reader decide http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/09/artscroll-and-more.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 10:23:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:23:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? Message-ID: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, but again whatever Hashem does is good.) Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 11 11:06:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:06:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150911180646.GE18449@aishdas.org> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 01:23:04PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote: : It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" : (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever : Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the : year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, : but again whatever Hashem does is good.) >From my blog post at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov :-)BBii! -Micha Shetir'u baTov The Bostoner Rebbe (of Boston) commented once on the expression "Shanah tovah umsuqah - a good and sweet new year", which is related to the famous custom of having apple and honey on Rosh haShanah.What does "umsuqah -- and sweet" add, beyond the notion of "tovah -- good"? As Rabbi Aqiva often said, "All that the All Merciful does, He does for the good". An echo of the words of one of his rabbeim, Nachum ish Gamzu, who would greet events that would disappoint or depress most of us with "Gam zu letovah -- this too is for the best." So actually, wishing one another a good year could be thought of as being redundant. Everything is good, how could this year be any different? However, not everything I was told was "for my own good" was particularly pleasant. Therefore, the rebbe teaches, we wish that the year not only be tovah, good, but also be mesuqah, sweet to our perception as well. Along the same lines, I had a thought about a phrase in Shabbos and Yom Tov davening : Our L-rd, and the L-rd of our fathers, sanctify us bemitzvosekha (through Your mitzvos), and put our portion beSorasekha (in Your Torah), satisfy us mituvekha (from Your Goodness), and make us (or: our souls qua living force) biyshuasekha (in Your salvation)... The predicate prefix has an oddity: it says bemitzvosekha, beSorasekha, and later, beyshu'asekha. But by goodness, the prefix is "mituvekha" -- "from", not "be-" ("in" or "through") like by the others. The reason, I believe, is because we are asking for something inherently different. We can ask G-d to make us more holy by allowing us to do more mitzvos, or give us the opportunity to learn more Torah, or make us happier by saving us more often. This is "be-", we are asking for more of a gift by asking for more of the vehicle He uses to give it to us. Since everything G-d does is good, we can't be asking for G-d to give us more good, and thereby make us more satisfied. There is no more good for us to get. Rather, we are asking for more satisfaction with the goodness He already provides. This is why the "mi-" prefix is used. This is also in contrast to Rebbe's words (Berakhos 50a) about benching, that a wise person says "uvtuvo chayinu -- and through His good we live", and a boor, "umituvo chayinu -- and from His good, we live". Rebbe says that "umituvo" is incorrect because it says that we live through some of His Good, implying that Hashem gives meagerly. Perhaps it's different here, when we ask for happiness, because the truth is that if we had a full realization of even a small part of His Good would be enough to satisfy. Like the piyut we sing at the seider. We list fifteen things Hashem did for us when taking us out of Egypt. But had He done any one of those 15 alone, "Dayeinu"! R Shelomo Wolbe^zt"l would part someone's company wishing him "shetir'u batov -- may you see the good!" Because the tense of "tir'u" is ambiguous, this is both a berakhah and a mussar shmuess. Taken in the future tense, "May you see", it becomes a blessing that Hashem allow him to see all that's good in his life. In the imperative, the same work becomes "Look", advice to the person to take the initiative and seek out the good of every situation. To aspire to the middah of Nachum ish Gamzu and Rabbi Aqiva of realizing the Hand of G-d in everything, and looking to see how even the tragedies in our lives are necessary steps to something bigger which He has in store for us. The two together yields a profound combined meaning. Live is the product of a partnership between myself and G-d. It is the sum of my free-willed decisions and the hand Hashem deals me. "Shetir'u beTov" addresses both at the same time, by praying that Hashem show the person good, and that the person look to find it. A greeting that recognizes the fundamental covenant by which man is redeemed. It's a beautiful greeting, one worth adopting. Wishing others could taste the sweetness. Shetir'u baTov! (With thanks to RYGB for helping me find the gemara.) Like this: Like Loading... Related You may also like... * [13]3 [14]The Devastating Power of Leitznus ? ???? ???? - December 28, 2006 * [15]0 [16]The Desire to Desire ?? ????? ???? - August 28, 2007 * [17]0 [18]Nine Qavim at the Buffet ?? ????? ???? - March 27, 2008 2 Responses * [19]Comments1 * [20]Pingbacks1 1. Anonymous says: [21]? ????? ???? - September 29, 2006 at 1:25pm Possibly related - stolen waters are described as sweet, which tells us something unpleasant about the human condition. Perhaps what we are requesting is not only an objectively good year, but the ability to appreciate that goodness, similar to the way in which we regrettably now enjoy the prohibited. - Moishe Potemkin [22]Reply 1. [23]Aspaqlaria ? Blog Archive ? ?? ???? ???"? ?? ????? ???? - September 5, 2007 [...] berakhos for a Shanah tovah umsuqah, as the Bostoner Rebbe put it, a year that is we not only conceptually know to be good, but has a sweetness we can taste and [...] And your thoughts...? [24]Cancel reply IFRAME: [25]jetpack_remote_comment Follow: * * * * * [26]Next story Sweet Charoses * [27]Previous story Nine Qavim at the Buffet ____________________ Subscribe Name: ____________________ email: ____________________ * [28]Entries * [29]Comments * [30]PodCast New & Popular * [31]Recent Posts * [32]Popular Posts * [33]Recent Comments * [34]My Life as a Pendulum ? ????? ???? - September 3, 2015 * [35]Copyright ?? ??? ???? - August 13, 2015 * [36]What does Hashem ask of you? ?? ??? ???? - August 7, 2015 * [37]?? ?????? ???? ? ??? ???? - July 23, 2015 * [38]Gratitude and Thankfulness ?? ????? ???? - July 16, 2015 * [39]Emunah Peshutah vs Machashavah ?? ????? ???? - November 30, 2004 * [40]Balancing Simplicity and Authenticity ? ????? ??? - July 1, 2010 * [41]The Kuzari Proof, part I ?? ???? ???? - December 22, 2004 * [42]What is Frumkeit? ? ???? ? ???? - February 9, 2014 * [43]The Curriculum at Volozhin ? ????? ???? - May 23, 2012 * David Zalkin says: [44]Regarding giving precedence to the Aruch HaShulchan over the MB, my... * Eliezer Eisenberg says: [45]Excellent. Thanks for sharing. * Ilana Sober Elzufon says: [46]Intriguing. I really value the all-women's spaces that Orthodox Judaism provides,... * micha says: [47]You're right. A poor choice of words. Correcting.Thank you. * Dr. Yitzchok Levine says: [48]You wrote, "Shul looks like a boy's club because it was... Aspaqlaria ? 2015. All Rights Reserved. Powered by [49]WordPress. Theme by [50]Alx. * * * * IFRAME: [51]likes-master %d bloggers like this: References Visible links 1. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/feed 2. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/comments/feed 3. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov/feed 4. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 5. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/sweet-charoses 6. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ 7. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/category/mussar/middos 8. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#comments 9. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/author/admin 10. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#stbt 11. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/01/vetaheir-libeinu.shtml 12. http://www.aishdas.org/rygb 13. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus#comments 14. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus 15. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire#comments 16. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire 17. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet#comments 18. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 19. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#commentlist-container 20. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#pinglist-container 21. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov/comment-page-1#comment-72 22. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov?replytocom=72#respond 23. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/09/%d7%9b%d7%92-%d7%90%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%9c-%d7%aa%d7%a9%d7%9e%d7%90.shtml 24. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#respond 25. http://jetpack.wordpress.com/jetpack-comment/?blogid=11004584&postid=134&comment_registration=0&require_name_email=1&stc_enabled=1&stb_enabled=1&show_avatars=1&avatar_default=identicon&greeting=And+your+thoughts...%3F&greeting_reply=Leave+a+Reply+to+%25s&color_scheme=light&lang=en-US&jetpack_version=3.7&sig=04e58004b358ee700890b798c328f7cfd8e7fee6#parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aishdas.org%2Fasp%2Ftireh-betov 26. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/sweet-charoses 27. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 28. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/feed 29. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/comments/feed 30. http://feeds.feedburner.com/AspPodCast 31. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-recent 32. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-popular 33. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov#tab-comments 34. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/my-life-as-pendulum 35. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/copyright 36. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask 37. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/%d7%91%d7%9f-%d7%97%d7%9e%d7%99%d7%a9%d7%99%d7%9d-%d7%9c%d7%a2%d7%a6%d7%94 38. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gratitude-thankfulness 39. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/emunah-peshutah-vs-machashavah 40. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/balancing-simplicity-and-authenticity 41. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/kuzari-proof-part-i 42. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-is-frumkeit 43. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-curriculum-at-volozhin 44. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/textualism-mb/comment-page-1#comment-60227 45. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask/comment-page-1#comment-60184 46. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60105 47. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60102 48. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60101 49. http://wordpress.org/ 50. http://alxmedia.se/ 51. http://widgets.wp.com/likes/master.html?ver=20141028#ver=20141028 Hidden links: 53. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-devastating-power-of-leitznus 54. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/the-desire-to-desire 55. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/nine-qavim-at-the-buffet 56. http://www.facebook.com/micha.berger 57. http://www.linkedin.com/in/rmsberger 58. https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MichaBerger 59. http://www.twitter.com/aishdas 60. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/textualism-mb/comment-page-1#comment-60227 61. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/what-does-hashem-ask/comment-page-1#comment-60184 62. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60105 63. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60102 64. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/gender-roles/comment-page-1#comment-60101 65. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tireh-betov 66. http://www.facebook.com/micha.berger 67. http://www.linkedin.com/in/rmsberger 68. https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MichaBerger 69. http://www.twitter.com/aishdas From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:01:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:01:16 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> Message-ID: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when shmitta is d'Orayta again? On 9/11/2015 7:03 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > I have been asking this question to various people, and several have > suggested that the answer is somewhere in the range of "hefker bes din" > and "amiraso legavoah kimsiraso lahedyot". IOW, beis din doesn't need > to make a kinyan; its inherent power is sufficient to take possession > of your loans as soon as you verbally relinquish them. > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:05:22 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:05:22 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F56682.4070005@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 04:01 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when > shmitta is d'Orayta again? Why wouldn't it? Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din declares it unethical. And I don't think that will happen, because such a declaration wouldn't stop it, it would just drive it to the disreputable batei din. Now that everyone knows about it you can't make people forget it; Hillel uncorked the idea and it can't be pushed back into the bottle. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:05:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:05:45 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> On 9/11/2015 4:29 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 08:23:44PM -0400, via Avodah wrote: > : According to wiki, Re'em is mentioned nine times in the Hebrew Bible (Job > : 39:9-10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and > : 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). > > : R' Slifkin demonstrates that it is an aurochs... > > He argues that it's an auroachs. Calling any identification of this sort a > "demonstration" is overly confident. Agreed. > Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever > sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim > who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we > can use mythical creatures as metaphors. How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty plural to me. Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 01:02:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:02:48 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you won't experience that as a good thing. On 9/11/2015 8:23 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: > It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A > good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever > Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the > year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, > but again whatever Hashem does is good.) > > Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." > > Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. > > YL From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 02:22:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 05:22:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> At 04:02 AM 9/13/2015, you wrote: >On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But if >you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you won't >experience that as a good thing. Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries. If your injuries are not severe, and you collect a hefty sum from the driver's insurance company, then you may indeed view it as a good thing! All things have to be considered in context. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:57:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:57:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 05:22:08AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: :> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But :> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you :> won't experience that as a good thing. : Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries... We're getting off point. I believe Lisa's reponse was similar to my repeating the distinction between "shanah tovah" and "umsuqah", without leading to the problem of the "wrong" word being used in "Leshanah tovah tekhaseivu". We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- what ra? I thought there is no ra? It would seem we often speak of tov vara in terms of how they're experienced, rather than some abstract reality in which we know (or should know) "gam zu letovah". Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:57:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:57:35 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> Message-ID: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 05:22:08AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote: :> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But :> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you :> won't experience that as a good thing. : Of course it depends on the severity of your injuries... We're getting off point. I believe Lisa's reponse was similar to my repeating the distinction between "shanah tovah" and "umsuqah", without leading to the problem of the "wrong" word being used in "Leshanah tovah tekhaseivu". We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- what ra? I thought there is no ra? It would seem we often speak of tov vara in terms of how they're experienced, rather than some abstract reality in which we know (or should know) "gam zu letovah". Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger The meaning of life is to find your gift. micha at aishdas.org The purpose of life http://www.aishdas.org is to give it away. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Pablo Picasso From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 06:39:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:39:14 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. In RM's opinion, shmitta won't be d'Orayata again until the Messiah comes. Ben On 9/13/2015 10:01 AM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when > shmitta is d'Orayta again? From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 05:46:45 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:46:45 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: <<< Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din declares it unethical. >>> Perhaps. But I would think that the impropriety of using pruzbul in a d'Oraisa time was pretty implicit (perhaps even explicit) in how Hillel promoted it, and there is no need for a future beis din to point it out. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 06:41:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (M Cohen via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 09:41:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor Message-ID: <09a801d0ee29$ef34d030$cd9e7090$@com> The sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor is avail for free download at - http://hebrewbooks.org/53838 review of sefer - http://seforim.blogspot.ca/2015/09/review-of-dovid-bashevkins-sefer.html Review of Dovid Bashevkin's Sefer Berogez Racheim Tizkor By Rabbi Yitzchok Oratz Rabbi Yitzchok Oratz, a musmach of Beth Medrash Govoha, is the Rabbi and Director of the Monmouth Torah Links community in Marlboro, NJ. God knows the nature of every generation, Rabbi Dovid Bashevkin has written a Sefer uniquely appropriate for the nature of ours[1]. Take a trip to your local Jewish bookseller during this time period, and you will find numerous seforim, old[2] and new[3], on the themes of sin and repentance. Although they certainly vary in style and quality, a common denominator among many is the heavy reliance on Rambam's Hilchos Teshuva and Sha'arey Teshuva of Rabbeinu Yonah of Gerondi[4]. And this is to be expected. Timeless classics, these works of the great Rishonim are unmatched in their systematic and detailed discussion of sin and punishment, free will[5] and repentance, and are a prerequisite study for any serious discussion of Teshuva. But therein lays the dilemma. For although Rabbeinu Yonah maps out the exalted levels of Teshuva that one should certainly strive for, they seem not to be for the faint of heart. Is our generation really up to the task of embracing the sorrow, suffering, and worry, the humbling and lowering oneself[6], without allowing for the concomitant sense of despair[7] and despondence[8]? And how many of us can honestly stand before the Creator, and proclaim that we will "never return" to our negative actions, to the extent that God Himself will testify that this is the case[9]? If confession without sincere commitment to change is worthless[10], does repeating last year's failed commitments not require choosing between giving up and fooling ourselves? This is where B'Rogez Rachem Tizkor comes in. Based heavily on the thought of Izbica in general, and Reb Tzadok ha-Kohen of Lublin in particular, it discusses the value of spiritual struggle, the interplay between determinism and free will, the redemptive potential of sin, and the status of those who have not yet arisen from their fall. Overall, the sefer is a good introduction to R' Tzadok for those who are not familiar with his thought, and offers many insightful and fascinating comments even for those who are. My main critiques are that some of the discussion of the more controversial statements of Izbica required more elaboration[14], the lack thereof leads to a seeming conflating of two similar, yet far from identical, concepts, and more contrasting and supporting texts (both from within Izbica and R' Tzadok's thought and without) would have made for a stronger case and deeper understanding. My hope is to fill in these gaps in some small measure. Hopefully it will further enlighten those whose appetite was whet by this fine work. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:05:03 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:05:03 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F59EAF.30104@sero.name> See Tanya chapter 26. There is really no such thing as bad; there is merely the good that we can see and the good that we can't see. But we'd much prefer the kind that we can see, and we ask Hashem to give us that kind of good rather than the other kind. http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/7905/jewish/Chapter-26.htm -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:11:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:11:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F5A021.4040809@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 08:46 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> Its effectiveness does not depend on shmita being d'rabanan. The >> only difference that made was in Hillel deciding he had the right >> to promote it. Since he did promote it, it will continue when >> shmita becomes de'oraisa, unless and until some future beis din >> declares it unethical. > > Perhaps. But I would think that the impropriety of using pruzbul in a > d'Oraisa time was pretty implicit (perhaps even explicit) in how > Hillel promoted it, and there is no need for a future beis din to > point it out. How so? He didn't say anything about it being improper when shmita is de'oraisa, he merely said here is a solution we can use. The question is why nobody did it before, and the answer is because batei din considered it unethical. Now when were these batei din considering it unethical? In the time of Bayit Rishon?! No, it was in Hillel's day, which is why he needed to make his takanah. And in his day it was already derabbanan. The only relevance of it being derabanan is that had it been deoraisa in Hillel's day, he would not have felt he had the right to promote a way around it, no matter how great the need he saw. But since it was derabanan, and he saw a problem that needed fixing, he was bold and publicised this trick, and declared that nobody should feel guilty about using it. There's no indication that he mentioned shmita's drabanan status at all. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 08:52:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 11:52:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos Message-ID: In Avodah V33n123, RAkivaM responded to me: >> I am noting the dissimilarity to help you understand that without Superman's vision or an external tool to open a path to it, the inside of a lung is not the same as a visible bug that is only visible under this-worldly lighting conditions. << > The lungs of a *dead* cow are easily accessible if one has a knife; no super-vision is needed there. It is only the lungs of a *living* cow where one would need super-vision (especially if I need the cow to stay alive for more milk next week). < A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the human eye without opening it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 11:55:50 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:55:50 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? In-Reply-To: <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> References: <20150911172320.98CB9182B47@nexus.stevens.edu> <55F52DA8.5010004@starways.net> <20150913092234.EECD1180068@nexus.stevens.edu> <20150913125735.GA16140@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150913185550.GC10636@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 08:57:35AM -0400, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: ::> On some level yes, everything that God does is for the good. But ::> if you get hit by a car (chas v'shalom), I guarantee you that you ::> won't experience that as a good thing. ... : We could ask the same about Yeshaiah's "oseh shalom uvorei es hara" -- : what ra? I thought there is no ra? Addenda in response to private email: Well, I didn't mean to get all Izhbitz... I meant the evil we experience, the tragic, and not the evil that we do, the wrong.. But I did buy into more univeralistic models of hashgachah peratis, that at least every person's fate is subject to HP (pace the Rambam or Or haChaim), and thus the tragic has a point. If not itself tovsh, it is letovah. Which still leaves us with R/Prof Levine's original question sbout blessing others with shanah tovah. ... : Even if "ra" ends up meaning "a vacuum in which the tov cannot be : experienced". (Vacuums aren't created as much as left empty, and even : that I am calling experiential rather than objectively real.) But even the evil that we do is more like a missed opposrtunity for good than a beryah. Much the way Yeshaiah pairs evil with darkness "yotzeir or uvorei choshekh ... uvorei es hara." Althouh it's possible that Yeshiah considered darkness to be a beryah, the way Chazal talk about the thick darkness of makas choshekh. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 12:00:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:00:11 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:52:48AM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: : A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the : human eye without opening it. The sun is also an external tool. This is wh I think we need more nuance here. It might depend on whether a hollow inside the lung is judged as a lung that is defective in a way we can't see without a knife, or the hole is a mum that we could be able to see ourselves if the ourside of the lung weren't in the way. But in either case, I still csn't articulste what seems to me to be a obvious difference. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea micha at aishdas.org of instincts. http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 07:07:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 10:07:15 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Akeidah of the Mind Message-ID: <20150913140741.CE67A180E46@nexus.stevens.edu> The following is from pages 588 - 590 of Rav Schwab on Chumash. Please note the words "Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave the human being a mind to understand Him. Whatever one studies in the world, be it science, history, economics, mathematics, or anything else, it is actually the study of the revelations of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Our mind is given to us to enable us to understand as much about C-d as is humanly possible. This is borne out in many places throughout Torah and Nach ... This means that we are not merely to accept that which our forefathers have taught us about C-d but we are to attempt to know, to understand as much as we can about Hashem ... The Rav (Rav Shimon Schwab, ZT"L) was firmly convinced that since Moshe emes v'Toraso emes, the Torah and our Rabbinic mesorah are inviolable and, one day, answers would be found answers these questions. He would say that sometimes one must offer his mind as an "akeidah" to Hakadosh Baruch Hu where human reasoning has not yet found answers to apparent contradictions between the inviolable eternal truth of the Torah, the truthful writing (Daniel 10:21), and historical or scientific finds which are subject to change. In his lectures on Iyov, he offered the following comments on this subject. "... By accepting C-d's command, Avraham Avinu had sacrificed his own mind to comply with the will of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. While Avraham attempts to understand C-d, nevertheless, when C-d1s command contradicts that understanding, Avraham sacrifices his mind to the will of C-d, just as one would forfeit his life if the halachah required it, rather than violate the three cardinal sins. "Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave the human being a mind to understand Him. Whatever one studies in the world, be it science, history, economics, mathematics, or anything else, it is actually the study of the revelations of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Our mind is given to us to enable us to understand as much about C-d as is humanly possible. This is borne out in many places throughout Torah and Nach ... This means that we are not merely to accept that which our forefathers have taught us about C-d but we are to attempt to know, to understand as much as we can about Hashem ... "... This is why the mitzvah of learning Torah is so important; in fact it is our most important mitzvah. When we learn Torah, we employ our mind in the service of Hakadosh Baruch Hu by studying C-d's will as revealed to us in the Torah. And if we have questions or contradictions, we must use our mind to the best of our capacity to attempt to resolve them within the parameters of Torah study. "... So, while we are encouraged to use our mind, as much as reason allows, to serve C-d, to understand Him, and to answer questions, nevertheless, when all reason fails us, and we cannot go any further with human understanding, when our mind is staggered, we must be prepared to I/sacrifice our mind/I to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. We must throw up our hands and say that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is right whether we understand it or not. One could call this 'the akeidah of the mind.' "When science poses questions which seemingly contradict our basic truths, we must make an effort to answer these questions. But if the answers are elusive, we must sacrifice our mind and subjugate it to the revealed truths of the Torah. Fortunately, baruch Hashem, as yet, I have not found any questions of this sort- for instance, regarding the age of the universe, evolution, ancient civilizations- for which I have not found possible answers. But it could happen, and one has to be ready for it. If suddenly a scientific discovery were to arise which clearly seems to contradict the Torah, we would then have to admit that the question is excellent but nevertheless, the Torah is right because it is the revealed wisdom of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. It is "Toras Emes, 11 absolute truth, all questions notwithstanding. Answers will no doubt eventually be found to such contradictions, but in the meantime, by accepting the veracity of the Torah without reservations, we will have offered our mind as an 'akeidah' to Hakadosh Baruch Hu.'' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 11:36:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:36:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] A Gutte Yahr - A Good Year? Message-ID: <1f9d87.3cc2b5a7.43271c34@aol.com> From: "Prof. Levine via Avodah" It is customary at this time of year to wish others "A Gutte Yahr" (A good year) However, aren't we supposed to believe that whatever Hashem does is for the good, so no matter what will happen in the year to come, it will be a good year. (We may not see it this way, but again whatever Hashem does is good.) Thus, I do not see any purpose in wishing others a "Good year." Any explanations and or comments will be appreciated. YL >>>>> When others wish you well you should wish them well too, mipnei darkei shalom. A long philosophical treatise about how even illness, accidents and financial losses are actually all good things will not endear you to anyone. Another answer to your question is: we wish our friends (and ourselves) brachos from the Ribono Shel Olam that are sweet and obvious even to our limited human eyes, and not the other kind. Certainly we appreciate that the dentist's drill or the surgeon's knife is doing us a favor and repairing what needs repairing, but we prefer not to have the cavity and not to need the surgery in the first place. However if you simply cannot bring yourself to utter a blessing that seems philosophically dubious to you, I would suggest that you overcome that feeling, bentsh your fellow Jews anyway, and may Hashem in turn overcome His philosophical doubts and bless you and all of us in kind. --Toby Katz t613k at aol.com .. ============= ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 07:15:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (RCK via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 17:15:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom Message-ID: > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty > plural to me. >Lisa Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book *Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew * [image: Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] [image: Academia.edu] [image: Google Scholar] [image: LinkedIN] [image: Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 09:00:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:00:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> References: <104689.435089b9.43222790@aol.com> <20150911012919.GB18449@aishdas.org> <55F52E59.90606@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F59DB4.6080103@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 04:05 AM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: >> Notice that every time re'eim is used, it's as a comparison. No one ever >> sees one -- they are symbols of pride and power. Meaning, the rishonim >> who identified the re'eim with the unicorm could well be right -- we >> can use mythical creatures as metaphors. > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty > plural to me. Because Yosef is a shor, not a re'em, even if each of his horns is that of a re'em. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 12:29:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:29:04 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> On 09/13/2015 10:15 AM, RCK via Avodah wrote: > Lisa wrote: >> How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty >> plural to me. > Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=11650&pgnum=227 I don't understand the Bachur's comment. Surely the Radak explicitly addressed his objection, so why does he still raise it? (Unless these notes were not written on the Shorashim at all, and some printer decided to mash them together at random.) -- Zev Sero KvChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 13 13:59:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Michael Poppers via Avodah) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 16:59:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> References: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> Message-ID: R'Micha replied: > The sun is also an external tool. < Which is why I previously differentiated between the sun _or_ a substitute light source no brighter than it and between what I call "external tools." > This is wh I think we need more nuance here. < My theory is that anything we, a 6th-Day "creation", can see with the tools provided as part of the *b'riyah* (or, again, a fair substitute) is within our Halachic field of vision. Best wishes for a *shanah tovah umsuqah* from *Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:52:48AM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote: > : A knife is an external tool. The inside of a lung cannot be seen by the > : human eye without opening it. > > The sun is also an external tool. > > This is wh I think we need more nuance here. > > It might depend on whether a hollow inside the lung is judged as a lung > that is defective in a way we can't see without a knife, or the hole is > a mum that we could be able to see ourselves if the ourside of the lung > weren't in the way. > > But in either case, I still csn't articulste what seems to me to be > a obvious difference. > > Tir'u baTov! > -Micha > > -- > Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea > micha at aishdas.org of instincts. > http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter > Fax: (270) 514-1507 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 15 10:01:11 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (RCK via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:01:11 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> References: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> Message-ID: It's a good question, in fact, the Bayis HaGadol (also known as Biur) on Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer (end of ch. 19) asks this on HaBachur. Kol Tuv, Reuven Chaim Klein Beitar Illit, Israel Check out my book *Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew * [image: Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon] [image: Academia.edu] [image: Google Scholar] [image: LinkedIN] [image: Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com] On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/13/2015 10:15 AM, RCK via Avodah wrote: > >> Lisa wrote: >> > > How would a unicorn fit with "v'karnei re'eim karnav"? Sounds pretty >>> plural to me. >>> >> > Look at the Radak in Sefer HaShorashim and HaBachur's comments there. >> > > http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=11650&pgnum=227 > > I don't understand the Bachur's comment. Surely the Radak explicitly > addressed his objection, so why does he still raise it? (Unless these > notes were not written on the Shorashim at all, and some printer decided > to mash them together at random.) > > -- > Zev Sero KvChT > zev at sero.name > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 15 17:45:01 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:45:01 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Chitzonios and Tereifos In-Reply-To: References: <20150913190011.GD10636@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <20150916004501.GA21666@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 04:59:29PM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote: :> This is wh I think we need more nuance here. : My theory is that anything we, a 6th-Day "creation", can see with the tools : provided as part of the *b'riyah* (or, again, a fair substitute) is within : our Halachic field of vision. You mean, like a sharp rock? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 01:43:35 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:43:35 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos Message-ID: R' MYG wrote: "I see it as more of a symbol of Hashem?s love for His people: ?If you sin, even if you?re not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here?s a ?ticket? of sorts that I?m giving you _now_ to show my love for you, that if you ?remind? me of it after you sin, that will demonstrate that you see yourselves as close to me, and I?ll give you some measure of forbearance for the sins, even in the absence of full Teshuvah.? The best Mashal I could think of for this is a PBA placard ? you buy it and put it in your car, and when the cop pulls you over for speeding, you show it to him and he goes easy on you, because he sees that you?re really a friend of the police. NOT because you demonstrated regret for speeding, necessarily. Does that make sense?" Not really, Hashem is perfect and all knowing, you can't bribe him. Why should you need to remind him of anything? Hashem knows exactly who you are and how close you are to him. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 02:35:43 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:35:43 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] 13 Middos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916093543.GA10685@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:43:35AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote: : Not really, Hashem is perfect and all knowing, you can't bribe him. Why : should you need to remind him of anything? Hashem knows exactly who you are : and how close you are to him. That's ust an inherent limitation in the mashal. (Any mashal where the nimshal is G-d, is going to be limited for the same reason you give.) Lemaaseh, He may Remember everything, but I don't. Going through the exercises keep my own beliefs more conscious and reinforces them. Setting up a pointless reminder to remind Him has function in that it reminds me. Which is how I understood RMYG's original answer: that reciting the 13 middoes is "more of a symbol of Hashem's love for His people: 'If you sin, even if you're not up to doing the Teshuvah that you should be doing, here's a 'ticket' of sorts that I'm giving you _now_ to show my love for you...'" We need to remember the closeness, to keep it real in our minds, which then deepens our belief in it. Which is why I then said that this in itself is a minimal teshuvah, and not merely reciting words. IOW, if someone said the 13 Middos and didn't even think "these are G-d's 13 Middos of lovingkindness that He gave us", would they still be guaranteed not to leave empty-handed? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger I long to accomplish a great and noble task, micha at aishdas.org but it is my chief duty to accomplish small http://www.aishdas.org tasks as if they were great and noble. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Helen Keller GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 01:58:54 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:58:54 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > There's no indication that he mentioned shmita's drabanan status at all. The simple reading of the Gemara in Gittin 36a-b which is the source of pruzbul says that pruzbul only works when shemitta is d'rabbanan and in fact this is how the Rambam understands the Gemara and how he paskens. The Gemara first states that Hillel was mesaken pruzbul and then asks how could Hillel be mesaken pruzbul and say that loans are not cancelled when the Torah says that they are? Abaye answers shemitta nowadays is derabban. The Gemara then asks how could the Chachamim be mesaken shemittas kesafim medrabban (and cancel loans) and Rava answers hefker beit din hefker. The simple reading of the Gemara is that the whole takana of pruzbul only works when shemitta is derabbanan. Rashi and the Raavad however understand the Gemara that Rava's answer also answers the first question of how could Hillel be mesaken pruzbul when the Torah cancels loans based on hefker beis din hefker and that pruzbul works even when shemmita is d'oraysa. [Email #2] R"n Lisa Liel asked: > I think a better question might be: will prozbul still work when shmitta > is d'Orayta again? and R' Zev Sero asked why wouldn't it? Actually this is an explicit machlokes the Rambam and the Raavad and Rashi and Tosafos (Gittin 36a-b). The Rambam writes in Hilchos Shemitta V'Yovel (chapter 9) v'ein haprozbul moeel ela b'shmitas kesafim shehee midvrei sofrim aval shemitta shel torah ayn haprozbul moeel bo The Raavad there argues that prozbul will work even when shemmita is d'oraysa based on his understanding of Rava's answer of hefker beis din hefker (like Rashi in Gittin). From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 02:50:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:50:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916095007.GD14423@aishdas.org> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:00:56PM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: : If I am making them my shaliach to collect my loans on my behalf, then that : sounds like Rav Asher Weiss' explanation. Sure, beis din is patur from lo : yigos, but it was a big chidush to me that that's enough to exempt me from : being m'shamet a loan that I still own. (But if one wants to go with the : Collection Agency idea, then shlichus is irrelevant - beis din would need : to own the loan.) The big problem is that the difference in sevaros may make a particular pruzbul text valid or not. For example, how does hefqer BD hefqer work today, when courts do not have a central Sanhedrin organizing them? I am giving the loan to three hedyotos. Which 3? The three I named? (Are we invoking Beis Shammai's notion that one can be mafqir only to a given person or set of people? [Ymi Pei'ah 6:1 19b]) Then how is it HBDH and not a simple matanah? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years, micha at aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not http://www.aishdas.org know himself. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 03:09:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:09:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <20150916100941.GE14423@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 03:39:14PM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: : In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey : wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of : Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all : those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the : number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. : : In RM's opinion, shmitta won't be d'Orayata again until the Messiah comes. Also, the machloqes Rashi and Tosafos as to whether "kol yosheveha aleha" is by sheivet. I don't know what Tosafos do with the machloqes (Sanhedring 110b) about whether the lost shevatim will ever be restored. If they hold like R' Aqiva, this would have to refer to the descendents of those refugees from Malkhus Yisrael who fled to Malkhus Yehudah. Or, is that in itself enough reestablishment of the shevatim to contradict R' Aqiva? The masqanah of the gemara appears to be Rabba bb Chana (citing R' Yochanan) refuting R' Aqiva's position in favor of R' Eliezer -- that the missing shevatim will be restored (quoting Yirmiyahu 3:!2). Maybe they just consider the question closed. The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority of Benei Yisrael. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is micha at aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 05:08:53 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:08:53 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: from wikipedia Thus, if one would agree that shmita does not apply when Israelites are dispersed,[6] Hillel, great as he was, would not have changed a law of the Torah in order to fit the needs of his time. He and his beth din would have enacted a rabbinic exception to a rabbinic law. As the Rambam notes in Shmita V'Yovel chapter 9, when most Jews again live in the Land of Israel and the observance of the sabbatical and jubilee years are Toraitic commandments, the prozbul will no longer be able to be used. According to this theory, Prozbul, like `eruv , is a rabbinic exception to a rabbinic enactment. Prozbul cannot be used to get around the Torah commanded shmita and yovel, just as `eruv cannot be used to get around the fact that Torah prohibited carrying in the public domain. I recently saw the opposite question: There are many ways to avoid the problem of shmitta annulling laws without resorting to prozbul. One simple example is to make the loan end immediately after RH of this year. There are many other options. So the question is why the need for prozbul The only answer I saw was that the general population was not aware of the alternatives or else they were too cumbersome [Email #2] > In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench > that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the > true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people > who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is > much higher than we believe it to be. I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even for direct maternal descendants. i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. I would assume that a descendant of annusim would be Jewish since they kept their Jewish identification through various customs -- Eli Turkel From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:40:46 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:40:46 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:36:20PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: :> The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were :> exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on :> Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority :> of Benei Yisrael. : How do you know? (I assume you mean the reisha about yovel and therefore shemittah de'oraisa ending when eiver hayardein was conquered, not my last sentence.) Eirachin 32b Rambam, Hil Shemitah veYovel 10:8. GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 09:36:20 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:36:20 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> On 9/13/2015 4:39 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey > wrench that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of > Jews, the true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all > those people who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the > number of Jews is much higher than we believe it to be. On the contrary. The number of people who identify as "Jewish" in polls who are actually non-halakhic "converts" or children of non-Jewish mothers is vast, so the number of Jews is much *lower* than we believe it to be. [Email #2] On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were > exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on > Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority > of Benei Yisrael. How do you know? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:40:13 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:40:13 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55F9A97D.2080405@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 08:08 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: >> >In an article reviewing this shmitta, Rav Melamed threw in monkey wrench >> >that I had never heard before. In calculating the numbers of Jews, the >> >true number (at least as far as shmitta goes) includes all those people >> >who are Jewish through maternal descent. Therefore the number of Jews is >> >much higher than we believe it to be. > I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that > once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with > yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even > for direct maternal descendants. > > i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim > through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. That is an extreme daat yachid, with a very tenuous basis. Nobody else agrees with him, so there's no reason to expect R Melamed to take this view into account, or even to be aware of it. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 10:49:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:49:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Moderator Vacation Message-ID: <20150916174900.GC6146@aishdas.org> While Areivim has a team of mods, Avodah is still entirely dependent on me. Which makes me feel an obligation to forewarn y'all before I go on vacation. Tomorrow I will be leaving for 3 weeks in Yerushalayim ih"q. (Barring messianic intervention, to leave again the day after chutznik Simchas Torah.) I do not know what my internet access will be like, but it's quite likely moderation approval delays will increase. Please be patient. Yerushalayim crew: Avodah/Areivim Simchas Beis haSho'eivah anyone? Discussion on Areivim...) GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space. micha at aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM) From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 11:30:23 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:30:23 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150916183023.GD6146@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 03:08:53PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote: : I have no idea how R Melamed got his numbers. RAL seemed to hold that : once a few generations have passed that a family has no connection with : yiddishkeit then the family would no longer be halachically Jewish even : for direct maternal descendants. This was his famous teshuvah on the Brother Daniel case. That there are limits even on maternal descent. I found a nice summary by R/Dr Judah Goldberg : i.e. if someone could prove they were a descendant of shevet ephraim : through a direct maternal link the person still would not be Jewish. >From there, RAL's meqoros in shas: In Yevamot 16b, Rav Assi states that if a gentile betroths a Jewess, we cannot dismiss the validity of the marriage, for perhaps he descends from one of the ten lost tribes. When Shmuel heard this ruling, however, he responded, "They did not move from that place until they made [the descendants of the lost tribes] into absolute gentiles, as it says, 'They have betrayed God, for they have begotten alien children' (Hoshea 5:7)" (17a). Similarly, Chullin 6a tells how Rav Ami and Rav Assi discovered that the Samaritan community, which had long been suspected of engaging in pagan worship, was no longer observing Jewish law at all. In response, They did not move from that place until they made [the Samaritans] into absolute gentiles. He cites three shitos from rishonim, although the Rambam's pesaq is as explacated by R' Chaim Brisker. 1- Rashba: The Samaritan's conversion was annulled, not that one can stop being a Jew. R Pinchas Horowitz (Sefer Ha-mikna) applies parallel reasoning to the 10 shevatim -- they didn't stop being Jews, they are just an ignorable mi'ut that only a derabbanan kept us from ignoring. And that was repealed. 2- A mi'ut hold that the geir who stops believing ceases being a geir, but we have to worry about what's really going on in his head, so lechumerah we have to acknowledge his marriage. 3- The Rambam as explained by RCB (contrasting Ishus 4:15 with peirush on Niddah 7:4, where he says a dead Samaritan is not metamei tum'as ohel) that someone who gives up his self-identity as a Jew and acts on it is But in either case, the hypothetical Ephramite is a machloqes amoraim. Unless you agree with the author of the Hafla'ah that it's just an issue of mi'ut, and therefore the one who could prove he is in the mi'ut would be Jewish. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless micha at aishdas.org he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness. http://www.aishdas.org Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive Fax: (270) 514-1507 a spirit of purity. - Rav Yisrael Salanter From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 13:39:17 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:39:17 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Administrivia: Moderator Vacation In-Reply-To: <55F9B9EA.70600@sero.name> References: <20150916174900.GC6146@aishdas.org> <55F9B9EA.70600@sero.name> Message-ID: <43db8966934f6c727f16a67e6896f9cb@aishdas.org> It is much easier when my mechutan's work address is "1 Kotel Plaza" -- Yeshivat Netiv Aryeh. Thanks for the _berakhos_. _Gemar chasimah tovah_! On 2015-09-16 2:50 pm, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/16/2015 01:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > >> Tomorrow I will be leaving for 3 weeks in Yerushalayim ih"q. > > Mazal tov. Even if Moshiach doesn't come in the next week or so, > you can still fulfil a zecher to hakhel. I was there 14 years > ago at the "hakhel" rally at the kotel, but unfortunately I was > unable to be there 7 years ago, and barring either Moshiach (and > the real hakhel) or a lottery win I will not be able to be there > this year either. > > (Actually I'm not aware of any source that Moshiach will provide > transportation, so even if he comes today it may be impossible > for everyone to get there in time for hakhel.) _Tir'u baTov_! -Micha -- Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission micha at aishdas.org on Earth is finished: http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 11:54:59 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:54:59 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> On 9/16/2015 8:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 07:36:20PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: > : On 9/16/2015 1:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > :> The gemara assumes that yovel de'oraisa ended when the 2-1/2 shevatim were > :> exiled from their land be'ever hanahar. Which is a bit of a question on > :> Rashi. The loss of the lands there did not mean the exile of the majority > :> of Benei Yisrael. > > : How do you know? > > (I assume you mean the reisha about yovel and therefore shemittah de'oraisa > ending when eiver hayardein was conquered, not my last sentence.) Actually, I meant your last sentence. How do you know that the area of the 2.5 shvatim didn't include a majority of Bnei Yisrael? Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:47:57 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:47:57 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> Message-ID: <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 09:54:59PM +0300, Lisa Liel wrote: : Actually, I meant your last sentence. How do you know that the area : of the 2.5 shvatim didn't include a majority of Bnei Yisrael? Because the gemara has to explain why 2-1/2 shevatim needed as many arei miqlat as the rest of BY. And the answer is because those who settled for land on that side of the Yardein built a more careless culture. (See Rashi Bamidbar 35:14 which is based on Abayei Makos 10a, and the Maharal on the Rashi to explain that Rashi [and Abayei] assume that the number who need galus will be greater whent he number of murderers does.) Notice the answer was NOT "because HQBH knew there would be at least as many people Mei'eiver haYardein before bayis rishon ended". It would also take a notable statistical anomaly for the largest population to grow out of a small initial state, and yet never get a navi telling them anything, etc... GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Strength does not come from winning. Your micha at aishdas.org struggles develop your strength When you go http://www.aishdas.org through hardship and decide not to surrender, Fax: (270) 514-1507 that is strength. - Arnold Schwarzenegger From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:41:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:41:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question Message-ID: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: > Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking around at books and online. I see no > discussion whatsoever on whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, e.g. books > I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an > obligation to return a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? Thanks, Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 14:54:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:54:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> References: <55F2FB66.1050306@sero.name> <55F52D4C.8030102@starways.net> <55F57C82.2060904@zahav.net.il> <55F99A84.9080505@starways.net> <20150916174045.GB6146@aishdas.org> <55F9BB03.7050609@starways.net> <20150916214757.GA26081@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55F9E518.5090701@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 05:47 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > Because the gemara has to explain why 2-1/2 shevatim needed as many arei > miqlat as the rest of BY. And the answer is because those who settled > for land on that side of the Yardein built a more careless culture. Do you understand that question and answer? How do the population *or* the number of manslaughterers affect the number of arei miklat needed? Surely the only determinant is geography. A manslaughterer has to cover the same distance regardless of how sparse the population, or how careful they are. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 12:37:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:37:48 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Mitzvah Kiyumit Message-ID: I was asked to provide a list of (me-possible) mitzvaot which were considered kiyumit. Does anyone know of such a list? GCT 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 15:07:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:07:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> Message-ID: <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 05:41 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: > >> Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking >> around at books and online. I see no discussion whatsoever on >> whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, >> e.g. books I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that >> addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an obligation to return >> a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? > I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? Shemita applies only to halva'ah, not to she'elah. English uses the same word, but they are very different transactions. It's actually strange that English, which is usually the most precise language, does not distinguish them. A book is a she'elah; the book remains her property, and she expects the borrower to return it. Thus it is not at all affected by shemita. It is also not subject to the prohibition on ribbis; not only is there absolutely nothing wrong with charging people to borrow your stuff, the Torah explicitly endorses it as one of the four forms of shemirah. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 15:29:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:29:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Li Nir'eh Message-ID: <20150916222914.GE26081@aishdas.org> In AhS YD 39:48, RYME draws a conclusion from the fact that the Rama in Darkhei Moshe says "nir'eh li" rather than "veli nir'eh". "Veli nir'eh" implies he is choleiq with the BY? Anyone hear before of a distinction between the two idioms? GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Good decisions come from experience; micha at aishdas.org Experience comes from bad decisions. http://www.aishdas.org - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 16:20:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:20:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> Message-ID: <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:06:16AM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote: :> I intend to write a post on the meaning of the word "mesorah" as developed :> in RYBS's and RHS's thought as the start of its own thread. See http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/what-does-masorah-mean : And this is where this slide from discussing one slice of the mesorah - what : to do in Yeshiva, to a much wider slice of the mesorah becomes problematic, : because of the implication you have just made which is that what is true of : the section applies to the whole... Well, that's sort of it, isn't it? You're making a distinction between learning in a semichah shiur and learning how to pasqen. I don't think RYBS would. IOW, his whole point about needing mesorah is because he denies your premise. Leshitaso, you pasqen more from lomdus than from codes; or to put it more clearly -- you need a Rashi and a Tosafos to teach you how to fill in between the data points of a Yad or SA. For that matter, this is clearly the AhS's approach to pesaq. And the entire school which runs from Gemara to Rambam vs Rosh (at al) to Tur, BY, SA, Rama, Shach, Taz (et al)... This is how pesaq comes to be. Not from deciding between codes but from using the flow of mesorah to decide between them. Otherwise, shu"t would read like surveys; and even ROY doesn't end with his survey. : RGS comments that he and his father tried to learn meseches Nedarim just : using the meforash, in the absence of Rashi, and were not able to do so : (they were then only able to do it using the Ran, a much later commentary) - : thus demonstrating the point of the post, which is, without Rashi, most of : the Talmud Bavli would be a closed book to most people of average, and even : above average, intelligence (like the Talmud Yerushalmi). Actually, RYBS said that. : This is unquestionably true. : : The Rambam was also aware of this problem (after all he learned all of : Talmud Bavli without Rashi and everybody he knew either did so or tried to : do so). His solution to RGS's problem was to tell RGS and his father, and : people like him, not to try and learn Talmud Bavli, but to learn his, the : Rambam's, Code instead... Not really. His code is mishnah, not gemara. He tells beginners to do their shelish bemiqra in his code. And then you should be able to graduate from it, and from the whole need to divide one's time into thirds. ... : Our mesorah is like Rashi in this regard and not the Rambam (except when it : comes to smicha students). We open up the Talmud Bavli even to children : using Rashi and hundreds of thousands are sitting in yeshiva following : Rashi. Huh? Rashi didn't expect kids to start with Tanakh? Where does this come into the whole discussion? : The problem is that people (it would appear including you) then generalise : from "how we learn" to "how we posken" - which is what really is involved in : the discussion regarding Open O and feminism. And they are not the same : thing at all. Indeed, the fact that smicha students (those that are being : set up to posken) are taught in a totally different way to the more general : way of learning in yeshiva, and one that owes far more to the Rambam than to : Rashi and Tosphos should alert you to that. I do not believe the closing sentence. RYBS was giving one shiur to cover both. But that's RYBS, not my own leanings. I do see lomdus, in which the goal is to justify every opinion, and pesaq, in which the goal is to decide which opinion is most justified, to be different. But again, one doesn't pasqen from codes without the tools learned from lomdus. For that matter, if it's a halakhah pesuqah, one isn't pasqening at all. : What Rashi did was to provide a clear and simple explanation of the words on : the page. : What Tosphos did ... And the Me'iri opened the gemara in a third way. That seems to be a pretty complete taxonomy of parshanim. Then there are codes. Then there is shu"t. And most recently, encyclopedias / collections. ... : On the other hand, RET is correct: :> Remember that when the SA appeared there were strong objections against :> the concept. :> Many felt that a posek should know the sources and make his own :> interpretation and not rely or be bound by any text. : Although I would modify that statement not to say "and not be bound by any : text", as most at that point agreed that they should be bound by the gemora : (and the Tanach as understood by the mishna/gemora), just not beyond that. The Maharal's actual objection: To decide halakhic questions from the codes without knowing the logic of the ruling was not the intent of these authors [Rambam, Tur, SA, et al]. Had they known that their works would lead to the abandonment of Talmud, they would not have written them. It is better for one to decide on thebasis of the Talmud even though he might err, for a scholar must depend solely on his understanding. As such, he is beloved of God, and preferable tothe one who rules from a code but does not know thereason for the ruling; such a one walks like a blind person. See Nesivos Olam, Nesiv haTorah ch 15. (I invoked the above thought about shelish bemishnah only being for beginners [from Hil TT] and the MT only being a replacement for the hoi palloi to justify the Maharal's statement WRT the Rambam. See RMRabi's and my months-long discussion.) Actually, what I think won the day for the SA was that the SA stopped being a code when they started publishing everyone on the sides. That's what it seems from the Maharal. Presumably his brother, the Yam shel Shelomo, would agree. ... : And RMB replied: :> Actualy, it's only those who have an eye on common practice. After all, we :> discuss machloqesin between Rashi and the Rambam in halakhah lemasseh :> contexts all the time. And if Ashkenazim accepted Rashi's ruling, or one :> found in Tosafos, the Rama has no problem limiting his pesaq to that rather :> than that of the Rif, Rambam or Tur. And had there not been a Rama, then :> some shu"t or parshan could as well. : : But neither Rashi nor Tosphos gave us any method of limiting where psak : went, and indeed the Ri can hold one thing and Rabbanu Tam another within : the same Tosphos. The Codes are far less open... But they only cover specific cases. They don't teach how to extent beyond those cases. So in general, the codes are more open than Rashi, the Ri or Rabbeinu Tam who help you by providing a why that tells you how far to take the point. A code is way open except for the cases they covered. GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Time flies... micha at aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot. http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin Fax: (270) 514-1507 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 16:38:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:38:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Book review: The Torah encyclopedia of the animal kingdom In-Reply-To: References: <55F5CE80.2020001@sero.name> Message-ID: <20150916233829.GA3601@aishdas.org> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 08:01:11PM +0300, RCK via Avodah wrote: : It's a good question, in fact, the Bayis HaGadol (also known as Biur) on : Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer (end of ch. 19) asks this on HaBachur. Since you clearly saw it, and some of us are kind of busy (and about to take leave of my library), could you please summarize the discussion there? GCT! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 18:31:14 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:31:14 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Mesora only through Rashi In-Reply-To: <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> References: <006901d0d6c5$45f9e210$d1eda630$@org.uk> <20150814204803.GB24497@aishdas.org> <002b01d0d7ab$7b989100$72c9b300$@org.uk> <20150820231654.GA17196@aishdas.org> <001001d0dd2f$27193830$754ba890$@org.uk> <20150916232010.GF26081@aishdas.org> Message-ID: <55FA17E2.6020200@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 07:20 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote: > That's > what it seems from the Maharal. Presumably his brother, the Yam shel > Shelomo, would agree. The Maharshal was not a brother of the Maharal! AFAIK they were not related. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 19:19:32 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:19:32 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Eli Turkel quoted Wikipedia: > ...According to this theory, Prozbul, like > `eruv , is a rabbinic exception > to a rabbinic enactment. Prozbul cannot be used to get around the > Torah commanded shmita and yovel, just as `eruv cannot be used to get > around the fact that Torah prohibited carrying in the public domain. As few days ago, I was thinking about comparisons between Prozbul and Eruv, and it seems clear to me that while Eruv *is* an exception to an enactment, Prozbul is a whole 'nother thing. I think it makes no sense for Prozbul to be "an exception to an enactment", because "why bother?" If the agricultural Shemitta stops being d'Oraisa, then Chazal can certainly enact it on a d'rabanan level. But to do that for Shemitas Kesafim means to legislate the following three things simultaneously: 1) Enact a law requiring cancellation of loans 2) Loans are exempt from cancellation if Prozbul is done 3) For the benefit of both poor and wealthy, everyone should do a Prozbul Why enact such a set of laws? Wouldn't it be far simpler to just let Shmitas Kesafim lapse, and NOT be enacted on a d'rabanan level? Regardless of whether one holds Prozbul to work on a d'Oraisa level, I think everyone can agree that Prozbul was enacted specifically because (as the Torah feared) too many people refrained from lending money as Shmitta got near. Therefore, it seems clear to me that IF Shmitas Kesafim was enacted as a d'rabanan, THEN Prozbul was enacted LATER, and not at the same time. In sharp contrast, I understand that Eruvin was a real "exception to an enactment": Simultaneously to the new law which prohibited carrying in a karmelis, an exception was included exempting certain areas under certain condiitons, allowing the carrying there. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 16 20:25:02 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 23:25:02 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55FA328E.1080708@sero.name> On 09/16/2015 10:19 PM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > In sharp contrast, I understand that Eruvin was a real "exception to > an enactment": Simultaneously to the new law which prohibited > carrying in a karmelis, an exception was included exempting certain > areas under certain condiitons, allowing the carrying there. An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. I don't know who prohibited carrying in a karmelis, but there's no reason to suppose it was Shlomo. Shlomo prohibited carrying in a *reshus hayachid with multiple owners*, and instituted eruv as a way around that prohibition. (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 05:01:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:01:29 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Zev Sero wrote: > An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and > thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. My language was not precise. I apologize. What I meant was that prior to the establishment of these d'rabanans, one was allowed to carry from an unwalled non-thoroughfare to either a walled area or to a major thoroughfare. But it was easy to get confused between the general outdoors and a main road, so the general outdoors was made into a Reshus Harabim D'rabanan, with the following exception: Whereas a Reshus Harabim d'Oraisa requires actual walls to allow carrying, for a Reshus Harabim d'Rabanan it is sufficient to surround an area with doorways (tzuras hapesach). > I don't know who prohibited carrying in a karmelis, > but there's no reason to suppose it was Shlomo. Shlomo > prohibited carrying in a *reshus hayachid with multiple > owners*, and instituted eruv as a way around that > prohibition. I'm fuzzy on the history too. The law as I described it above may or may not have been part of the same legislation that RZS described here. What we have here are two distinct - but easily and often confused - d'rabanans within the melacha of hotzaa. It doesn't really matter which came first, or if they came together. My point was that they are excellent examples of an exception being built into the law from the very beginning, as opposed to Prozbul, which (if shmitas kesafim is d'rabanan) was a separate enactment from shmitas kesafim (because if they were done at the same time, the goal of Prozbul could have been acheived even more easily by simply not enacting shmitas kesafim). > (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an > eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple > owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) I'm not sure if there is a rigorous definition of "loophole". (The wikipedia article is a great place to start.) I tend to think that it is a general pejorative to describe any leniency that one has an emotional objection to. Akiva Miller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 05:17:34 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:17:34 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150917121734.GA8567@aishdas.org> Li nir'eh the difference is that by eruv, it was all done in one sitting of beis din -- when they assered a karmeelis, they also promulgated the idea of eruv. IOW, explicitly they only assured a karmelis that didn't have an eruv. (A conscious exemption more than a loophole, as I would use the terms.) Pruzbul was a loophole in an earlier taqanah and that was and promulgated by a later beis di GCT! -Micha -- Micha Berger Nearly all men can stand adversity, micha at aishdas.org but if you want to test a man's character, http://www.aishdas.org give him power. Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Abraham Lincoln From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 09:58:48 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:58:48 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55FAF148.5080904@sero.name> On 09/17/2015 08:01 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote: > R' Zev Sero wrote: >> An eruv does not permit carrying in a karmelis, and >> thus is not an exception to the prohibition on doing so. > My language was not precise. I apologize. > > What I meant was that prior to the establishment of these d'rabanans, > one was allowed to carry from an unwalled non-thoroughfare to either > a walled area or to a major thoroughfare. But it was easy to get > confused between the general outdoors and a main road, so the general > outdoors was made into a Reshus Harabim D'rabanan, with the following > exception: Whereas a Reshus Harabim d'Oraisa requires actual walls to > allow carrying, for a Reshus Harabim d'Rabanan it is sufficient to > surround an area with doorways (tzuras hapesach). Mid'oraisa a set of four tzuros hapesach works in reshus harabim too. It was the rabanan who said "ein me'arvim reshus harabim bekach", and only allowed it in a karmelis. Whether they did this at the same time that they forbade carrying in a karmelis, I don't know. My impression is that it was later, because the first we hear of it is in a braisa, and it's subject to machlokes, whereas the concept of karmelis is taken for granted by all. > My point was that they are excellent examples of an exception being > built into the law from the very beginning, as opposed to Prozbul, > which (if shmitas kesafim is d'rabanan) was a separate enactment from > shmitas kesafim Yes, this is clear. > (because if they were done at the same time, the goal of Prozbul > could have been acheived even more easily by simply not enacting > shmitas kesafim). You don't need to go there. It's obvious that shmitas kesafim midrabanan preceded Hillel, because if it hadn't then how could he have observed the problem that resulted? Clearly it long predated him, presumably all the way back to the end of shmita d'oraisa, or at least to the return from Bavel. But the *efficacy* of pruzbul is not Hillel's takana at all. It's de'oraisa (Sifri, quoted by Tosfos Gittin 36a dh Mi Ika Midi) >> (It's not an exception, it's a loophole; if you have an >> eruv then for this purpose there are no longer multiple >> owners, so the prohibition doesn't apply.) > I'm not sure if there is a rigorous definition of "loophole". > (The wikipedia article is a great place to start.) I tend to > think that it is a general pejorative to describe any leniency > that one has an emotional objection to. The WP article is seriously defective (WP:OR for one thing) and needs to extensive a rewrite for me to bother with. A loophole is built into a wall; it's *meant* to be there. There's nothing pejorative about it. An exception to a law is a case where the law doesn't apply; a loophole is where the law *does* apply, and this is how it applies. It's not that an eruv permits one to carry in a RHY with multiple owners, it's that an eruv turns it (for this purpose) into a RHY with a single owner. Similarly eruv techumin doesn't allow you to walk more than 2000 amos from your residence, it merely moves your residence. That's not an exception, it's a loophole. If you want an example of an exception, look to eruv tavshilin. The chachamim, whether because of kevod shabbos or kevod yomtov, forbade the ha'arama of cooking for guests whom you aren't really expecting, *unless* you make an eruv. The eruv is an exception built into the original takana. -- Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions -- John Adams From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 03:33:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Marty Bluke via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 13:33:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] How does Prozbul work? Message-ID: R' Akiva Miller wrote: "I think it makes no sense for Prozbul to be "an exception to an enactment", because "why bother?" If the agricultural Shemitta stops being d'Oraisa, then Chazal can certainly enact it on a d'rabanan level. But to do that for Shemitas Kesafim means to legislate the following three things simultaneously: 1) Enact a law requiring cancellation of loans 2) Loans are exempt from cancellation if Prozbul is done 3) For the benefit of both poor and wealthy, everyone should do a Prozbul Why enact such a set of laws? Wouldn't it be far simpler to just let Shmitas Kesafim lapse, and NOT be enacted on a d'rabanan level?" If you look at the sugya of pruzbul (Gittin 36a-b) these points are all addressed: The Gemara starts out with the fact that Hillel was mesaken pruzbul. Then the Gemara asks how could he do that if the Torah (shemitas kesafim) cancels the loan? Abaye answers that Hillel only made his takana of pruzbul when shemittas kesafim was derabbanon. The Gemara then asks how could the Chachamim be mesaken shemmitas kesafim derabbanon if min hatorah the lender has to pay back the loan? Rava answers hefker beis din hefker. We see clearly from the Gemara that the historical progression was 1. Shemmita ceased being min hatorah 2. Chachamim were mesaken shemitta miderabbonon including shemittas kesafim 3. After shemitta derabbonon was already established Hillel saw that people were not lending money and therefore was mesaken pruzbul In other words these things did not happen simultaneously, pruzbul was enacted after shemmitas kesafim was already established. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 06:03:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 09:03:00 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] An Important Clarification Regarding Some Relevant Halachos for Yom Kippur Message-ID: <20150921130412.485F3183A12@nexus.stevens.edu> [] Some Relevant Halachos for Yom Kippur: A Clarification The following is an excerpt from the article on selected halachos relative to Yom Kippur: "At the conclusion of Yom Kippur, one may not do melachah (labor prohibited on Shabbos/ Yom Kippur) until one recites (or hears) Havdalah over wine (or the equivalent) or recites A ttah Chonantanu in Ma'ariv, or says Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol. Although reciting any of these allows one to do melachah, one may not eat until after reciting (or hearing) Havdalah over wine (or the equivalent). Accordingly, married men should hurry home after Ma'ariv on Motza'ei Yom Kippur to recite Havdalah so that their wives will be able to eat." Clarification : Following the conclusion of Yom Kippur, after one recites Attah Chonantanu in Ma'ariv or says Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol, one may drink water even before reciting (or hearing) Havdalah. Thus (for example), a woman whose husband is delayed in coming home after Ma'ariv on Motza'ei Yom Kippur may recite Baruch hamavdil bein kodesh l'chol after nightfall and drink water before hearing Havdalah. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 17 15:18:00 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Allan Engel via Avodah) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 23:18:00 +0100 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> Message-ID: A summary of Pruzbul I have in front of me (written by Rabbi D Tugendhaft, London) says: "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" On 16 September 2015 at 23:07, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 09/16/2015 05:41 PM, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote: > >> A friend of mine posted this question on Facebook: >> >> Having failed to make a prozbul, I just spent some time looking >>> around at books and online. I see no discussion whatsoever on >>> whether the concept of shemittat kesafim applies to in-kind loans, >>> e.g. books I've loaned out. Does anyone know of a source that >>> addresses whether the shmittah year cancels an obligation to return >>> a loaned sefer, kli, whatever? >>> >> > I have no answer for her. Does anyone here? >> > > > Shemita applies only to halva'ah, not to she'elah. English uses the > same word, but they are very different transactions. It's actually > strange that English, which is usually the most precise language, does > not distinguish them. > > A book is a she'elah; the book remains her property, and she expects > the borrower to return it. Thus it is not at all affected by shemita. > It is also not subject to the prohibition on ribbis; not only is there > absolutely nothing wrong with charging people to borrow your stuff, > the Torah explicitly endorses it as one of the four forms of shemirah. > > -- > Zev Sero GChT > zev at sero.name > > > _______________________________________________ > Avodah mailing list > Avodah at lists.aishdas.org > http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 06:53:15 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:53:15 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Haqeil Message-ID: <55FC174B.6090900@zahav.net.il> Anyone here understand sound? Assuming best case scenarios (loud voices, no background noise, good hearing), how many people could possibly hear the king read at Haqeil? It would seem that there is no way the king could project his voice so that most could hear him (????). If few actually came to the tekes, OK, but if most people came how could it possibly work? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 07:57:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:57:28 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] From Medieval Ashkenaz Techinah Supplication to Iconic Segulah: The Chasidic Transformation of G-d of Abraham Message-ID: <20150918145828.8F30C183A9B@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/pwg839c From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 10:20:04 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Eli Turkel via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 20:20:04 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] vort on teshuvah Message-ID: 1) Rambam in hlichot teshuva (7:6) discusses the effect of teshuva yesterday (emesh) i was far from G-d hated ... and now I am beloved RYBS asks why the Rambam here uses such poetic language in particular using "emesh" instead of "etmol" . He asnwers that "etmol" indicates a 24 hour period while "emesh" can be a fraction of second between being hated by G-d and being loved by G-d 2) Someone who marries on a woman on condition that he is a Tzaddik the marriage is valid even if it is known that he is a rasha perhaps (shema) he did teshuva. Someone in the shiur noted that "shema" read backwards is "emesh" . Meaning that rasha who proposed marriage did teshuva a fraction of a second before the proposal -- Eli Turkel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 18 10:15:47 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 13:15:47 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Reciting 100 Brochos Daily Message-ID: <20150918171648.24C57181A25@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://tinyurl.com/njmnbgn From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sun Sep 20 15:12:07 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Shmuel Weidberg via Avodah) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:12:07 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? Message-ID: Hello everybody. I haven't been active on this list in a long time. I just had a look around the internet to see if there was anything new with the Kosher Switch, and I remembered an issue with it that I haven't seen discussed anywhere. The makers say that there is a certain amount of randomization involved in whether the light flashes into the detector and whether the detector detects the light. There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create random numbers. They create pseudo-random numbers which means they take a seed number and perform a complex calculation on it to get the next number, which looks like it bears no relation to the first number, but which in fact is completely determined by the first number. Computer can get real random numbers, by generating the seed by looking at actions that take place that the computer cannot predict such as when somebody presses a key on a keyboard, or when some other sensor is activated. Alternatively, they can get random numbers from a special piece of hardware that is designed to physically make random numbers. However, I believe such pieces of hardware are quite specialized and if there actually was one in the switch it would be advertised. In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. Regards, Shmuel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 10:59:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:59:16 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> Message-ID: <56004574.4040004@sero.name> On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour > because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in > its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to she'elah. Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 11:29:16 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Rich, Joel via Avodah) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:29:16 +0000 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. ------------------------------- Yes, much as a complete understanding of the physics involved would determine the roll of the dice as it left one?s hand. Yet we call this ?random? (and iirc statisticians can?t prove any set of numbers was truly random, only that they appear likely so. Gct 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Mon Sep 21 22:35:52 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Moshe Yehuda Gluck via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 01:35:52 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <063901d0f4f8$8c2cd700$a4868500$@gmail.com> R? Shmuel Weidberg: The makers say that there is a certain amount of randomization involved in whether the light flashes into the detector and whether the detector detects the light. There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create random numbers. They create pseudo-random numbers which means they take a seed number and perform a complex calculation on it to get the next number, which looks like it bears no relation to the first number, but which in fact is completely determined by the first number. In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. --------------------------- Isn?t the lomdus of their approach that you, the person flicking the switch, doesn?t DO anything because you?re only covering a light pulse without knowing when it will come next? So it doesn?t really matter if it?s random, it matters that you don?t know when it will next illuminate. KT, MYG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 07:04:29 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:04:29 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56004574.4040004@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> Message-ID: <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. On 9/21/2015 8:59 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: > On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: > >> "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour >> because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in >> its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" > > Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to > she'elah. > Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. > From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 11:00:40 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:00:40 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> Message-ID: <56019748.5060907@sero.name> On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 9/21/2015 8:59 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote: >> On 09/17/2015 06:18 PM, Allan Engel via Avodah wrote: >>> "...this even includes things such as food lent to a neighbour >>> because anything which is lent out and another item is returned in >>> its place is considered a halva'ah (a loan)" >> Yes, of course. That is the definition of halva'ah, as opposed to she'elah. >> Both ribbis and shemitah apply to such a transaction. > But a book, you return the same one. Usually. Not usually, always. There are two utterly different kinds of transaction for which the English language uses the same words: loan, borrow, lend. This is surprising, since usually English is a more precise language than most, but it is so. She'elah: I give you my property, with permission to use it. It remains my property, and you must return it on the agreed-upon date, or when I ask for it, in reasonable shape given the time you had it and the use to which you put it. In other words, in slightly worse shape than when I gave it to you. I may do this as a favour, but there is no mitzvah for me to do so. I am entitled to charge you for it, in which case the transaction is called "sechirus", or in English, "rental". Shemitah does not apply to this transaction. Common examples: a book, a car, a tool, a pen. Halva'ah: I give you my property, and it becomes yours. I do not expect it back, ever. On the agreed-upon date, or when I ask, you must give me something exactly like what I gave you. Since you are a Jew, I have a mitzvah to do this as a favour for you, and am forbidden from charging you anything for it, and you are forbidden from paying me anything for it, in any form. Shemitah applies. Common examples: $100, a cup of sugar, a rubber band. -- Zev Sero GChT zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 12:48:28 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Lisa Liel via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 22:48:28 +0300 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <56019748.5060907@sero.name> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> <56019748.5060907@sero.name> Message-ID: <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, Zev Sero wrote: > On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: > >> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. > > Not usually, always. Several years ago, we borrowed a book from my brother-in-law. A while later, we wanted to return it, but we couldn't find it. So we bought another identical copy and returned that in its place. So I'm going to stick with "usually." Lisa From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 23 19:11:27 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 22:11:27 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] prosbul question In-Reply-To: <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> References: <55F9E209.4010600@starways.net> <55F9E829.1020906@sero.name> <56004574.4040004@sero.name> <56015FED.5050906@starways.net> <56019748.5060907@sero.name> <5603020C.1040008@starways.net> Message-ID: <56035BCF.7000400@sero.name> On 09/23/2015 03:48 PM, Lisa Liel wrote: > On 9/22/2015 9:00 PM, Zev Sero wrote: >> On 09/22/2015 10:04 AM, Lisa Liel wrote: >> >>> But a book, you return the same one. Usually. >> >> Not usually, always. > > Several years ago, we borrowed a book from my brother-in-law. A while > later, we wanted to return it, but we couldn't find it. So we bought > another identical copy and returned that in its place. So I'm going > to stick with "usually." Your obligation was to return the exact same book. Once that became impossible, you became liable as a shomer; a shomer sachar and a socher are liable for geneiva va'aveida, so at that point you became liable to pay the value of the lost book, and that sum became a milveh, and thus subject to shemitah and ribbis. -- Zev Sero Gut Yomtov zev at sero.name From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Tue Sep 22 12:09:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Chesky Salomon via Avodah) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:09:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> References: <0ca40b3029934cb786c043149df20152@VW2K8NYCEXMBX4.segal.segalco.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote: > In short I am saying that however much Kosher Switch claims that there is a > random chance of the switch not going on, it is not really random. At the > time the switch is flicked the computer "knows" whether it will go on, it > simply pretends that it doesn't and goes through the motions. Do you know whether the Star-K-certified "Sabbath mode" ovens use pseudo-random numbers or true random numbers? (Thermal noise would do fine; and many processors, even some embedded ones, have such a random number source.) --Chesky Salomon From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 12:03:08 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 15:03:08 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Kosher Switch Really Random? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150924190308.GA28981@aishdas.org> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 06:12:07PM -0400, Shmuel Weidberg via Avodah wrote: : I just had a look around the internet to see if there was anything new with : the Kosher Switch... : There is an issue with this that would not be known to those who aren't : computer scientists and that is that computers cannot actually create : random numbers... I don't think this particular distinction makes a halachic difference. The question is whether the person doing the action has a reasonable chance of predicting the outcome. Actual mathematical randomness might not be at issue. As long as I can't know what my flipping the switch would do, I would think it should all be the same. (Think of it as a first cousin to ignoring water bears and other zooplankton that can only be seen with a magnifying glass when drinking water.) ... : Computer can get real random numbers, by generating the seed by looking at : actions that take place that the computer cannot predict such as when : somebody presses a key on a keyboard, or when some other sensor is : activated... Actually, that's not really random, just less predictable because the seed generation is outside the machine. A specially designed can get truly random numbers by using quantum effects. Such as picking up on the brownian motion of molecules due to heat. But really, I don't think we have to worry about the difference between "random" and "not humanly predictable". Also a side note: I might point out that there are numerous hashkafos in which every event, or at least every event that impacts a human being, is subject to hashgachah peratis. And thus, nothing we ever experience is actually random. Or alternatively, that the word "random" needs a different translation. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness micha at aishdas.org which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost http://www.aishdas.org again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal, Fax: (270) 514-1507 but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 14:20:37 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:20:37 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shemittah beyond Shemittah Message-ID: <20150924212050.B6B10182CED@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://cor.ca/view/720/shemittah_beyond_shemittah.html From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Thu Sep 24 14:37:10 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Prof. Levine via Avodah) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:37:10 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Shemitta Sheilos: Using Arbah Minim of Sheviis - Parts I and II Message-ID: <20150924213723.28661183A0D@nexus.stevens.edu> See http://ohr.edu/6522 and http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/6527 From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Fri Sep 25 00:32:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ben Waxman via Avodah) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:32:36 +0200 Subject: [Avodah] Buying minim from a child Message-ID: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> When I was in yeshiva, we were told to refrain from buying any of the four minim from a child. If the product was stolen, a child can't take possession via shinu reshut or ma'aseh. Therefore the theft falls on the buyer and his minim are pasul. Thinking about during my jog, I had a few questions: 1) Is this a real chashash or simply are we trying to cover all halachik corners? Meaning, if I do buy from a child do I really have anything to worry about? And if it isn't a real concern, then why am I not being oveir on "chosheid b'kesheirim"? 2) If it is a real chashash (the presence of stolen minim in the market) than why buy from an adult? Buying stolen goods is also a sin. At the very least, one can only buy from a place with a heksher. 3) Or can one? Can we assume that the kashrut agencies really check were their minim come from? 4) Who determines if there is a significant presence of stolen goods in the market every year? I assume that the amount of stolen goods has to be above a certain minimum for there to be a real issue? Ben From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 21:44:05 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Akiva Miller via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 00:44:05 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Lechem Mishne on Yom Kippur Message-ID: In the case where an ill person is eating on Yom Kippur, the Magen Avraham 618:10 brings varying views on whether he needs Lechem Mishne, whether he includes Yaaleh V'yavo in bentching, and whether he must make Kiddush. Kaf Hachaim 618:60 repeats much of that, with some changes and additions, and in 618:61 he points out that the same would apply to children and women who have recently given birth. Similar things appear in the other nosei keilim on that se'if. I got the impression that the pros and cons on these questions were based mostly on practical and halachic concerns, such as whether or not these halachos were ever enacted for Yom Kippur. I'd like to know if the *historical* side is discussed anywhere. I'm focusing now specifically on Lechem Mishne, and I'm now ignoring Kiddush and Birkas Hamazon. Here are my questions of historical fact: During the years in the midbar, did the mon fall on Yom Kippur? Did a double portion of mon fall on Erev Yom Kippur? If not, then what did the children eat? There are several possible answers I can think of: Perhaps mon fell on Yom Kippur, but only at the homes where where children or yoldos live. Perhaps mon did not fall on Yom Kippur, but those homes got a double portion on Erev Yom Kippur. Perhaps neither of the above happened, and the children and yoldos had to make do with whatever other food might have been available. (This possibility seems odd to me, as it throws a curve ball into the whole "40 years of miracles" idea: Exactly once each year, the children had no choice but to eat non-miraculous food, and the day for this chinuch was Yom Kippur.) I suppose I should also include another possibility, which is that everyone received their normal supply of mon on Yom Kippur just like on every other day, but that seems like quite a waste. Perhaps they ate it on Motzaei Yom Kippur. In which case I'd wonder if only a half-portion might have fallen that morning. I also question whether Hashem would have placed such a michshol at the doorways, leaving their mon in the reshus harabim. Does anyone know of any Midrashim or other sources that might talk about this? Akiva Miller (PS: I only asked about children and yoldos in the midbar, and I did not ask about other cholim. That's because I think that in the miraculous Midbar, no one was ever sick, and no one died except on the night of Tisha B'Av. If anyone wants to discuss this, please begin a new thread.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 20:33:41 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Ken Bloom via Avodah) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 23:33:41 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? Message-ID: Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in depth than Sefer HaToda'ah. Does anyone know of something analgous to how the Maharal's Gevurot Hashem explains Pesach, or have other recommendations about the holiday? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Sat Sep 26 22:19:06 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 01:19:06 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Sefer Recommendation for Sukkot? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20150927051906.GC6569@aishdas.org> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 11:33:41PM -0400, Ken Bloom via Avodah wrote: : Can anyone recommend good books about Sukkot? I'm looking to better : understand the meaning behind the holiday and its mitzvot, and hopefully : understand how they all fit together. I'm looking for something more in : depth than Sefer HaToda'ah. Does anyone know of something analgous to how : the Maharal's Gevurot Hashem explains Pesach, or have other recommendations : about the holiday? RYHutner's Pachad Yitzchaq. (Although the volumes are arranged around Shabbos & YT, and thus would seem particular to those topics, I would consider it one of the canonical Jewish philoosphy works of the 20th cent. Not to be skipped by anyone serious about learning hashkafah.) Tir'u baTov! -Micha From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 30 12:53:36 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Micha Berger via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:53:36 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Whole Hallel on Sukkos Message-ID: <20150930195335.GA18194@aishdas.org> I just noticed something that is likely to be meaningful. We say whole Hallel every day of Sukkos because the qorban mussaf differs each day. The mussaf differs by the number of cows, which total 70 across the YT. The 70 cows are keneged the 70 nations. Among the things we would have otherwise skipped was "Lamah yomeru hagoyim..." So... Because we bring qorbanos on behalf of the 70 nations over the course of Sukkos, we pray for their abandonment of AZ on each day of it. Tir'u baTov! -Micha -- Micha Berger It's never too late micha at aishdas.org to become the person http://www.aishdas.org you might have been. Fax: (270) 514-1507 - George Eliot From avodah at lists.aishdas.org Wed Sep 30 13:03:26 2015 From: avodah at lists.aishdas.org (Zev Sero via Avodah) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:03:26 -0400 Subject: [Avodah] Buying minim from a child In-Reply-To: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> References: <5604F894.4030801@zahav.net.il> Message-ID: <560C400E.6080206@sero.name> On 09/25/2015 03:32 AM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote: > When I was in yeshiva, we were told to refrain from buying any of the > four minim from a child. If the product was stolen, a child can't > take possession via shinu reshut or ma'aseh. Therefore the theft > falls on the buyer and his minim are pasul. > > Thinking about during my jog, I had a few questions: > > 1) Is this a real chashash or simply are we trying to cover all > halachik corners? Meaning, if I do buy from a child do I really have > anything to worry about? And if it isn't a real concern, then why am > I not being oveir on "chosheid b'kesheirim"? > > 2) If it is a real chashash (the presence of stolen minim in the > market) than why buy from an adult? Buying stolen goods is also a > sin. At the very least, one can only buy from a place with a heksher. > > 3) Or can one? Can we assume that the kashrut agencies really check > were their minim come from? > > 4) Who determines if there is a significant presence of stolen goods > in the market every year? I assume that the amount of stolen goods > has to be above a certain minimum for there to be a real issue? The chashash is not for actually stolen goods, but that the land on which the minim were grown was stolen hundreds or thousands of years ago, and since karka eina nigzeles it still belongs to the rightful heirs of the original owner. Thus the person who harvests the minim is technically the gazlan, ye'ush happened a long time ago, so we need a shinuy reshus, which happens when you buy from the "gazlan", but not if he's a katan. If he bought it from someone else then this problem doesn't exist, but there's another problem: it won't be shelachem, which it needs to be for the first day. This is also why one should not use minim one cut oneself, but rather sell those and buy ones that someone else cut. All of this only applies in countries where land title is uncertain; where it can be traced directly back to a valid kibush milchama, there is no problem. -- Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow zev at sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes I'll explain it to you".